BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
no matter what race or religion: we should all be treated the same

To assert all people ought be treated the same, is to say no one person may be more valuable to me than another. That I, anyone, must not judge a person's qualities, or rationalise what interest they may present. People are not equal, nature does not grant, for instance, equality in beauty, intelligence. Individuals are not automatons, and the use of individual decisions lead to different choices, outcomes, beliefs and virtue. Men are not equal, they should not be treated as a null state upon which the slate of decision is rendered. It is an attempt to demand that one individual is as valueless as another, that I should treat each person as an equal end to my own purposes. This is rubbish. Equal results do not arise from unequal conditions, there is no equal reward from unequal action. It demands I cannot act upon my own reason, to forward my own desires. That A is not A. "if a Caucasian and a man with native backgrounds were to apply for the same job with the same qualifications the man with native backgrounds would have to be chosen over the Caucasian. now this makes no scence." Instead you offer an alternative? Choosing another ethnicity 'white'? It is the same premise you seem to abhor, and otherwise only resolved by the flip of a coin. If they are equal, truly equal (doubtful - performance can be reviewed after hire, reasoned to a limited extent in the hiring process), then it matters not to the employer who he hires - and it's his business that is pertinent, not those asking to be hired, in such a decision. Even so, an employer should be free to discriminate as to whom he/she hires, they bear the costs if the choice is wrong, and the state has no business in demanding who one should hire. As to taxes, that's easily resolved as I advocate neither should pay, not adding additional theft to state endorsed crime.
no matter what race or religion: we should all be treated the same

thank you to who ever accents my challenge. in Canada people of native backgrounds are the highest concern. if a Caucasian and a man with native backgrounds were to apply for the same job with the same qualifications the man with native backgrounds would have to be chosen over the Caucasian. now this makes no scence. neither does the fact that they don't even have to pay taxes. it they are not working a full time job they get paid for every child they have and they also do not have to pay taxes. which I think should not be the case. if you are a Canadian citizen you should treated like every other Canadian citizen.
no matter what race or religion: we should all be treated the same

"i'm not saying that we ARE equal" Fantastic. " i'm sayibg we should be treated as equals." Not so fantastic. Why should unequal individuals be treated as equal? Why should I expect equal return from unequal performance? Why *should* I be forced to treat all people as null value? It's anathema to my own ends, my own purposes if I do. "just think. if we were to be treated as though we were 100% equal, there would have been half as many wars. and our world right now would be a much better place." ipse dixit If we were all treated as equal we would still be trading sea shells for things we wanted, by virtue of nothing being of more value and not seeking those of value, who produce at a better rate, those things desirable. "discirmination is still happening to day. if it wasent, the united states would have pulled out of iraq a long time ago" What? "and canada would have no reason to be in afhganistan." Canada is an ally with other occupying forces in that country. Should they be there, no, though discriminating against the Taliban is useful, unless you consider their rhetoric, aims and purposes equal. "and a lot of wars were started because of different beliefs and religons." Yes. If someone invades a country I reside in, I would hope the controlling government would adequately discriminate between citizens and invaders and not offer them welfare. "if we found a way to cope with the fact that other people believe other things. even the holocaust could have been avoided." Irrelevant. Judging different beliefs against a standard =/= war. If you want to consider global genocide valid with say the concept of individual rights, and treat those who hold those views as equal, then go ahead. Don't expect me to do the same however, don't expect me to treat them the same.
Universal Health Coverage

America, right now, is facing a host of gigantic issues, both foreign and domestic. The issue of health coverage is one of the most prominent and important. It is, to me, a moral issue that almost 50 million American citizens (about 1/6 of the population) does not have any health insurance. Even more Americans do not have enough insurance to pay for important preventive care, prescription drugs, and hospital stays. Mandatory health insurance coverage (and substantative government subsidy of such) is the only way to solve this problem. There are those who will say that this is "socialism" or "socialized medicine". In doing so, they fail to closely examine the policy proposals put forth by the leading advocates of universal health in the US. The one that is most agreed upon looks like this: - All Americans must have health coverage. This is a point of some controversy, however to sustain a health system, even healthy people have to pay in in order to get benefits later. Ask any private insurer. - To accomplish this goal, three options are available to the public: 1. Make available for purchase the high-quality health plans currently offered by Congress. 2. People happy with their current coverage would/could stay with their current coverage/ 3. People currently uninsured and unable to pay could join a need-based payment (you pay what you can) health system. - To pay for this all, you: 1. By having everyone insured, hospitals no longer need to transfer their emergency room losses to Medicare patients in order to break even. This costs the government about 14 billion a year. Combine this with IT overhauls to increase efficiency and patient records management. 2. Repeal the Bush Administration's corporate subsidy taxes, income tax cuts on the top 2%, and estate tax elimination. This all saves about 60 billion per year, more than enough to pay for the above proposal. This is not socialized medicine. It is a multipayer, efficiency-based function protocol that would end up saving everyone (including the government)'s money.
Universal Health Coverage

"The united states government cannot become an insurance company." I do not propose that it become an insurance company. I propose that it purchase insurance (at discount, because of the number of plans that it would purchase) to cover those who cannot afford insurance. This is the way that insurance for Congress is done, and it works. "Also, if everyone can get insurance from the government for dirt cheap prices, everyone will regardless of their standard of living. With that many people enrolled in the program and at such low prices, the government is continually gunna have to poor money into the program." Read the proposal. The free health care would be only for those who could not afford it. The policy proposed clearly states that "People currently uninsured and unable to pay could join a need-based payment (you pay what you can) health system". Note the statement "unable to pay". "We need to find ways to incourage people to invest in insurance, not give it to them at the governments expense. If nothing else, our current state gives people a greater incetive to move up in life". What do you propose? If somebody cannot afford healthcare, how can you "encourage" them (learn to spell, there's a spell-checker right by the debate type box) to buy coverage? Give it to them at a price that they can afford. "Finally, if the government gets THAT involved in health care, its gunna start passing laws that attack the prices. Though i agree the prices are too high, we cant cap them off via law". I do not see the sense in this argument. It immediately assumes that the government will pass law to cap insurance prices when NOWHERE in the policy proposed does it state that the government would be legislating price caps. The government would be able to negotiate lower prices for health plans because it would be buying so many.
Universal Health Coverage

The united states government cannot become an insurance company. Everyone is wants universal healthcare. if everyone gets insured, Great! But using the governments money is not an option. Right now, anyone can get healthcare, but instead of insurance companies paying the difference, the government does. If we create government agencies to insure people, we are not only paying to insure people, but we are paying to run the agencies themselves. Either way our government pays. Government based insurance doesnt solve the financial problems our current healthcare poses. Also, if everyone can get insurance from the government for dirt cheap prices, everyone will regardless of their standard of living. With that many people enrolled in the program and at such low prices, the government is continually gunna have to poor money into the program. It'll become a never ending money pit that we will never be able to repeal. In other words... an Economy Buster. We need to find ways to incourage people to invest in insurance, not give it to them at the governments expense. If nothing else, our current state gives people a greater incetive to move up in life. Finally, if the government gets THAT involved in health care, its gunna start passing laws that attack the prices. Though i agree the prices are too high, we cant cap them off via law. That WOULD be socialism, and socialism has never done anyone any good. Especially a people as wealthy as us. It only creates lazy people and very poor economies. Government funding of health care isn't socialism, but its a huge step toward socialism, and socialized Anything is gunna be bad for this country. I guess what im trying to say is this. Yes, health care costs way too much Yes, there are way too many people who cant afford basic health care Yes, its a national problem but No, we cant give them government money because that would be taking everyone down with them. We would solve one problem, but create a dozen more
Resolved: DDO should have its own pope

I graciously accept yet another debate against my favorite opposing troll debater, Imabench. Now bring it on beeeeeitch. But first, a rap song by me: Yo my name is Chris! My wit is so fast it flies like a flash and I'm the first thing you see but I'm never the last YOU'VE BEEN DISSED! Be the first to get up in my face, but I'll beat you down and you know you won't be missed but don't get pissed cause as we run this race I run like a 24 karot gold lazur beam, makin' money rain while my golden teeth gleam. AIGHT I'M PUMPED FOR THIS. I'M READY. LET'S GO. OOH! AH! OOH! AH! OOH! AH! AND AS xXCryptoXx ENTERS THE STADIUM TO DEBATE THE INFAMOUS IMABENCH, THE CROWD. GOES. WIIIIILLLLLLLLLLDDD! YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! Hot Girl From Crowd: Oh Chris you're rap was so amazing I don't even care about this debate I'm already voting for you and your hotness! Crypto: Oh thank you please really. This keep this debate clean and fun everyone! WOOOOOOOOHHHHH! *As Crypto steps onto the stage the crowd falls silent* Crypto: IMABENCH! I ACCEPT. THINE, CHALLLLLLLEEEEEENNNNGE! YOU MAY PRESENT YOUR ARGUMENTS!
Resolved: DDO should have its own pope

1) Why does DDO need a Pope?DDO needs a Pope for the several reasons. - 1 - To bring order to the Religious forum. Like seriously have you been in there recently? Making it out of the Religious forum without getting in a fight is as hard as Making it out of Miley Cyrus without contracting 4 STD's..... The Religious forum is so dysfunctional, it is about so shut itself down similar to the US government.... We need a leader to lead it out of the chaos, or at least try - 2 - We need a Pope to check the ever growing power of the Presidency. Airmax has been great and all, but sooner or later there will be a president who will not hesitate to come down on your nutsack with the mighty banhammer for trivial reasons. Like if I were president id probably ban half the site just for not having funny sounding names, and knowing how insane most other people are on here, its not unimaginable that someone could go mad with power..... A pope would put a check on the power of the presidency, or maybe become president himself and lead us on a holy crusade against the infidels of Createdebate. Either way, its well worth the risk - 3 - DDO needs to declare an official religion, so that we can show the infidels at Createdebate that we aint f*ckin around over here. If its on, then its on - 4 - A Pope could lead us through a tragic event like 9/11, the cancellation of a good TV show, and other hardships that we come to the internet for guidance. - 5 - MORE ELECTIONS :D And by elections, I mean elections that actually will be close and not one sided a** whippings between Airmax and whoever tries to delude themselves into running for president.... I mean for f*cks sake, Larz lost to a misspelled version of Airmax's own name, Airmaxx...... Which I had nothing to do with for the record. 2) Now then, what would the DDO Pope actually DO?- 1 - Lead us through hard times both on DDO and maybe in real life- 2 - Bring order to the Religious forums- 3 - Decide what the religion of DDO shall be. (We could have an Atheist pope and then a Jewish Pope after that) - 4 - Possibly let me have the rights to put the Weekly Stupid in the Religious forum so that it gets more traffic- 5 - If not number 4, then allow for a spin off series called 'The Weekly ALLLLLAAAAAHHHHHH' where I find some other way to make fun of stupid people- 6 - Be sort of a spiritual advisor for people who have questions about religion and stuff- 7 - Wear funny hats all the time- 8 - Give sermons and group prayers while wearing funny hats- 9 - Post videos to reinforce his preachings3) Wouldnt a DDO Pope lead to a pedophila ring where high priests sexually assault little boys and girls on the internet?Probably, but im 20 and most people on here are older then 16 so dont worry about it4) When would the Pope elections be?Every 3 months after a presidential election or whenever the previous Pope retires due to a sex scandal....5) Could anyone campaign to be Pope?Yes, as long as they promise to drop out at the last minute and then give their support to me. Thats all I got for now
Meditation is fake

There are individuals who attempt meditation and their minds are not completely balanced. Their minds focus too much on positive thoughts and therefore they cannot feel negative thoughts which means they cannot think completely ethically. If meditation balances the hemisphere of the mind, how is it that they cannot feel negative thoughts, which is an essential cognitive function of the mind. Thus, I will stand by my statement that meditation ruins morality. It is perfectly fine to have little belief in science and logic as not everybody believes what others' believe. But there are some things which are completely undeniable. The fact that morality is put into inequity via meditation. Furthermore, meditation gives SPIRITUAL knowledge and not physical knowledge. What I mean is things like 2+2=4, how fire starts, etc. Spiritual knowledge is useless in our modern society. There is no stupid way to do meditation, meditation is an ambiguous concept, and can be done how the client wishes.
Meditation is fake

Meditation balanced your both hemisphere of mind .It's up to people and they have freedom whether to do meditation or not. There is a quote "Live your life and let other live their life".I used the "BEYOND" word because meditation allow you to achieve higher knowledge in life, Meditation is not harmfull Millions of peoples do mediation in world and live happily , does any bad things happen to them then how we can say meditation is dangerous there are so many of peoples who do meditation in stupid way and they get in problem. Even Gautham Buddha do meditation and meditation has not separated Buddha from reality but mediation has given him true knowledge of life were he writed 4 noble truth of life. Law of life is law of belief. If peoples belief meditation is dangerous, their subconscious mind will make it reality. To much belief in science and logic mind will make your mind so much disturbed and cause arguement in small statements. Meditation let you live positive thoughts.
Meditation is fake

You said meditation does not separate a being from reality, and then used 'beyonds', this implies another spiritual plain, and you are not in reality once in/on that spiritual plain. Next, we can assume that, albeit rules are needed, it is likely once some people begin, they won't be able to stop. Almost like a drug, once you take a sip of say... heroin, you are addicted. So what do you say for those people who cannot help themselves when it comes to meditation? What about the people who are unaware of the dangers of meditation. In addition, you mentioned psychic healing; achieving a balance in state of body and mind. What of those people who do not believe in such things? Things like psychic healing depend on the client's belief that such things will function properly; not harm etc. I will also echo of my last points: if meditation does relax someone, it may take their ability to distinguish between negative and positive feelings and provoking the equilibrium in their morality.
Meditation is fake

To live we need salt, if we were to eat kilograms of salt it would kill us.To live in modern world we need vehicle if we don't follow traffic rules or we do drunk driving the vehicle will become dangerous machine and will get injured or die.Similarly meditation is like this , if we do meditation in wrong or stupid way it could cause problems.If we do meditation in correct manner we will never have problems.Some people do it meditation for so long hours and exhaust them self and they get problems just like kilograms of salts cause problems.Mediation is good for mental health, but its people choice whether to do meditation or not.Yeah you said true we can't force people to do it but we can do psychic healing to heal one disease who can't do mediation. Mediation never separate us from reality,its journey of consciousness towards the minds towards the self and beyonds.Mediation mean doing nothing its a thoughtless and breathless state and conscious sleep were we receive abundant energy..
Meditation is fake

Thank you and good luck. Transcendental meditation is one of the most common forms of meditation. It has been known that meditation in this form can cause depression, depersonalisation and even detachment from reality. It is also wrong to force peace and tranquillity on to a being. You cannot force someone to behave in a way which defies their true nature through meditation nor can you force someone into relaxation. If an individual is chaotic and unfocused, and have been this way for their entire life, you cannot use meditation to truly relax them. Hence, meditation is useless and fake because it does not better the personality of a being. In evidence, there was a man who tried transcendental and quit due to several reasons, you can read it here: http://whyiquittranscendentalmeditation.blogspot.co.uk... Even if meditation does relax a person, it is likely they will not be able to multi-task, and take away many negative emotions which can leave a person's morality inequitable.
a civil war in the USA is not likely in our life time

so con concedes that we might not have a civil war. pretty weak stance there. also just pointing out some reasons that a civil war could happen doesn't do much in the way of exacting why it actually would. civil wars haven't happened in most of europe. only in places where the social safety net is entirely gone, mid east etc countries. we are no where near that. are we more like them, or more like europe?
a civil war in the USA is not likely in our life time

political unrest because of lousy economic conditions, sure. just like in europe. what makes any significantly soon coming calamities different than in the past, is that there is no geographic areas that disagree with each other. it's mostly just john disagrees with bob, individual disagreements. it could be plausible to say the south will 'rise again' and fight, given how conservtive it is. but i don't see enough evidence of this, and think my john v bob point is more accurate.
Marvel vs. DC Universe

Why DC is better-The Dark Knight remains the only comic-book movie to win a major Academy Award (best supporting actor for Heath Ledger).BIGGEST SUPERHERO PROBLEM MARVEL: Excessive number of superheroes with lame origin stories involving radioactivity (Spider-Man, Daredevil, etc.) DC: Excessive number of square-jawed godlike heroes without relatable personalities (Superman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, etc.)The decision to restart all of its comic books from issue No. 1 last summer resulted in great press and amped-up sales, and the digital day-and-date release of all of its titles, though not yet a major driver of revenue, feels like a potential game-changer.VIDEO GAMES IN TOP 10 (SINCE 2011) MARVEL 0 | DC (Batman: Arkham City) 1LIVE-ACTION TV SERIES (SINCE 2002) MARVEL 2 | DC 3Vote Con.
Thinking In Base 12 Is Easier Than Thinking In Base 10, Disregarding Establishment

In decimal, as you all know, the digits are:0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9In duodecimal, the digits are (add a "dek" and "el"):0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, , ---While it may sound foreign to you, here is one way to count in that system, vocally:onetwothree...sepeightninedekelzenzen onezen twozen three...zen dekzen eltwozentwozen onetwozen threetwozen three...twozen dektwozen elthreezenthreezen onethreezen twothreezen three......dekzen eldekzen dekelzenelzen one...elzen elgrossgross onegross two...gross elgross zengross zen one...gross zen elgross twozen...gross threezen...gross elzen eltwogrosstwogross one...twogross eltwogross zentwogross zen one...twogross elzen elthreegross...elgross elzen elzauzau one...twozau...elzau elgross elzen elzyriad...and so on, you get the idea. The takeaway is that12^1 = zen12^2 = gross12^3 = zau12^4 = zyriad7 = sepI will be using these pronounciations for my debate.---By "disregarding establishment", I mean disregarding the conventions of society. Obviously we are all accustomed to thinking in decimal, and that's going to be easier BECAUSE it's what we are used to. But suppose we live in a theoretical world, where our previous conventions are irrelevant and we can learn to think in any way we want. I argue, that in that ideal world, we should think in twelves, not tens.---First round is for acceptance and stating whether you are a dozenalist or a decimalist, 2-4 are for arguments, and 5 is for summary. I myself am a dozenalist but use the decimal system because all you other chumps use it too.