BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Healthcare Shouldn't be Guaranteed for Every American

:) I would also like to apologize in advance for my lack of spelling grammar and punctuation. ,! ?' What I lack in the above areas I try to make up for with logic and sincerety and passion! Onto the debate! In pros opening argument he points out how most ppl who need the ACA-Affordable Care Act are homeless and chose there life style. pro failed to fulfill the BOP-Burden Of Proof, When he made such a claim. And even if pro was able to provide evidence proving most ppl were homeless who use ACA , his stament thay chose there life style is speculation at best. Most ppl are forced into there lifestyle, If we're were able to chose we would all mostlikly pick the lifestyle of the 1%er's and live in mansions/private islands ect . Also by say "most" ppl who need ACA are homeless (even tho he failed to prove so) he admitted that not all ppl are homeless who use ACA. I would argue a large % of the ppl using ACA are students making there way thru school, or people who are unable to find work seeing how I was/am both these things my self personally and know ppl in the same circumstances. I would like to ask my opponet where his compassion is? I'm not going to argue for ACA or the inflated prices of medical care. I'm here to argue if healthcare should be a given for everyone (even tho the debate says America) When you live in a society everone in that society effects one another in some way or shape this is a logical conclusion. There is no choice anymore but to be part of society from the day we are born most of us are given a number and tossed in the gears of society, Go to school get a job pay ur taxes ect . Sometimes society fails ppl and sometimes ppl fail society but when your force ppl from the moment there born to be part of it how can you not have compassion for them when there ill or sick? No one wants to inhale the emissions from vehicles from other ppl going to work. This is bad for everyones health but we all have no choice do we? I guarantee everyone dosen't like paying taxes especially for things you don't/havent used for example ppl without kids paying taxes for schools ect but we have no choice. I'm a good driver why should I be forced to carry auto insurance or get stong armed by the government thru tickets for not having it? Just so society feels safer? The answer is simple When your part of a society you have to do things you may not like or agree with based on the majority . But who are we to deny Heath care to any individual? If you refuse ppl health care homeless or not thay become sick and sickness spreads thru guess what? Yep society so is it in your best interest to just keep spinning on the machine of society you have been placed on since birth? Thats for you to decide not that you have much choice . .. But I'll save that for another debate
Healthcare Shouldn't be Guaranteed for Every American

Healthcare shouldn't be guaranteed for everyone. It is something you earn and shouldn't have to be paid for by other people. Most people who need programs such as the Affordable Care Act are homeless and chose their lifestyle. I have no respect for these people and think it is unjust for people like me to be helping them out. I work hard to earn money, and I shouldn't have to be the wall they lean against. Many say Obamacare is a great program, but all it really does is hurt the economy. Plus, the men and women who receive care end up receiving bills. When they can't afford this, Obama is happy to help out and this thus leads to inflation. I am completely for healthcare being earned, not given. Get a job!
People Should Listen to What Others Say In Order to Connect With Them

I disagree, nowadays so many people listen to other people and what it does is it changes there own perception of situations so let's say your friend says If someone wants to be mean to you, you should fight back. then in a situation of disrespect and disregard for others instead of doing what the person would usually do, they would want to connect with their friend so they fight back. Whoever started this debate he/she might not have realized that what he/she proposed because relatively what she proposes happens to have people encourage to smoke Here is why: Let's say your friend smokes and she tells you to smoke. if you do things the way my opponent thinks then that means you would smoke. And all of this could have been avoided if those hypothetical people didn't listen.
Social Security Cuts

As I was saying, Congress needs to seriously compose their own list of Programs to cut fromt he budget and then sit down with President Obama and Vice President Biden and work through the list and agree to the top ten Budget programs that will definitly rece the debt. Our debt is 14 trillion and climbing. Washington can't wait till November 2012 to decide when and what will reduce the debt. They need real soultions. So CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN AND TELL THEM TO WORK WITH OBAMA/BIDEN
Social Security Cuts

Politicalwiz, think about this carefully i meant to put and thought i had put ' i think it wont reduce the deficit' and i agree with this: President Obama has sent congress a list of Programs he is comfortable of Congress cutting fromt he budget to lower the Debt. The list includes: ■$18 billion in cuts deemed unnecessary by the Pentagon ■$13 billion from funding for programs at the Departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services ■$8 billion in cuts for State and Foreign Operations ■$2.5 billion in transportation funding ■Over $1 billion in a cut across non-defense agencies ■$630 million in earmarked transportation projects ■$35 million by ending the Crop Insurance Good Performance Rebate for subsidized insurance premiums ■$30 million for a job training for specific certain student loan processors ■Reductions to housing assistance programs ■Reductions to some health care programs
Social Security Cuts

If we are that desprate to reduce the federal debt than Congress ought to seriously consider cutting the DOD 2011 BUDGET OF $928.5 Billion dollars. There is no need for Congress to immediatly attack SS and Medicare when deciding what to cut from the budget to lower the National Debt. I have heard arguments from both sides of the isle in both Houses and I feel that the logical idea would be to requst each federal agency to cut their own budget by 10% every year for 5 years. Another program that Congress ought to consider cutting from the budget is $1 billion in a cut across non-defense agencies. President Obama has sent congress a list of Programs he is comfortable of Congress cutting fromt he budget to lower the Debt. The list includes: ■$18 billion in cuts deemed unnecessary by the Pentagon ■$13 billion from funding for programs at the Departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services ■$8 billion in cuts for State and Foreign Operations ■$2.5 billion in transportation funding ■Over $1 billion in a cut across non-defense agencies ■$630 million in earmarked transportation projects ■$35 million by ending the Crop Insurance Good Performance Rebate for subsidized insurance premiums ■$30 million for a job training for specific certain student loan processors ■Reductions to housing assistance programs ■Reductions to some health care programs If I were a member of Congress (regardless) of political party, I would seriously consider the list of recommendations submitted by President Obama
Korean's handle is proper about the problem of Japanese military sexual slavery.

Do you think Korean's handle is proper about the problem of Japanese military sexual slavery? Let's debate about it! I don't think so. Because we had communication a little, we had a mistake, and we responded late. First, Korean made an effort. However, we didn't talk with Japanese military sexual slavery victim grandmother. We just did discussion. We made an effort. However Japanese military sexual slavery victim grandmother is old, and their body was weak. So we couldn't tell comfort to many Japanese military sexual slavery victim grandmother. Second, people have an interest in Japanese military sexual slavery issue a very great interest for a while just not interested for a long time. It can be a problem. If we have an interest in Japanese military sexual slavery for a long time, we can know more information about Japanese military sexual slavery. Third, we responded late. If we responded fast, Japanese military sexual slavery's victim decrease. We didn't talk with Japanese military sexual slavery a lot. Also, we made a mistake. Last we responded late. For this reason, I don't think Korean's handle is not proper about the problem of Japanese military sexual slavery.
Death penalty

This debate is open to the first person who wishes to accept. Resolved: The death penalty should exist in the United States.The onus is shared between the two of us, I must prove that we should not have the death penalty whereas my opponent must prove that we should have it. My reasoning for the sharing of the onus is because both sides call for a change in the status quo in the US.Rules:1. No forfeiting2. No semantics/trolling/kritiks/etc3. My opponent must start their constructive case this round and waive the final round saying "Round waived in accordance to rule 3" or something similar4. Keep appropriate conduct, people!5. Do not reject definitions/structure or anything otherwise laid out in this debate. If you reject please do so in comments so I can change it.Structure:Round X: What I do | What my opponent doesR1: Create debate | Provide constructive caseR2: Provide constructive case | RebuttalsR3: Rebuttals | Defense to rebuttalsR4: Defense to rebuttals | WaiveVoter ELO is set to 2500. If needed I can change this.Votes are on a pick winner basis so we can get more in depth RFD's as opposed to just explaining specific points.Definitions:Death penalty: the act of legally executing a prisoner because of a breaking in law by the US governmentshould: ought to; mustexist: be in practice/be made into practiceThanks to whoever accepts. Good luck!
Whether the federal government should adopt a nationwide policy to decrease overcrowding in prisons

p1A306;Reducing sentences for offenders would encourage offenders to commit crimes again. According to A 2005 report from California's Legislative Analyst's Office, Possession of controlled substances made up 12 percent of the state's total "three strikes" population(people who commit similar crimes three time ) at the time, and drug crimes in general accounted for 23 percent. Second strikers are about more than twice higher that third strikers. If we reducing sentences for these people, no doubt they will violate laws again. http://www.lao.ca.gov... p2: It might be true that some drug offenders only cause harm to themselves. However, it does not change the fact that they violate the law. reducing sentences is going to cause our criminal justice system losing its power on punishing the wrongdoers. Then our laws would not be as deterrent as it would be. P3: I am not sure what you trying to prove in P3, and I am sure that people are also got sentenced to prison because of alcohol. Also, as to what I said about "people start using drugs because of peers", the point that I was trying to made is that a lots of people get drug because they are surrounded by people who use drug, and people who know where to get drug. C: The federal government should not adopt a nationwide policy to decrease overcrowding in prisons.
Whether the federal government should adopt a nationwide policy to decrease overcrowding in prisons

P1: Cutting sentences for drug offenders would actually prevent criminals who have committed more serious crimes from being released into society before they are ready. Due to the overcrowding issue there is not enough space in prisons for all convicted criminals to fully serve their sentences. This leads to the early release of offenders who are not ready to successfully reenter the community which poses a threat to public safety. http://www.alec.org... P2: Letting the offenders out early wouldn't cause harm to our society. The only harm a drug user poses is on himself. It is better to cut sentencing for someone who is busted for possession of drugs rather than letting out a vicious criminal who is likely to commit more serious crimes. P3: It is more common for people to drive under the influence and engage in risky behaviors when they are drunk on alcohol than on drugs. There are 2.5 million alcohol related deaths worldwide annually versus 38,329 drug overdose deaths. You are not clear about what harm drug users pose on other people, and stating that "people start using drugs because of peers" is a red herring because it is an irrelevant claim that does not support the issue at hand. http://www.ncadd.org... & http://www.drugwarfacts.org... The federal government should adopt a nationwide policy to decrease overcrowding in prisons.
Whether the federal government should adopt a nationwide policy to decrease overcrowding in prisons

p1: Cutting fixed sentences might not be a good idea either. Mandatory sentencing or minimum sentencing on drug crime is deterrence potential crime offender. If we lessen the punishment on crime offenders, more people would commit drug offense. p2: As I stated in first round, US has a high recidivism rate. Even if we these offender out early, they would eventually find their way back to prison. And that impose harm to our society. p3: I would agree that drug addict is a lot less dangerous than rapist or murderer. However, it does not mean that they are not dangerous. Using drug can cause harm to others too. There are generally 4 stages of drug use(different scholar use different names for each stages). In stage 2, drug users increase their risky behaviors such as driving under influence and unexplained violence. http://casapalmera.com... In addition, most people start using drug because of peers. The federal government should not adopt a nationwide policy to decrease overcrowding in prisons.
Whether the federal government should adopt a nationwide policy to decrease overcrowding in prisons

P1: In order to prevent overcrowding in prisons we don't need to release prisoners, the federal government could save billions and significantly ease the overcrowding crisis by adopting strategies that include cutting fixed sentences for drug offenses in half. There are 219,000 inmates in the federal prisons system compared with 25,000 in 1980 and about half are there for drug offenses. Shortening sentences for people with drug offenses would lead to a large decrease in inmates.. http://m.huffpost.com... P2: We don't need to build more prisons or release prisoners. As stated in my first premise, all we need to do is cut sentencing for people with drug offenses. It will save the government billions of dollars and put and end to overcrowding. P3: Criminals should still be punished, but people with less serious offenses shouldn't be punished so harshly if they pose no threat to the public. A heroine addict is a lot less dangerous than a rapist or murderer. The federal government should adopt a nationwide policy to decrease overcrowding in prisons and save billions of dollars.
Whether the federal government should adopt a nationwide policy to decrease overcrowding in prisons

P1: We can really do anything about the overcrowding in prisons. As you stated that prisoner use homemade weapon to harm each other and correctional officers, if we release these prison on probation, prisoner would have easier access to weapons, which would be a greater danger to people's safety. Accoring to a new study by the Pew Charitable Trusts" Center on the States, 43 percent of prisoners nationally return to the lockup within three years. That means about half of these prisoner would commit crime again if we let them go free. http://www.nytimes.com... p2: Since you said that the cost of prisoner is high. If we want to decrease the overcrowding in prison, that means that we should either build more prisons or release more prisoners. I already stated that release prisoner is going to endanger the public. And, building more prisons is going to cost more than the overcrowding situation that we have now. According to New York Time a article, the cost of correction is about $52 billion a year nationally. http://www.nytimes.com... P3. Prison is build for people who commit crime against people. They need to be punished for the harm they have done to other. C: The federal government should not adopt a nationwide policy to decrease overcrowding in prisons.
Whether the federal government should adopt a nationwide policy to decrease overcrowding in prisons

P1: Overcrowding in prisons affects the safety and security of a large and growing number of staff and correctional officers, as well as the inmates themselves. In 2013, an inmate using a homemade weapon murdered a correctional officer at a BOP high security facility due to this overcrowding. More inmates makes it harder for COs to maintain control of the inmates. http://www.justice.gov... P2: The immense cost of confining so many people is draining vital resources from from other public safety endeavors, including investigations and prosecutions. http://m.huffpost.com... The federal government should adopt a nationwide policy to decrease overcrowding in prisons.
Drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) should be blocked from oil extraction.

First off I would like for you to clarify the "harmful effects" which will be caused by the drilling and burning. Second, because I am sure that you will bring up global warming, I would like you, and the voters, to be aware, that for every 60 giggatones of CO2 produced by the ocean, only 2 giggatones is produced by the Terrestrial cycle, this shows that the effects humans have on global warming are not by CO2. The EPA even states that deforestation is causing the problem, so unless you can show me statistics other than the 60vs2 it will be useless to say it will be because of CO2. Next, referring to the caribou, the ANWR (Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge) states ON THEIR WEBSITE, that caribou can co-exist with oil drilling, and have been for the last several years, and the population, of the animals, has actually been increasing, in the years of co-existence with oil drilling.
Drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) should be blocked from oil extraction.

First off, I am sorry to assume you were another of the quitters which we seem to encounter so often as this site grows, and for that, again I am sorry, and glad that you have power again. Secondly, although you have focused mainly on the economy, and future power supply, you have brought up the fact that there will be caribou problems, which I have stated there will not be, and supported with evidence, I will not discuss these issues, because I believe that I have one that area of the debate, although that may be over confident of me. Next, I would like to note, that the drilling in the ANWR, would not be a permanent solution to the energy "crisis", because we all know that oil is a natural resource that will run out one day, but I do believe that it is several other things. 1-It allows us to have a fall back, should foreign oil imports decline, for reasons such as conflict in the middle east, sanctions, etc. 2-It allows the United States to continue to help the US economy by selling oil, rather than hurt its economy, by buying oil, while we switch over to more environmental, and permanent solutions. To further this point I would like to state that the US is not currently in a situation where we would have power without oil, and it would not be an "overnight" process to change to a country that could rely purely on renewable resources. Until this time does come, we must rely on what we have, which is drilling in the ANWR, or relying on foreign oil. 3-Oil isn't used purely for power, as we all know, we live in a very active world, in which we are constantly moving around, a lot of the time in cars, which as of now do still use gasoline, which is still a product of oil, which could be taken from the ANWR without any harm to the wildlife of the ANWR, as I have previously stated.
Drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) should be blocked from oil extraction.

Sir, excuse me for a power outage in my neighborhood in Seattle. Secondly, debate the argument, not me personally...Now to the issue. In discussing the proposed closing of drilling in ANWR it is important to view the issue on a broad scale. To just look at the local Caribou population and to debate the controversial issue global warming is not the idea of this discussion, but rather, to look at America's future, and to tackle it in the best means possible. For ANWR drilling, its contentious existence is not just environmental, it is economic. In my first argument above I stated that the negatives did not outweigh the positives on becoming an energy independent America. Drilling for oil itself is not the only negative (as pertaining to the caribou argument above) but rather it grapples with the American sustainability philosophy of providing the most good for the most amount of Americans in the long term. Because the basis of this philosophy has its roots in American culture and domestic management, it is important to use when thinking in terms of the future in America. This leads to the ideal of sustainable, renewable power. Hydroelectric, Wind, and Solar energy would (with the right funding) be the best way for America to: 1.) think about the future in terms of not destroying Wilderness sanctuaries 2.) provide power that would last American citizens for a longer time (The US uses approximately 20 million barrels per day, and according to ANWR.org-a pro drilling site-there is approximately 8 billion barrels, meaning that one day America is going to find itself a more oil dependant economy with no more internal sites to drill) and 3.) Create a new economic market that would insure thousands of jobs, and independence on a local and national scale. The market for wind and solar are two hardly tapped markets. Both of which could use existing technology, and both of which can be harnessed by the typical American. Why not have wind and solar farming? Take the farmers that have crops being subsidized by the government and give them that same money to invest in a technology that will create independence at the lowest level and not to mention, America as plenty of wind and sun! That would create an energy independent America for the benefit of the most, in the long term. Talk about independence, we as Americans would never have to use foreign (or domestic oil) and we would be saving the "last frontier" for generations of Americans as wilderness land.
love

yeah we cant hang up to death for not coming to the date... but something living in a relationship and avoiding him at a particular time, is really different from what u r trying to tell... certain things are visible in certain punishments.. for eg rape means she has lost something and a great pain in her heart... similarly the same pain in the hearts of boys but there is no external loss like virginity in the love break up... but still same pain.. see the pain.. then u ll understand... k no need hang up sentence .. atleast some punishments have to be given
love

The rancor and feeling of betrayal felt by someone who has been cheated and dumped by his girlfriend is absolutely understandable, and to hate her is appropriate. Her behavior was immoral and bad. But we cannot sentence to death someone because he offended someone else or did something bad . who should pronounce the sentence then? Just you? to take the law in one's own hands? If everyone do that we will quickly face a civil war . The government? I don't wanna live in a society in which the State control and interfere in the emotional life of the people, we would live like in '1984' (or in Iran) the boy who experienced love failure won't experience death for ALL life long... and I precise it is not inevitably in all cases girls who give mental distress to boys If a girl refuses to date a boy, who loves her, it will hurt him. Should she been sentenced to death too?