BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Free Health care in the United States

Although my opponent believes that Health Care makes up part of the economy he has to understand it still doesn't make up the bigger picture." "Health care spending 17 percent of economy."(1) Let me begin by saying that seventeen percent is quite a large percentage of the economy. Almost 1/5th of all spending is done on health care, and yet, the system is still not improving? I think my peer can take a valuable lesson in economics from this. That when a certain market has prices raise dramatically to where many people can't afford it anymore, or the quality is poor, what is likely to occur? People wont purchase from that market. Indeed the problem with our health care system is not just that it is too expensive but rather, "For example, behavioral economists would tell us, among other things, that in the world of health care: (1) consumers have personal fears and lack of information that don't exist with food and fuel, (2) they equate cost with quality, turning the idea of rational markets upside down, (3) individuals' decisions regarding wellness affect the rest of us, (4) rationing is necessary but difficult to achieve, (5) there is an agency problem when neither payers nor providers (including pharma) are penalized by higher costs, (6) there is a "fee for services" vs. a "fee for results" payment system, (7) the U.S. has too many high-cost specialists performing work that could be performed more effectively by general practitioners and registered nurses, (8) high levels of liability encourage the practice of "overly-safe" and expensive medicine, (9) providers have fragmented and often incomplete information, and (10) consumers either have too little information with which to make rational decisions or don't make good use of the information they have."(2) Indeed all of those points mentioned equates to higher prices for consumers. When, if ever, has an insurance company or health care provider even stated how much certain aspects of treatments, such as MRI's, etc. even cost? With such little knowledge about what their money is even being used for, how are consumers to make educated decisions on where to receive their care? Keep in mind that its not as if consumers have much of a choice, as insurance and health care are exempt from antitrust laws. No competition= suppliers can set whatever price they please as consumers have no choice . The fact that U.S. health care is a "fee-for-services" system instead of a "fee-for-results" system. A fee-for-results system would encourage better quality of practices, and thus lower costs because many of the high costs in this country with health care are simply because doctors/nurses/specialists are not treating problems well enough and just as my peer is stating we should do, simply treat the symptom and not the underlying cause. --- 1) http://m.upi.com... 2) Heskett Jim "Why Americans Can't get Health Care Right?" 2009 http://hbswk.hbs.edu...
Free Health care in the United States

Although my opponent believes that Health Care makes up part of the economy he has to understand it still doesn't make up the bigger picture. Health Care is an investment in yourself that many people can't afford to make. The whole point of making, at least, yearly visits to the doctor is for "preventative medicine." If many people aren't making these visits because they either have no insurance or can't afford it there are many things that could possibly be going undetected and in some cases are at risk for being spread. Also, the spending that comes from consumers to boost our economy occurs on various items. That spending is what drives the economy but if the price is so high, for all of the components on a whole, that people can't invest it does us, as investors, no good. Out of all the taxes that Americans pay they should be afforded health care. There are many people that may have enough money to see a primary care physician but can't afford to receive treatment from dentists and etc. All of these things are still apart of health care. Even if the taxes were raised but everyone was afforded the same health care if and when they needed it would be in the best interest of our people. As my opponent said Medicare and Medicaid are forms of health care that we have available but what he doesn't know is that not everyone can receive these services. In order to receive Medicaid you have to be either pregnant, child/teenager, aged, blind, or disabled. This health care service mainly just applies to those that are under the age of 18 or over 65. Those that are able to receive Medicare have to be either 65 and older, have a spouse, or yourself, worked for Medicare, be eligible for social security, or have end stage renal failure. These requirements very much limit who receives health care according to my opponents references. What about those who don't fit into any of these categories, especially the working class?
Free Health care in the United States

I apologize for not posting anything in Round 2. I had no idea it was even due. Starting, my peer has stated, - "There are many Americans who need insurance but cant afford it so they do without. Then, there are those who are middle class but spend so much money on Health care that they spend leas on what drives the economy." I can only assume my peer understands that the health care industry is part of the economy... Moving on, what my peer has stated here is actually a perfect example of one of the reasons why our health care system is not working properly. The fact that it is expensive is a symptom of many terrible practices within the health care industry. Most people assume the U.S. Health care system is fantastic, when in all actuality, its rather average. If not sub-par as compared to other nations. Which doest make any sense considering that we spend the most per-person on health care then any other nation. My peer is suggesting we should just throw even more money at the health care industry, in way of making it universal. She also fails to mention the government supplied health care we have available now, Medicare and Medicaid. So the disadvantaged can still receive health care. So we have been throwing money at it, and yet, no improvements, in fact its just gotten more expensive over time. What my peer suggests we do by making health care free, is merely what's called "treating the symptom" in medical terms. The largest problems with the health care industry: - Its extremely wasteful, "Down the drain: $1.2 trillion, That's half of the $2.2 trillion the United States spends on health care each year, according to the most recent data from accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers' Health Research Institute."(1) Half of the money spent on health care is wasted, this is supposed to be good for prices? This is supposed to make it more affordable? This is doing exactly the opposite, and all that waste, the added cost of that is shifted to the consumer. Hence why its so expensive. Another problem that upon fixing would increase affordability: - Antitrust exemption: "For some reason, way back when someone thought it was a good idea to give the health insurance industry exemption from federal antitrust laws. The result, as a recent NY Times op-ed says, is that a small pool of insurers have been able to dominate the market, and customers have few other places to turn. WellPoint, which has drawn attention for 39% rate hikes in California, is the largest insurer in that state, and also controls 60% or more of the market in Maine, Missouri, and Indiana. The scene is one of very limited competition, which leads to more expensive health care for everyone." ---- 1) Kavilans, Parija "Health care's big money wasters" 10 Aug. 2009 http://money.cnn.com... 2) Tuttle, Brad "Why Is Health Care So Expensive? Let Us Count the Conspirators" (2010) http://moneyland.time.com...
Free Health care in the United States

Free health care is very much needed in the United States because it is important to ensure the welfare of our people. Many people today, due to economic reasons, are unemployed. They have no income coming in as to which they can spare to pay their monthly premiums along with their co-pays and any other bills the acquire for things such as medicine. There are unemployment benefits in which you can sign up to receive in each state but it depends on many factors. With so many people being laid off these resources are strained with having to provide for so many. So our government should find a way to make healthcare more absolute and free.
Free Health care in the United States

Healthcare should be offered to every America for free because many jobs now don't offer healthcare. They give out benefit plans for their employees to split multiple ways between different things such as pension, sick leaves, and continuing education. We as humans have so many needs that are essential right now and in the future that we are forced to sacrifice to provide a means of living in the future. Yet despite all of the sacrifices that we have to make to put food on our tables, save money for retirement, and other things of that nature we still have to allocate funds towards our health now so that we can live in the future. This is something that jobs find to be easier and cheaper when it comes to benefit plans but we as the people pay. So since we pay a large portion of our money to Uncle Sam why should a portion of the money that he gets be allocated to improving the lives of those who provide for him? Most of our money now, even with the value of a dollar being less than many other countries, for the average American doesn't stretch and cover all that we need it to health-wise. According to the CDC, on a study that they conducted between January 2008 and March 2008, there are 30.4% of Hispanics, 17% Blacks, and 9.9% of Whites do not have health insurance. Of course this statistic does not represent all of our diversified people but the logic behind their statement still stands. There are also many fees that people still put out for with healthcare. Those fees consists of the high co-pays that can vary based on whom you're being treated by. Those who have co-pays and go to see their primary care physician usually wind up paying more when they have to be treated by a specialist and/or are are treated at a hospital. The medicines that these doctors prescribe then cost more money. It's so expensive for most people to go to the doctor that many people don't go because they can't afford it. Everyone should have the right to free healthcare.
Free Health care in the United States

Health care most assuredly should not be free for all Americans. Most of the reasons why health care is so expensive are reasons that can be solved not by providing the health care for free, but through more stringent regulations upon insurance providers, hospitals, etc. There are indeed many problems with health care in this country today. Almost all these problems are factors in driving up costs of the health care. The reform that is needed in this country however is not that it should be free, but instead must reform the system to make the process simpler, more easily understandable, and more competitive so consumers can make wiser, more informed decisions. In this debate I will be arguing that our countries problems with health care can be solved while still keeping the market "private. " I will use statistical and literary evidence to support my claims and will do so clearly and concisely with sourcing to verify my claims. I look forward to this debate as well as look forward to clarification upon your assertions and evidence that supports.
Werewolves vs. Vampires

It is time for me to post my debate. Anyway, I have quite a few things to rebut against my opponents argument. The Vampire Weekness First of all id like to state that 1. Vampires if they would like, they could go into the sunlight if they use sunscreen ^_^. 2. Lastly garlic only reduces their abilities so they would be like an average human until the garlic smell leaves their system which will only take a few hours. Werewolves weekness1. They are terrified of silver.2. They can be killed by A silver bullet (pretty much anything with firepower would be able to kill something like that really....) 3. Werewolves are only able to transform during a full moon, so vampires could just kill them while it is NOT a full moon. Humans would have a higher chance of joining vampiresThey would have a higher chance of joining vampires because they can; 1. Blend in and convince them to assist.2. The Vampires could bite them and make them of their kind so that they could assist them. Well that is sadly all I have as an argument because;1.I only had 1 hour to do this argument and2. Im about to leave somewhere so this is my argument.....
Werewolves vs. Vampires

My opponent here is classifying that In a fight/war, Werewolves would defeat Vampires. Well, I am here to debate that Vampires would annihilate Werewolves in a war such as this. I will start my reasons. Vampires live foreverAs we have seen on my opponents first post on the list of powers that he has put up, is that Vampires would be immortal (Link 1). That the specific definition of "Immortal" is Everlasting as seen on the link that I will soon put. I have never heard of anyone overcoming an "Everlasting" person in all my life. Have any of you? Now, On to my second Argument....Vampires have the ultimate strategy of defenseIn my opponents first post it says that a Vampire can have "Super Healing" (I.e a cut that can be healed in fact automatically) I will also add in another power into this argument. "Super Senses" Which allows Vampires to use their senses to their advantage. If a Werewolf would dare attack a Vampire in any situation it would either; smell them within a mile away, see them from very afar(Once again, same as the first), or Feel them from the earths movement if they would attempt to make a attack on them.The Vampires classic maneuver wins in the endI'm sure anyone that is anyone knows of their classic "Vampire Teeth". Well, as everyone that knows of Vampires or have seen them in pictures, I'm sure that 1/3 of the time it would be when the victims blood is being sucked out using the Vampire Teeth (Link 3). Well my argument is that if the team of Vampires ever gets a grip on the furry opponents (Werewolves) then they would get a chance to use their Vampire Teeth to suck all the blood out of the living organism. Thus, making them a bloodless body.That concludes my argument for the second round.Link 1:http://www.thefreedictionary.com...Link 2: http://www.google.com...
Werewolves vs. Vampires

I am, as my opponent said, against his statement and am for vampires. I do agree on these rules and accept them although I would like to make just a minor change. Here are the powers for vampires that my opponent has put: Super speed: the ability to travel at extremely fast speeds. Telepathy: the ability to move objects with the mind. Bat transformation: the ability to transform into a bat while retaining rational thought. Mist transformation: the ability to transform into mist. Vampire fangs: the ability to bite and suck the blood out of any living thing. Immortality: the ability to overcome age and live forever. Create other vampires: the ability to bite humans and turn them into vampires. Super healing: the ability to heal oneself extremely fast (i. e. a cut can be healed within seconds). Super senses: the ability to hear, see, feel, taste, and smell on extreme scales. Scale walls: the ability to climb walls like Spider-man. Well, as this may not affect us in this debate, I think that I should not have the power to transform into a bat/mist because: 1. That would be cheep. As in my person could just stay as a bat or as mist and never be affected in their misty/bat form. 2. Werewolves already have the ability to transform into a wolf, so I don't think vampires should have the ability to transform because they already have enough useful powers and I think it should just be ruled out. Here are my new set of powers that I think I should have: Super speed: the ability to travel at extremely fast speeds. Telepathy: the ability to move objects with the mind. Vampire fangs: the ability to bite and suck the blood out of any living thing. Immortality: the ability to overcome age and live forever. Create other vampires: the ability to bite humans and turn them into vampires. Super healing: the ability to heal oneself extremely fast (i. e. a cut can be healed within seconds). Super senses: the ability to hear, see, feel, taste, and smell on extreme scales. Scale walls: the ability to climb walls like Spider-man. I only ruled out the mist and bat transformation if you are wondering. Now I am ready for the real debate to begin.
Werewolves vs. Vampires

The full resolution is, "Werewolves would beat vampires in a world war. ” Burden of Proof: It is my duty to affirm the full resolution and prove that werewolves would beat vampires in a war concerning the whole world. My opponent must prove that vampires would beat werewolves in a world war. Definitions: Vampire: a preternatural being, commonly believed to be a reanimated corpse, that is said to suck the blood of sleeping persons at night [1]. Werewolf: (in folklore and superstition) a human being who has changed into a wolf, or is capable of assuming the form of a wolf, while retaining human intelligence [2]. Rules: 1. There will be no abuse of word play, loopholes, or any other form of semantics. 2. I realize that there are a plethora of sites and sources that state vampires and werewolves have different powers. Therefore (for the sake of the debate), I will state the powers vampires and werewolves can have. Vampires- Super speed: the ability to travel at extremely fast speeds. Telepathy: the ability to move objects with the mind. Bat transformation: the ability to transform into a bat while retaining rational thought. Mist transformation: the ability to transform into mist. Vampire fangs: the ability to bite and suck the blood out of any living thing. Immortality: the ability to overcome age and live forever. Create other vampires: the ability to bite humans and turn them into vampires. Super healing: the ability to heal oneself extremely fast (i. e. a cut can be healed within seconds). Super senses: the ability to hear, see, feel, taste, and smell on extreme scales. Scale walls: the ability to climb walls like Spiderman. Werewolves- Wolf transformation: the ability to transform into a wolf while retaining rational thought. Super strength: wolf strength + human strength= werewolf strength. Create other werewolves: the ability to bite humans and turn them into werewolves. Virtual immortality: the ability to overcome age and live for an extremely long amount of time (i. e. several millenia). Super senses: the ability to hear, see, feel, taste, and smell on extreme scales. With that said, I hand over the next round to my opponent. [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] . http://dictionary.reference.com...
High school Public Forum Debate resolutions should not confront sensitive religious issues.

This round is for question asking only, so if you would just post your questions without answering mine. 1. How can there be "little to no evidence" when by case has its basis in facts. Are you saying that my facts are invalid? 2. You said that only a few debaters aren't mature enough to debate sensitive religious issues. Should the majority of the participants be punished for the immaturity of a few? 3. Doesn't debating sensitive issues teach debaters maturity and tact? Where else can we learn to be sensitive and respectful of other religions? 4. You said, "I'm saying Public Form Debaters will start the next Crusade". Is that a typo? 5. Please state exactly, with evidence from a actually source (NOT A BLOG), were it says that religious people cannot speak out against there religion? 6. The definition of Religious issues is conflict that stems from religion. How are student speaking out against there religion when they are not talking about religion at all, but issues that stem from it? 7. You said that parents will not allow students to debate sensitive religious issues, but some parents disagree with every resolution and debate participation numbers have been increasing, not decreasing. 8. You said, "Religion is what most people follow their lives by. Questioning someone's religion is the equivalent of questioning someone's existence." What do you say to alot of people, like me, who have no religion? Also, debating sensitive religious issues encourages tolerance and decreases bias. The UN states that "Education is the most effective means of preventing intolerance." And what better way to increase tolernance then to educate debaters about both sides of a sensitive issue. Refusing to debate sensitive religious issues would be refusing to understand the most controversial issues fully. In a Pew survey on basic religious knowledge, most Americans scored 50% or less. This directly relates to intolerance. 46% of Americas believe that Islam is more likey to encouarge religion, and 17% don't treat other religions with respect, and 46% of Americas believe that Islam is more likey to encouarge violence. James Moore said, "Knowledge of Islam will enable the American people to make rational decisions and increase religious tolerance and social justice." He went on to say Islam education would, "abolish harmful stereotypes, reduce prejudice and discrimination, and improve intercultural understanding." Clearly, religious education will increase tolerance, and the education gained by debaters is key to increasing tolerance. Eric English said, " Just as walking a mile in unfamiliar shoes lends perspective, switch-side debating increases appreciation of contrary opinions as the debater ‘‘tries on' an unfamiliar idea rather than relying on simplification, reduction, or rejection." How can debaters can decreasing bias views that the religion they hold inflicts upon them be considered a negative thing?
High school Public Forum Debate resolutions should not confront sensitive religious issues.

This is an interesting topic and I think you for it. Formalities aside, this debate is a challenge, as there is little to no evidence to support either side, so as a high school student, I will plea my case that we as high school students are not able to debate such touchy subjects due to maturity or First Amendment Compromises. Many say that since high school students are technically adults, they should be able to conduct themselves as such, the same high school students that yell, scream and shoot spit wads. This doesn't apply to everyone, without a doubt, but for the select few without the ability to comprehend such topics, it can prevent copious of controversy and outside of debate complications. Religion is a notoriously touchy subject, sometimes leading to war. While I'm saying Public Form Debaters will start the next Crusade, but it will lead to unwanted confrontations. In many religions, such as Islam and forms of Christianity, forbids it's followers to speak out against their religion. These rights should not be compromised to debate a topic that may or may not be implemented and is only to see how high school students conduct themselves in a controversial situation. Another contention is that the amount of religious families in the United States, many may not let their children attend, and the ones that will attend will be few. Public Form Debate has had it's bouts with controversy in areas like politics and morals, but religion is what most people follow their lives by. Questioning someone's religion is the equivalent of questioning someone's existence.