BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Medical Coverage for Genetic Disorders

Insurance companies are not going to pass up an opportunity to make money, especially with the high amount of money they will be ma people with genetic disorders are taken care of. According to GINA, the federal law (that people with genetic disorders shall not be disgraced and treated poorly) sets a minimum standard of protection that must be met in all states. Because of the law, the people with genetic disorders have a right to insurance, no matter how poor their health may be. Also, how exactly will the people with disorders affect other people? People already pay taxes, so why not pay just a little more to help someone or even a large amount of people who need it? After all, we are all in the world together and we should all be treated equal.
Medical Coverage for Genetic Disorders

When a child is born with a genetic defect, it will most likely follow them for the rest of their lives. The cost of taking care of a child with autism is 17,000 dollars more a year than a regular child (Autism Speaks). This enormous amount of cash that is needed to take care of these children will effect all of the other families with normal children. The insurance companies are not going to bite the bullet so to speak so they will charge all of the other consumers more for their medical coverage. Genetically disabled children should not be provided medical coverage because it will negatively effect the entire population.
Medical Coverage for Genetic Disorders

It is understandable that genetic disorders can't be cured, however, it does not mean that people with these disorders should not be taken care of. As said before in my last comment, every person has DNA differences that could ignite a chance in getting a disease such as diabetes and so on. Also, there is, in fact, a "federal law that protects Americans from being treated unfairly because of their differences in DNA that may affect their health" (GINA; Genetic Information Non-discriminant Law). It is unfair to treat someone with disrespect, let alone refuse them health care because of the differences in DNA.
Medical Coverage for Genetic Disorders

In your argument you state that," Genetic disorders are considered to be a type of illness." If this is true then there should be a cure or way to fix the problem, correct? Well according to U.S. National Library of Medicine,"Many genetic disorders result from gene changes that are present in essentially every cell in the body. As a result, these disorders often affect many body systems, and cannot be cured." Health insurance covers sicknesses, diseases, injuries, etc., but what all of these have in common is that the all can and will be fixed. So, how can the health insurance company cover something that can never be fixed?
Is god real

Hello. And thank you for accepting. DEFINITION of God: The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. It may not be the Christian God, or the Jewish God, but some kind of God that created us, our morals, and the rest of the universe as well. Now if the universe had been just a tiny bit different, (way less than even a percent different) then we would not be. Why was the universe constructed this way not not in another way? Well my explaination for this is God made the universe this way. Do you have a explaination for how this was created? How everything just happens to fall exactly into place? How it went from nothing, to everything we have today? I may not be able to prove my explaination, but are you even able to offer one? And I'd also like to tell you that I have no idea how exactly God came to be, I'm arguing that their is one. Thank you.
Is god real

I'm having computer trouble, sorry. Explanation for how exact it is: http://www.icr.org... One of most basic laws of science is the Law of the Conservation of Energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be changed from one form to another. Energy is not currently being created. The universe could not have created itself using natural processes because nature did not exist before the universe came into existence. Something beyond nature must have created all the energy and matter that is observed today. Present measures of energy are immeasurably enormous, indicating a power source so great that "infinite" is the best word we have to describe it. The logical conclusion is that our supernatural Creator with infinite power created the universe. There is no energy source capable to originate what we observe today. From: http://www.icr.org... Con, please explain what caused the multiverse to exist. So far you have just said that we could live in a multiverse, but not how it was created. Thanks.
Is Trump a good president(Pro is yes)

Also, Thank you for continuing this debate. let's start with your middle east rebuttal. The middle east has hated us since the fall of the ottoman empire. it is only showing now due to our invasions and us tempering with their elections and interrupting democracy elections to favor our political friends. Most middle east countries don't care what current president we have in office. they hate us because of our political and cultural views (ex: Shira law). They hated Bush when we invade Iran and Iraq. they hated Obama when we did other middle eastern operations. the middle east simply has "anti-Americanism and anti-western" thoughts. The only reason china's industry exists is because of us and other neighboring countries to china. Communism only lasts so long before it either collapses or it goes to capitalism. our capitalistic policies are the reason the communist party thrives in China. as you say " we never supported Communism." communism is both a market ideology and a political ideology, they are intertwined. so if one of those two ideologies starts to lose production or movement. it collapses and a takes the other one with it. (Ex: democracy and capitalism are not intertwined, meaning if democracy collapses and another ideology rises in that country and they still support capitalism it will still maintain its traction.)(no mud-slinging intended) but what do you guys have against Russia? Russia right now in the fight against ISIS and the Islamic world is not a bad thing. Russia is ranked #2 in the biggest military. why do the democrats basically want a war with Russia? it would put the world into a anarchy and cause mass hysteria.Onto Trump running the country like a business. One of the big reasons that trump was elected was because he was a business man, not an "all talk no work" politician. he was a hard working businessman that created tons of jobs for men, and woman of any color for new york and other places where his businesses are located. trump so far has created around 500,000 and is set on a course to get at least 1 million jobs and possibly more during his presidency.(no mud-slinging intended) on your other debates I saw that you called Trump a"racist, sexist, bigoted piece of s***" now, I ask you to cite your sources on how he's a "racist" a "sexist" "a bigot" or a piece of "S***"Sources:http://www.businessinsider.com...http://www.globalfirepower.com...https://www.infowars.com.../
Is Trump a good president(Pro is yes)

Thank you for continuing this debate. While I can see how you say bankruptcy is healthy for a growing business, Trump's business has apparently had at least four chances now to learn from his mistakes. Some may argue that they aren't the same mistakes. Why, then, has he made so many major ones that his business practically has visible seams from all the times it has been ripped apart and sewn back together. As for race having nothing to do with being successful, I ask of you to contemplate true stories of Trump ordering his employees to refuse service to African-Americans. They may have been able to get well paying job in New York, where his apartments are situated, had they been able to find housing, thus being successful. But because of simple racism, they were denied housing and this could not happen. As for: "I don't think Trump has made any 'enemies' or any countries other than the middle east...which has hated us since Bill Clinton." Saying that they hated us "Since Bill Clinton" who was a democrat, you seem to be stating that they hate America no matter what. "China only hates us because we don't support their communist country anymore". We never supported communism, and now they hate us because Trump is slightly favoring Russia over China in his precious Tweets. Yes, Trump will run this country like his business. But then we are definitely headed FAR AWAY from economic growth, if not right into failure.
Is Trump a good president(Pro is yes)

I must say Lots of Political Personal and business men/women have gone bankrupt. bankruptcy is actually Healthy for a growing business. it helps businesses learn from their mistakes and take those into account when they make their next business plan. on the 1 million dollar loan thing, nobody in their right mind thinks 1 million is small, but you have to remember this man grew up being rich. your version of the small loan and his version of a small loan are very different. being rich is one thing, being white has nothing to do with it. the richest man in the world is Bill gates who's father is native to Syria, so race has nothing to do with if you can make it in the world or not. The wire-Tapping scandal has some proof to the claims he makes. Wikileaks currently has a full page on vault 7 and how the CIA has all access to wire-Tapping or "hacking" into any person with a phone, a computer or even television with a microphone or camera. Obama ordered two "warrants" from the FISA court for who knows what reason. it asks the question, why would Obama ask for a warrant at the end of his term during the election. industrial wise for trump "according to Infowars and Breitbart news Trump has brought in a rough estimate of around 1 million jobs since his election. I don't think trump has made any "enemies" or any countries other than the middle east, and that's very common of a republican or liberal democrat to cause. (the middle east has hated us since bill Clinton.) China is the only possible enemy of trump. China only hates us now because we don't support their communist country anymore. when we were buying from china, that was the only reason their economy didn't collapse. Final words for Round two of this debateTrump will run this Country like a business not like a Politician. and you might think this a generally bad thing right? well if he runs this country like his businesses this country will hopefully have an economic boom relative to the USA in and after ww2Sources: http://indianexpress.com...https://wikileaks.org...https://www.infowars.com...http://www.cnbc.com...https://www.infowars.com...
Is Trump a good president(Pro is yes)

I must say, I do not fully understand how he is good for America, especially the economy/industrial part. He has gone bankrupt at least 3 times, and believes one million dollars(his "small" loan) is a rather insignificant amount. I ask you, what does this mean for the common citizen? He may believe that everyone can either cough up 1m in money, or are a) an illegal immigrant, or b) doesn't matter because they aren't a RICH white man. As for being good for the political side of America, he has already possibly offended Minnesota about some of the driver's license laws, which he claims are 'making it way too easy for illegal immigrants to get them'. Many of the senators in Congress, Republicans, have already stopped backing him on some of his claims, like that Obama supposedly tapped the phones in Trump Tower during his campaign, something that he has no proof of. I can see how the paranoia could MAYBE help America, but banning green card holders and people who have already gone through immigration processes from certain country cannot be good for the country. This said paranoia will undoubtedly lead to rather terrible relations with the rest of the world, and quite possibly bring about another war, whether revolution or from overseas.
Is it cruel to keep animals in cages

If animals are kept in cages they will not learn any life skills. Animals are usually hand-fed when they"re in cages. If they are let out into the wild, what will they do? There is no one to feed them. They will not know how to hunt for food so then they will starve and die. They also will not know how to make friends. For example, if a tiger was let out into the wild, it will be left out of groups and will get attacked. It is cruel to keep animals in cages! They will be very unhappy! They don"t have any company or anything to keep them occupied. Let"s say an elephant is in a circus. They are kept in a cage all the time except for when they are performing. When they are stuck in the cage they will be lonely, then they won"t ever listen to the trainer. The elephant will certainly go crazy on stage and attack humans. It all comes back to one main point. Animals should not be kept in cages. It is so cruel! In conclusion, animals must not be
Harry Potter is mainly a static character

FrameworkResolutionShe tells you that she can provide a thousand frivolous reasons that show that Harry Potter does not change in order to prove that he is "mainly" static. The problem with this analysis is that a character cannot be partially static and partially dynamic; the two categories are mutually exclusive because dynamic characters, by definition, are those that undergo major changes. A character cannot undergo a major change and be considered static even if he remains the same in a myriad of other ways. This means that my observation still holds water. Childhood AdvancesI would like you to cleanly extend this argument across the flow because my opponent here concedes that Harry Potter is a "coming of age" story, meaning that it is a story of a dynamic character. Just because changes can be attributed to childhood advances does not mean that the characters who undergo the changes are static; rather, it demonstrates that they are dynamic because they are undergoing major changes. The definition of a dynamic character is not a character who undergoes changes that cannot be accounted for by maturation; rather, it is merely a character who experiences major changes. The changes can be due to a variety of factors, including "growing-up"; in fact, "coming of age" stories are the most classic examples of tales that involve dynamic characters. (Source 1: . http://classiclit.about.com...;). Source 2: . http://voices.yahoo.com... So, insofar as my opponent concedes in her rebuttal that Harry Potter is a coming of age story, she concedes this debate. This is a prime reason to negate. CaseComing to Terms With DeathShe concedes here that this is an example of "coming of age", so this proves that Harry is dynamic and you can extend this argument cleanly across the flow. BellatrixHer Bellatrix rebuttal is false. Harry Potter chases Bella across the Ministry of Magic and uses the Cruciatus Curse on her. Harry was close to Lupin, Fred, and Tonks as well; the Weasleys were basically Harry's second family, and Lupin was the last of the Marauders and the only living father figure in the seventh book. In fact, Lupin made Harry his son's godfather. Sacrificing LifeShe says that he "always realized this. " This is also false; if you read the chapter in which he views Snape's memory, this causes him a great shock. Yes, he is in the process of coming to terms with his death throughout the entire book, but that just bolsters my claim that he is dynamic because he embarks on a mental journey that culminates in this change. Individuality AnalysisPlease extend the individuality analysis cleanly across the flow because my opponent dropped it. The analysis demonstrates a change in how Harry views the world, meaning that he is a dynamic characer. Her last piece of analysis is that I conceded to her argument. Refer to the framework debate above; as long as I prove that there is at least one major change, by definition, Harry cannot be static. Remember that state of being static and the state of being dynamic are mutually exclusive; a character cannot be both static and dynamic as she attempts to suggest.
Harry Potter is mainly a static character

FrameworkIn order for a character to be considered dynamic, there only has to be one major change in his or her outlook on a major thematic issue or in his or her personality. This means that my opponent can demonstrate that Harry remains the same in an infinite number of ways, but I would still win if I provide a single example of a major change. For example, if my opponent claimed that Harry was static because he was able to use magic throughout the course of the series, and I present my case, you vote negative because there are still ways in which he changes. CaseThe negative case rests on the fact that Harry Potter is dynamic in at least two ways. First, his attitude towards the most major theme in the books, death, evolves throughout the course of the series. At the beginning of the series, Harry is frightened of death and resents the deaths of his loved ones. For example, when Bellatrix slaughters Sirius, Harry attempts to torture her in a fit of madness. However, by the end of the series, Harry comes to realize that death is nothing more than a piece of the cycle of life, and thus comes to terms with his own death. When Fred, Tonks, and Lupin die, for example, Harry does not fly into an outrage and attempt to demolish the Death Eaters. Instead, he calmly formulates a plan to sacrifice himself in order to save Hogwarts. The fact that Harry sacrifices himself is also indicative of his changed attitude towards death. By opting to not fight to preserve his own life, Harry comes to respect death and its implications. Second, Harry becomes less individualistic throughout the course of the series. Although my opponent will undoubtedly note that Harry was always willing to protect others, at the most fundamental level, Harry was an individualistic being. He saved Hermione from the troll in The Sorcerer's Stone out of a sense of personal guilt, for example.Moreover, In The Deathly Hallows, he became incensed when he realized that he was nothing more than Dumbledore's pawn. By the end of the final book, however, Harry comes to recognize and respect the fact that he is merely a part of a larger world. When he gives up his life in hopes that others will be able to demolish the rest of the Horcruxes and when he forgives Dumbledore for using him, Harry realizes that his individual safety is unimportant as long as the rest of the world is free from Voldemort's tyranny. Opponent's CaseMy opponent correctly identifies that Harry remains "good" throughout the series. This, however, is meaningless because he is dyanmic in a variety of other ways. Remember, I only have to provide one way in which he is dynamic in order to prove the resolution false.
Harry Potter is mainly a static character

I accept and negate. a literary or dramatic character who undergoes an important inner change, as a change in personality or attitude: Ebeneezer Scrooge is a dynamic character. Compare static character. Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, ï¿½ Random House, Inc. 2012. Cite This Source | Link To dynamic character Example Sentences Following this, Mellon becomes a more dynamic character and his money takes a more secondary role. That additional scene makes Charlie a dynamic character rather than a static one. Neither the narrator nor anyone else is a dynamic character, and corporate power struggles have been described better by others. Dictionary.com's 21st Century Lexicon Main Entry: dynamic character Part of Speech: n Definition: in literature or drama, a character who undergoes a permanent change in outlook or character during the story; also called [ developing character ] Dictionary.com's 21st Century Lexicon Copyright ï¿½ 2003-2012 Dictionary.com, LLC Cite This Source
Harry Potter is mainly a static character

Static Character- A character who remains the same throughout a narrative. Static characters do not develop or change beyond the way in which they are first presented. http://library.thinkquest.org... In this debate, I will be debating that Harry Potter (the character from J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series) for the most part, does not change throughout the books. Con will be arguing that he is a dynamic character, he does change. Do not accept this debate if you do not know who Harry Potter is! Only accept if you have read the books! First round acceptance. No sematics.
today's society

First, let us define good ( http://www.merriam-webster.com... ) "1 a: something that is good b (1): something conforming to the moral order of the universe (2): praiseworthy character : goodness c: a good element or portion2 a: advancement of prosperity or well-being b: something useful or beneficial 3 a: something that has economic utility or satisfies an economic want bplural : personal property having intrinsic value but usually excluding money, securities, and negotiable instruments cplural : cloth dplural : something manufactured or produced for sale : wares, merchandise eplural British : freight4: good persons —used with the5plural a: the qualities required to achieve an end b: proof of wrongdoing — for good also for good and all : forever, permanently — in good with : in a favored position with — to the good 1: for the best : beneficial 2: in a position of net gain or profit " In response to the instigator . . . "everyone wants a good , better society" No doubt about that. "but it is not a luck for everyone to get a good society because today every one becomes selfish society." Well yes, there is no doubt that all people by technicality, act based on self interest, but this is entirely non sequitur, as acting on self interest does not negate an improving society. In fact, people who wish for their to be good are by technicality wishing based on self interest; to be truly selfless is impossible. The many who have contributed technological innovations such as the Cell phone (which has done plenty of good, as people have an easier time staying in communication which other, which contributes in saving lives as well as maintaining relationships) or the Internet have done the society plenty of "good" as would be suggested by my definition. The point here is that our constant improvements constantly make society better and better, which is contrary to what you're advocating. Furthermore, even though these inventors were acting off self interest, their actions still brought much good to society, therefore proving the instigator's stance false. "if some one need help in neighbour nobody help them because they thought if they help them they also fall in trouble" This is a very flawed assertion as you are applying it to everyone, however, history tells us of many heroic people who have been willing to put their lives on the line to save others. "they have bad feelings for one-another. this shows their ingratitude for them" I'm not certain what is being stated here, but I'm sure it's just another example of actions which don't apply to everyone. "their are also many hints which shows that today's society becomes no valuevable." Perhaps (as in there may be some problems with society), but we're arguing on whether or not there is any good in society, not if it is perfect. And based on the performance in R1, the instigator has by no means proven his stance, therefore, it is quite obvious that the win should go to me. Thank you.