BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid

Thank you for challenging me to this debate. I am opposed to Welfare, Medicaid, and Medicare primarily because they are not constitutionally justifiable. On top of this, they simply make the issue they claim to address, worse than they were before these programs were founded. They make government happy, they make insurance companies happy, and they make drug companies happy, but doctors and patients are worse off for it in general. On top of all this, they are practically and fundamentally unsustainable. According to the official website of the Social Security Administration: "The long-run actuarial deficits of the Social Security and Medicare programs worsened in 2012 [...] Both Medicare and Social Security cannot sustain projected long-run program costs under currently scheduled financing [...] [Medicare] will experience cost growth substantially in excess of GDP growth in the coming decades due to aging of the population and [..] growth in expenditures per beneficiary exceeding growth in per capita GDP." (3) Almost a third of doctors reject patients of Medicaid because of reimbursement issues. (4) Allow me to quote Ron Paul, my best friend on the subject: "When I got out of medical school in 1961, I practiced for a couple years before there was Medicaid. I worked in a Catholic hospital and didn't make hardly any money. Nobody was turned away, and people were treated. And back in those days, people weren't laying in the street with no medical care. Doctors always charged the least. Now, with the government coming in, with these programs that aren"t " you know, they"re totally bankrupt " everybody charges the most, everybody from the doctors to the labs to the hospitals." (1) "When I started medicine, there was no Medicare or Medicaid, and nobody was out in the streets without it." (2) (1) Ron Paul during town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire, on December 19, 2011 (2) Ron Paul during a CNN debate in Jacksonville, Florida, on January 26, 2012 (3) http://www.ssa.gov... (4) In 2011 Nearly One-Third Of Physicians Said They Would Not Accept New Medicaid Patients, But Rising Fees May Help. Health Affairs. August 2012 31:81673-1679
Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid

This will be my first time as you can see from my history on a topic like this. The reason I just put welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, because its why are you against it and for it debate. Since I am a nice guy, I will let my opponent start his argument, allowing me only four rounds and him five. Thats ok with me, so do not vote against it or for it. The question is Why are you against it all, given reasons, proof, evidences to support your claim. Wish my opponent good luck. He may began
Placing political conditions on humanitarian aid to foreign countries is unjust.

Extend my arguments. I'll go ahead and provide voting issues in case con decides to post an argument next round.1. Human Rights = Justice through Preserving Human DignityHere we can see that justice and preserving human dignity are the best value/criterion pair because they directly relate to human rights, which is obviously important. Aid free of political conditions must be rendered unjust because of the reasons I will list in the next few voters.2. Conditions not being followed or accepted at allThere are serious consequences when this happens. Firstly, if the political conditions are not accepted, there will be no aid. Secondly, if conditions are not followed, suspensions and reductions can become and issue and the aid ultimately will fail. What makes this unjust is the fact that the people in the foreign country do not have a say in whether the conditions are accepted/followed. The government is the one making the decisions (often with no input from the people). Human dignity is not preserved; thus, justice is not achieved.3. The donor country is harmedWhen aid has political objectives, conflict often occurs. If citizens and also the government of the recipient country see that a donor country is only giving aid for political benefits, then they may lash back. This (along with suspensions/reductions/no aid/low quality aid) makes the donor lose credibility, which can result in even more conflict, and decrease diplomatic relations. This is unjust because, the government (and the people) of the donor country will ultimately suffer from their own decisions.4. Low quality aidI gave examples of humanitarian aid's value being cut due to political conditions. This is unjust because the country (if they even accept/follow political conditions) has to make changes for very little in return.
should we treat George W Bush as a war criminal

I looked up what a war criminal is, and it is some who violates accepted international rules of war. I also went to Wikipedia to see George W. Bush's page, and I didn't see anything in the table of contents (not going to look all the way through those 50,000+ words) about a war violation. It is all on Pro to prove that George W. Bush has violated the rules of proper war. (If Pro's argument is strong enough, I will concede)
Abortion

Instead of refuting any of my points, all con has done was indicate that he wasn't pleased with the "time limit" or "how abortions were done." Neither of these help con's causes; instead of arguing whether or not abortion should be permitted, he instead argues that it's "done improperly" e.g. with too much pain, or that it's "done on a fetus who is too old." Nowhere in my argument did I say or imply that I was "okay" with how abortion was done; it's irrelevant to the debate. If you want to have a debate on HOW to "humanely" do an abortion, that would be the place for it. I have already made my points multiple times, whereas con has been unable to rebut any of them effectively, yet i have rebutted all of his multiple times. Regardless of your position on abortion, you should be voting on who DEBATED the subject better, and that was clearly me. Thank you for your time Grimley and good luck
Abortion

Abortion is up in the air if its full term? Let's see if we can bring it down to earth. The federal government puts no limit on age for abortion and reading your posts you don't care either way. What are the various ways of ending a pregnancy? www.prolife.com/abortion facts........americanpregnancy.org/unplanned pregnancy/abortions. These sites and others deal with procedures for abortion. I give a brief synopsis. Dilation and evacuation. A vacuum device is used to tear the foetus apart and suck out the remains. This is for up to 16wk old foetuses. Dilation and Curettage. A sharp curved knife is used to scrape the uterus and dismember the foetus. Up to 24wks. I will now touch on Pain. Including the above and below procedures I have found only one site that even mentioned the pain endured by the foetus. www.doctorsonfetalpain.com/fetalpaintheevidence.......www.lifenews.com/studiesonfetalpain. I have read the sites on fetal pain but they rarely agree. Utah has passed a law giving pain relief to 20wks foetuses at abortion. Chemical. Mifepristone blocks progesterone and the foetus starves to death. D+X. Blunt nosed scissors punch into the skull and brains sucked out. 30wks. Saline. Foetus dies from salt poisoning,dehydration,brain hemorrhage and convulsions. Full term. D+E. Foetus forcibly dismembered and may have skull crushed for removal. Full term. As I wrote none of the sites I read said anything about pain relief except the one on Utah. We wouldn't treat an animal the way we treat our unborn babes. In my next entry I will mention pain again. The thoughtless actions of women should not make abortion an easy choice. The law should make it harder than it is to obtain one.
Abortion

Exactly, donating a kidney is a choice. Giving water to a man dying of thirst is a choice. Letting a fetus use your body to survive is also a choice. A fetus CANNOT survive out of the womb for any significant time period. A fetus is alive, yes, but it is certainly not a baby. You are making the false analogy that just because something is alive that it is the same thing as a baby. Is an ant a baby? It lives and breathes. What about bacteria? It's alive too. A fetus has the potential to become a baby, but it is not a baby. Is a baby girl a teenage girl? A baby girl has the potential to become a teenage girl. It does not help keep the mother healthy and active. I'm sure there are a couple of benefits of being pregnant, but to say that pregnancy keeps someone healthy is simply false. By your logic, pregnancy keeps someone unhealthy because of morning sickness and feeling like crap all of the time. How is that healthy? As for taking responsibility, they are. Do you not think abortion is damaging to a mother's conscious and psyche? Of course it is. Abortion simply adjusts the "punishment" to something reasonable. If you steal a candy bar, for example, should you be punished with an unwanted kid for 18 years of your life? No, of course not. Stealing a candy bar is about the same level of mistake as having unprotected sex one time or screwing up your birth control. In fact, I'd argue that it's a bigger mistake, but that would be another debate. Moreover, you certainly haven't considered any of the costs of forcing lots of mothers to have kids they don't want. We already have 100k orphans in the USA alone who aren't adopted. https://showhope.org... Imagine how many orphans we would have if we forced every woman to have her baby? Probably over 1 million. Did you ever consider the cost that these unwanted babies would have?
Abortion

Your point about organ donation is immaterial as donation is by choice. We are discussing killing an unborn baby. I write baby because calling it a foetus or embryo does not change what is. If the baby can survive outside the womb it is a living, breathing, sighted, thinking baby. Only the actual birth changes its status into an official citizen. A foetus does not " control " a women, her own brain does that. The various nutrients and hormones the baby needs come from you not the child. Morning sickness, mood swings etc are the result of pregnancy and no direct action of the baby. Parasitic? It is symbiotic in that it is helping keep the mother healthy and active. How many women are told that pregnancy gives them a " healthy glow "? This is because your blood is cleansed as it circulates giving you clearer skin,increased oxygen and nutrients to your muscles etc. The babies existence is because of YOUR mistake. take responsibility for that, at least.
Abortion

Abortion is accepted because a woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body. The fetus needs the body of the mother to survive. If human A needs a part of human B to survive, e.g. a kidney transplant, it is entirely up to human B whether or not he wants to give human A a kidney. Even if human B is dying and his kidneys will rot with him, he decides what to do with his own body. Even if human A's life is at stake and human B's life is already over, with rotting kidney's, it's still human B's right to choose what to do with his dead body. Is this considered murder? No, of course it's not. Is it a little douchey? Perhaps. Is it acceptable? Yes, a person has the right to do whatever he wants with his body. If the fetus can survive on its own, then abortion is more of an up in the air debate. However, if the fetus needs the mother's body (which it does), abortion comes down to the simple principal of a woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body. By letting the fetus control a woman's body, you are granting a fetus rights to someone else's body. No one has rights to anyone's body but that person. Period A fetus needs a mother's body to survive. If the mother does not want to let the fetus use her body, it doesn't have to. The fetus is a part of a parasitic relationship; although its body is affected, it's using the body of the mother to survive.
The Constiution of the United States should be interpreted as a living document, not as a fixed one.

To start off, this is obviously my first debate on here and I have no experience "formally" debating subjects, so please stick with me. I will argue that the United States Constitution (now to be called the Constitution) should be interpreted as a living document rather than as a fixed document. I will provide different reasons as to why it should be interpreted as a living document, my primary argument being that technological advances and time have changed our society. The con side should debate that the Constitution should be interpreted as a fixed document. In case you were wondering: -A living document is (a definition that I will "create" as I have not found a good definition from a credible site): A document that should be interpreted differently as society advances. -A fixed document it: A document thats meaning should only be interpreted word for word and its meaning should always be literal. If you have any other questions that I haven't answered, you may post in the comments and I will do my best to answer. Good luck to whoever accepts this one. Set up: Round 1- Acceptance/any questions Round 2- Debate Round 3- Debate Round 4- Closing arguments
The Constiution of the United States should be interpreted as a living document, not as a fixed one.

Unfortunatly for my opponent, he has missed the deadline to make his next speech. I ask that voters not count this against him, and allow the debate to continue. I will restate my main points and then I'll be done. 1. Pro suggests allowing the intent of the Founding Fathers to shine through in the Constitution TO A POINT, but no one in government has the legal authority to go against what the Constitution says. 2. Pro said that our definitions wouldn't contradict, and thus I will be using my to support the my case 3. My wording of Fixed Document allows for the Amendement Process to take place, and this allows the Consitution to shift along with the needs and wants of American society, and thus become a Living Document. However, to do this Pro must first admit the Constitution is a Fixed Document to allow it to become a Living Document. This makes the Consitution both types of documents, but first a Fixed one. 4. Amendment 27 is an example of the Constitution being used as a Fixed Document, and not being used as a Living one. 5. Yes, the Founding Fathers couldn't predict the needs and wants of future America, but that's why they included Article V of the Constitution, the Amendment Process, so that America's ruling documnet COULD shift to meet the needs and wants of the people. So thus, the Constitution of the United States is both a Living and a Fixed Document, which is as it was wanted by the Founding Fathers. But unfortunatley for Pro's case, he must concede that the Constitution is first a Fixed Document, and then a Livng Document. Thus, I strongly believe that Con wins this debate, and that the Constitution of the United States is first a Fixed Document, and then a Living one.
The Constiution of the United States should be interpreted as a living document, not as a fixed one.

I appreciate the challenge, and hope to answer your questions and then present my points. Question 1) Will our definitions contradict each other or should we establish a set definition? I dont want this to be a debate of a definition, I want a simple debate over this topic. Answer: I believe our definitions will not contradict, so it should not turn into a debate of definitions. Question 2) What is your definition of a changing society? Is it by what the people want or by what the people need? Answer: I will define a changing society as a society that's core values have been changed either by wants or needs. In other words, when the general consensus of the people changes, society changes. -My Arguments- 1) It is impossible to keep any document from 200 years ago and apply it to current issues. There is no way that the founding fathers could have expected mass communication, currency that is based more on stocks than a gold/silver standard, the automobile, etc. Technological advances have created a serious problem with interpreting the Constitution. The prime example I would like to bring up here is tax on the Internet. Currently, if there is no physical building in the state in which you are purchasing, there is no tax collected at all. This has been a constant argument because they can't decide how to split up the taxes. This comes from a time in 1992 when the Supreme court decided that mail-order customers didn't have to pay sales tax if there was no physical presence in that state. [1] I believe that part of the reason that the government is having a problem with this is because of that court decision in which the Constitution was read a way that made it impossible for states to collect taxes on Internet purchases, possibly because the Internet was not existent in that time. 2) The second argument I would like to bring up is that society is constantly changing. Our values, our beliefs, everything changes. We all know the debate over abortion and gay marriage. The Supreme court has basically made a "no-decision" on gay marriage mainly because they really can't do anything in my opinion. In no place in the Constitution does it say what marriage is considered [2]. 53% of Americans are ok with gay marriage, 44% are not. The majority of people are ok with gay marriage! [3] 3) My third argument is that our policies have greatly changed. We have greatly moved from isolation to being a player on the world stage, from being more about "make your own money" to welfare programs, from being a smaller country to a world power. All of these are things that the founders might not have expected which is why it is so important that we not just think of what the founders said, rather that we bring in some of our own values and beliefs to make things more current to our society. I look forward to the arguments my opponent will present and look forward to a great debate. [1]http://www.nolo.com... [2]http://www.usconstitution.net... [3]http://www.metroweekly.com...
The Constiution of the United States should be interpreted as a living document, not as a fixed one.

Im up for a challenge! I will create my own definition of fixed document since you wrote yours for living document. -A fixed document is one where the wording cannot be changed through any means but by the way the document states. -A living document is one that constantly evolves and shifts according to society and its needs. My questions: -Will our definitions contradict each other or should we establish a set definition? I dont want this to be a debate of a definition, I want a simple debate over this topic. -What is your definition of a changing society? Is it by what the people want or by what the people need? That's all. Good luck to my opponent and judges please but all bias aside and clear your mind of all preconcieved notions. I hope to have a good debate!
Whites Have Shown More Acts Of Violence, Than Any Race On The Planet

1. Spartans killed more persians than whites killed indians.2. Spartans killed there own children and there is evidence that Minoans were cannibals between 2700-1420 BC. That's over 1300 years.3. The Jin Dynasty invented the first bombs."4.Brutal treatment done on African slaves, (including rape,murder"Sorry but this means nothing; the Greeks did it, the Romans did it, the Chinese did it, the Mongols did it, the Egyptians did it.5.WarsRemember the Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Spartans, Mongols, Chinese dynasties.....etc.ConclusionNone of pro's reasons are anything that ancient non-whites didn't do for longer. There have been Numerous non-white civilizations that killed way more people than whites did. Therefore con has not fulfilled his burden of proof.
Whites Have Shown More Acts Of Violence, Than Any Race On The Planet

First i would like to say i'm humored by your attempt to debate this topic. Whites have shown more acts of violence than any race on this planet, simply by, 1. mass genocide of the Native Americans 2.The cannibalism in Europe 3. Your coward characteristics lead to the invention of bombs 4.Brutal treatment done on African slaves, (including rape,murder 5.Wars the list goes on!!!! and yea, others races have done bad things too, but no where close to whites
Whites Have Shown More Acts Of Violence, Than Any Race On The Planet

First we need to define who is a white: According to wikipedia:North or south of 46 degrees latitude – e.g. in Canada, Mongolia, Russia, Scandinavia, and Western Europe – dark-skinned people could not produce enough vitamin D, and humans settlement only occurred after the development of light skin pigmentation. SPARTANS: In the Greco-Persian war 5200 spartans killed 2,641,610 Persians. That was ONE battle. The spartans were bred to fight. They were encouraged to steal food as long as they didn't get caught, they killed their babies if they weren't strong enough. They were one of the most violent societies to ever exist and they weren't white. If they killed nearly 3 million persians in one battle they would certainly have killed millions more.
The cover of the July 21st issue of the New Yorker is just satire.

My opponent begins by stating that there is another 228 million people who DO see the add as satire. Though he is right in recognizing that the majority of people are likely to recognize the cartoons joking nature, it doesnt change the fact that a solid quarter of this country's population DO NOT see it as just satire. In a situation like this, majority doesnt not rule. If 228 million people called Snoopy Garfield, Garfields name would still be Garfield, despite the majority's preference. One could even say that as long as just one man takes the cartoon seriously, the cartoon is NOT JUST satire. Seeing as 72,000,000 people do not see the cartoon as JUST satire...I would say that is certainly plenty of opposing opinions to give the cartoon another name. In response to my opponents statement that the cartoon itself is simply too ridiculous to ever be taking seriously, that is but his own opinion. Though I agree that the cartoon is a bit ridiculous, there are many people who do not feel this way. Based on the hundreds and perhaps thousands of comments posted about the cartoon, there are definately people who DO take it seriously, despite its alledged "ridiculous" nature. It may be ridiculous, but not everyone thinks so. I would also ask my opponent to review the previous argument in which i stated that there was no evidence to say that the magazine WILL or WILL NOT sway anyones opinion, and I made no claim following that statement that made as whether it would have any effect. My opponent continued: "I disagree with the idea that the cartoon is misleading. As stated before, the cartoon is so goofy and, well cartoony, that it is extremely difficult to take it seriously, and so I think that it will be hard to have ones opinion on a presidential candidate misled by a cartoon of a woman with a huge afro and a Kalashnikov on her back, fist bumping said candidate in Muslim garb, while an american flag burns and Osama bin Laden's portrait looks on. Its just too much to take seriously." The add may not be misleading to most, but it is to some. No one has to take my word for it. They can watch news reports, and read comments on related articles. The fact is, some people ARE taking it the wrong way and as long as people are... the cartoon will never be just satire. Whether or not intentions were well or in good humor; whether or not the cartoon was ment as satire, too many people are not taking it that way. If they all had recognized the satirical nature of the cartoon then my opponent and I would not be debating its legitimacy as being simply a satire. It may be a satire to some people, but its not to everyone and as long as it is something other than a satire to some, it will never be JUST a satire. Thanks for a good debate!