BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Widespread Distribution of Condoms in Africa is in Africans' Best Interests

I would like to debate someone who is willing to put thought into this debate. I request that all arguments be at least 1,000 characters (1/5 of the cap) in length. I would also like to avoid semantic disputes surrounding the resolution. This debate is about the mistake countries have made and continue to make by spending millions on condoms to send to African countries. Arguments I will begin by outlining my arguments. Once I see which parts my opponent contends, I will elaborate on those specific parts. 1. The distribution of condoms harms women by taking away a major tool they have for protecting themselves against undesired sexual pressures. In African society, a man who impregnates a woman is considered responsible for protecting and supporting the child. This allows women to use this risk of responsibility as a defense. Condoms invalidate this by vastly decreasing the probability of pregnancy. They also make men feel less responsible for any children created during sex while using condoms because condoms give a false sense of security against pregnancy. 2. Condom distribution doesn't significantly decrease HIV/AIDS. It's likely that they don't even reduce the prevalence of these diseases. Countries in which condoms have been widely distributed for years are still dealing with HIV/AIDS epidemics. Hundreds of thousands of Africans still die each year because of AIDS. 3. Condom distribution can increase the prevalence of AIDS. If people think that they can have risk-free sex by using a condom, they are likely to have sex more often and with a greater range of partners. Although condoms have a high success rate, it's still imperfect. If people have sex more often because they have condoms, it's possible that the increase in sexual activity will override the intended disease preventing effect of increased condom usage. 4. The money spent on distributing condoms could be better spent on education about abstinence and HIV/AIDS for African countries. Although the sex using condoms is less likely to spread HIV than sex not using condoms, not having sex at all decreases the chances by an enormous factor. If our current efforts being channeled into condom distribution were largely shifted into efforts to discourage polygamy, prostitution, sex before marriage, and sex with multiple partners, we would be much more likely to attain the desired result of reducing the harm caused by HIV/AIDS in Africa. Instead of encouraging more sex in an HIV/AIDS infused culture through widespread distribution of condoms, we should encourage more abstinence and monogamy. Even if my opponent can show that condom distribution actually does decrease HIV/AIDS, my opponent must also fulfill the burden of showing that resources being diverted from condom distribution to abstinence/HIV/AIDS education wouldn't be a more effective means of dealing with Africa's HIV/AIDS problem. Thank you. I hope this will be a good, informative debate.
The Healthy Americans act is the best plan for healthcare reform

Here is the link to the article about the Canadian system that I'm relying upon: http://www.twincities.com... I hope it works. !. "sketchiness" I have reviewed both descriptions. How would the government determine the amount of the voucher to be given to each individual? Arbitrarily, at $2000 per person? Or the median annual health insurance premium? Or by what method? Who would be eligible to get the voucher? A voucher system would preserve the current costly (administrative costs of all health insurance companies - is just one component) status quo. A few years ago the CEO of United Health Care retired. His retirement package was $490 million! $490 Million! $490 MILLION! I hope my point is evident. Your Second Argument: "we're talking 300 million people and up that would be using single payer, or potentially using the public option. You are correct that it is costly. There is no way the government could pay everyone off while still paying the hospitals full price, except sending your taxes through the roof. Right now they can handle the medicare/aid patients, but I don't think it would be so easy with the whole population" My Response: You advocate a voucher system. I assume that all 300 million people would be potentially entitled to a voucher. Could an employer decide to discontinue his group health plan and tell his employees to apply for a government voucher? Regarding efficient administration, the Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service are able to accomplish their missions relative, potentially, to the whole population. Your Third Argument: "Once again, if the world was fair, we wouldn't have to worry about that, but the world isn't fair. The government isn't honest With a good bureaucracy, single payer or a public option could work. And we might very well have a good bureaucracy for a while. But, it is so easy to corrupt, I'm not willing to take the chance. Now, I ask you, how would one corrupt the HAA?" My Response: For thirty years I practice law. I interacted with government (and private corporate) bureaucrats every day. This is my opinion: Generally, most bureaucrats are honest, competent, and just want to do their job and stay out of trouble. Some are incompetent. And some are corrupt. The bureaucrat, WORKING FOR THE GOVERNMENT OR A PRIVATE CORPORATION, has a certain mentality. All such bureaucrats are potentially corruptible, INCLUDING THE BUREAUCRATS WHO WILL ADMINISTER THE HAA.
The Healthy Americans act is the best plan for healthcare reform

Your description of the HAA is too sketchy to agree with. Therefore, I disagree. I have Medicare. It is a government run plan. It works well. It is efficient,; but it certainly is costly. I favor a single payer system like Canada's plan. I adopt the arguments set forth in this article http://www.twincities.com... Since a single payer plan is probably not politically possible now, I favor a public option plan. Such a plan can provide competition to the insurance company plans.
The Healthy Americans act is the best plan for healthcare reform

I know that it may be a shocker, coming from a devout liberal such as myself, but I am quite wary of President Obama's plan for healthcare. In fact, I'm generally wary of any public option. Not to say it WOULDN'T work, but I feel like it really depends on who's in in charge, and as we've learned from the Bush administration (or perhaps Obama, depending on your political stance), not all governments do what you think is best. With bad leadership, a public option could easily overtake all other private insurance companies and become single payer, which I will explain later. Now, the current system is also no good. Some of the most vulnerable people can't afford health insurance. That is unacceptable. I'll admit, I used to be a proud socialist. I supported single payer. Now I realize that it still depends on the leadership. It could be great and ideally it should be what we have. However, it isn't ideal. Government parasites (oops, I mean bureaucrats) generally cause disease, not cure it. So with good leadership, we could get quality healthcare included with your citizenship. With bad leadership, however, we could literally destroy our country from the inside out. I don't like giving the government that much responsibility. Now, I generally try not to anglicize government plans or officials, but I generally feel like the Healthy Americans act (HAA) is by far the best plan. Written my my own Senator Wyden (D-OR) with Sen. Bennett (R-UT), the plan, at it's root, says that the Democrats are right that everyone should have healthcare, but the Republicans are right that it shouldn't come from the government (1). Basically what would happen is that there would be somewhat of a voucher system. One of the kickers is that it really increases competition, because you get a certain amount of money, and if you buy an insurance plan that is less expensive than the amount of money given, you get to keep the change (2). That way, the insurance companies will try to be lower than that limit. Then the program will cut their money as well, lowering your taxes. I realize that no plan is perfect, and the HAA is no exception. I do realize that it will raise taxes and put the country into more debt, but it is the best compromise, providing the least expensive option for the government, while still providing every single American with affordable and quality healthcare. I'm looking forward to a response to begin a great debate! 1. Sen. Wyden's legislative assistant Ben (I don't know his last name) 2. http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Hedge cats beats all

I am saying you can't do a perm because you would have to take the worlds brightest to make something to understand your cats and there is no way that cats would increase our soft power because right now America has cat's and our soft power is going down also there are countries in this world that do not appreciate cats so therefore they would not care about the fact that we have cats. It is possible that some Egyptians that respect their ancestors views may have an improved image of the U.S. but most likely your plan will have no affect because first you never stated that you were actually doing anything and second as I stated previously we already have cats and our soft power is declining. Also you don't get your impact of increasing hedge because the status quo already has cats and again hedge in America is decreasing so you should not get that advantage. If America focused more on cat's and less on politics other countries would get angry and that would actually decrease America's hedge so turn on your advantage. Now that link also works for my cat haters argument so basically I still get the world war impact which you can't perm since that doesn't make any sense. You can't not focus on cat's and focus on them at the same time. For your cat genocide argument people abuse and kill cat's all the time and by saying that there is no cat genocide you are just forgetting the lives of all those poor abused and/or dead cats. Also the aff said that my disadvantage was not related to his plan but clearly the status quo proves that we are focusing on trying to combat global warming and the affs plan would make us get of track and hurt our efforts to combat global warming. In all vote neg because the aff has no advantages or solvency to their plan. Also they have no impacts while the neg gets global extinction by global warming and World War.
Hedge cats beats all

On your point of taking away focus, that is a trade off argument. trade off arguments are pretty crappy, your disadvantage is not intrinsic to my plan. Other things in the status quo might take away focus from your supposed impacts. And the resolution is not specifically linked to your impacts, I say perm do both. Which means focus on cats and work on global warming and i believe you had another trade off so I perm that to.b On your cat ruling hegemony, I don't believe you understand this resolution. I'm saying that cats increase our soft power, thereby increasing our hegemony standings in the world. I am sorry if I did not explain this well enough in my first constructive speech. As I have taken away your impacts there is nothing contesting this resolution, so vote Affirmative. Oh and on your war between cat haters and lovers, this was rather ridiculous because I'm saying we are increasing our soft powers, cat haters won't go to war with us because we like cats. People don't hate cats that much and if people hated cats that much then wouldn't there be cat genocide or something? You conceded that cats are beast so it will increase our soft power.
Hedge cats beats all

I will concede that cats are beast but if you look at your argument you are basically stating that cats should have all of the power of hedgenomy in the world and that would cause the entire world to be influenced by cats. If you did that cat haters would all band together and try to take over the world so basically your plan would cause world war between cat lovers and cat haters. Also if cats had all of the influence power in the world we would have to discover a way to be able to contact them or else we would not know what they wanted which would destroy all of your solvency in this round. If in fact you state that we would be able to get the means as which we could contact cats we would have to put all of our smartest minds on this which would take away from other very important projects in the world and our technology would not grow. We need technology to be able to stop global warming so if we became behind on our research we would not be able to survive which is also extinction. So basically you would cause world war and extinction
Welfare

So it seems that my opponent has conceded with my point about welfare being there for the disabled, and for students struggling financially in college. ~Counterarguments~ His argument against welfare is "Government giving them money for nothing". Without specifying WHO is getting welfare from the government for nothing, I really have nothing to debate. Some scenarios I can think of people getting welfare for "nothing" is people like working mothers. However, they aren't receiving financial aid for trivial reasons. They are obviously burdened harshly with a job and taking care of kids. Assistance can come in tax relief for them. [1] ~Conclusion~ With a vague resolution and opening argument, I brought up the reason that welfare is for those who are disabled or for students. My opponent has conceded this point. His new point in Round 2 is demonstrably vague. Really, I have nothing to debate, but brought up a possible example of what my opponent means by "Government giving them money for nothing." However, I showed why working mothers receiving financial aid is justified, and it is my opponent's job to prove me wrong. ---References--- 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...(financial_aid)
Welfare

I'll admit, I know nothing about welfare. However, in the spirit of debate I'll pick up this challenge and see how it goes. Hope we have a good debate :) [Definition - Welfare] . http://dictionary.reference.com... a. Receiving financial aid from the government or from a private organization because of hardship and need. Since I have no argument to rebuttal, I will propose one of my own. ~Arguments~ What my opponent states about welfare is wrong. It's not for lazy people, but it's for unfortunate people. Those with disabilities or family problems need financial aid, and it can come in many ways. Many students in college are familiar with grants and scholarships. The purpose of these is to reward students who work hard, but even with a job they can not meet the financial barriers of college. The American Dream is supposed to be that everyone can work hard and succeed. To even make this a reality, welfare helps those who truly work hard, but are burdened by the misfortunes of life. It isn't for the lazy and the slouchers. ~Conclusion~ I presented one argument, which basically outlines the purpose of welfare. It refutes my opponent's only line, that "because they need to get off there but and work and we pay them through our taxes". I have shown how welfare IS for people who work hard.
Welfare

So it seems my opponent returns to a new argument in his final round. He has failed to meet his burden and has failed to refute all of my arguments and rebuttals. ~Counterarguments~ ". .. What about lets say the drug test. I think that the people that are on welfare should get a drug test to get money from the government. We need to STOP giving money to drug attics! " --> Yes, let's give them a drug test! So even if I agree with this point, how is this an argument against welfare? Is this not more of a proposal to refine aspects of the (I assume) US welfare system? Either you win or lose this point does not matter; you have failed to meet your burden. ~Conclusion~ My opponent has failed to refute both my argument and my rebuttals. His last point should be discarded, since even if he wins on that single point, it does nothing for his side.
Diego Maradona is a better Soccer Player than Pele.

I do not understand your emphasis on a one-on-one match. A one-on-one match may or may not decide who is a better football player. If a one-on-one match was to be employed to decide who the better player was, freestyle footballers would beat them both because all you need is that slight moment of trickery to get pass the opposition and to walk the ball into the empty net. Therefore, I feel that to compare between the two players, their performances on the field would play more into account, as opposed to pitching them to a one-on-one contest. As to who the better player was, I am sure different people have different judgement. However, to put it in black-and-white, evidences must be shown, which is why I brought up stats to back my argument. Statistically, Pele was the better goal-scorer. Adding on to the goal-scoring stats, Pele also had 4349 assists as compared to Maradona's 3456 assists. I strongly believe that assists are one of the few main elements to objectify the role of an attacking midfielder, and even in this aspect, Pele excels over Maradona. Therefore, I end of Round 2 of my argument by saying that, the only way to compare players would be with their stats, and Pele appears to be the better player, statistically.
Diego Maradona is a better Soccer Player than Pele.

OK. I understand where you are coming from with your argument. However, the debate is about which soccer player is better not if Pele was a good soccer player. The best way to determine that would be in a 1 on 1 soccer match, full pitch. Diego Maradona would destroy Pele because of his general ability to pass his opponent (Pele) and run the ball up the pitch and score, as there is no goal keeper. What would Pele do? Stand in the offence and wait for the ball to somehow make it's way up to his end. If the ball did find it's way to Pele, then only would Pele only beat Maradona at that point in time. Determining this argument another way, such as overall stats, would not be accurate as their could have been many, many factors that contributed to the accumulated stats for both players. I finish this argument by saying, Pele would only beat Diego Maradona in a scoring contest, however moving the ball to the offence is more important than scoring.
Diego Maradona is a better Soccer Player than Pele.

I refuse to agree to your stand of Diego Maradona being a better player than Pele. Looking at the positions they played in, Maradona was an attacking midfielder, while Pele was an out-and-out striker. Different positions require them to play different roles in the game. To say that Pele lacked the dribbling skills is premature, as most of the time, those skills of his were not required in his role of a main striker, and Maradona had more chances as an attacking midfielder to display his dictionary of skills. Turning our focus entirely to Pele. Being an out and out striker, his job on the pitch was the score goals. Fulfilling your role on the pitch then, makes you a good player. Pele has a goal-scoring average of 0.924 per game, which means that he almost certainly scores every single game. I feel that, this itself, speaks aloud the caliber Pele had as a player. My last point in Round 1 would be to argue against your point of 'Hand of God', giving Maradona bonus points for being a better player. Obviously, the use of the hand is against the Law of Football, therefore, I don't see why cheating, and denying that he cheated (which he admitted around 10 years later), would make him a better footballer.
Diego Maradona is a better Soccer Player than Pele.

I think Diego Maradona is better because, in my opinion, he has the best skills out of all the soccer players of all time. Pele's only good because he was the youngest person ever to win the world cup and was one of the top goal scorers of his time. However, Maradona could dribble the ball down the whole pitch with out breaking a sweat. He would use spins, tricks and skill to pass his opponent. Pele might be a better goal scorer but Maradona, he made The Hand of God! In conclusion, Maradona is the best soccer player of all time because in a general soccer contest, he would beat Pele.
"Richer & Happier is not who have more but who need less"

I'd like to start this concluding argument by saying, I have touched upon the needs of people. I stated quite clearly in my rebuttal that we can't simply look at the basic needs of humans. To say that needing less means automatic happiness is silly, in my opinion. As I stated, the basic human needs are food, water, and shelter. Granted, there could very well be people that are happy with just those bare necessities of life but many, many people strive for a greater happiness with material and physical possessions. There are a multitude of people who strive to achieve the material and physical so that they may find peace with their spiritual side. "Like I've said before, all these 'concepts' actually just resides in your mind, inside the entrails of your own brain perception. Therefore, you could 'have it all' materialistically speaking, and yet, feel and be deeply unhappy because your non-stop greedy, pauper & true scarcity mindset easily would impede get any satisfaction at all, despite you already might have it all." Yes, and you could feel completely at peace spiritually and still have a want for more. There are people out there that have found a religious/spiritual side but, again, this doesn't mean they're happy. A spiritual side isn't something that people need. In fact, there are people, such as myself, that don't have a religious backing or they don't look for spiritual support. "By other hand, Material Wealth could also produce an extraordinary stress and feeling of insecurity or threat of losing at any moment what you've already got. So IMHO, far beyond the opposite of happiness." I know this isn't typically well-regarded but I'm going to use myself as an example of sorts here. I have a roof over my head. I'm fed three meals on a daily basis and I find myself rather regularly snacking if I get peckish. I have access to clean drinking water. You know what though? That doesn't make me happy. I'm standing here before you as a man who doesn't need any more but I'm not a happy person. I've looked to spiritual places and I've not found happiness. Where do I find happiness? I find my happiness in my material possessions. The things that distract me from my current spiritual and physical position. I'm looking for happiness. I'm going forth trying to better myself and you know what? I want it all. I want the college education, I want to become a politician, I want to have a happy family, etc., etc., etc. I want. I don't need any of these things. I want them. I want them because I know they'll make me happy. It was a pleasure debating you, sir. Best of luck in voting and may the best arguments win. This was great fun for my first debate on the site. Hopefully, I'll get the chance to debate you again, perhaps.