BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Implementing some form of Universal Healthcare in the United States would be beneficial

Obviously I agree that people with a handicap can't take care of themselves. However, not every person in the country has a handicap. You said that people would pay through taxes for the health care for themselves, and others because it's the right thing to do. I hate to be the one to point this out, but not everyone in this country is that nice. No one should be "entitled" to anything. We should ALL work to achieve what's best for us individually. As for the preventing ailments, I stick by what I said. Even with what you just said. With having there be no lab fees, no co-pay, no monetary worries, people will still take advantage. They will be more inclined to see what they can get out of the system. I still find the always available records are dangerous. I will agree that they would be handy for patients and doctors. However, having a "lock and key" doesn't guarantee safety of records. I can tell you that if I was a patient, I wouldn't allow my information to be posted on these records. I don't trust the security that you are suggesting. I don't think that universal health care would reduce mortality rates. Having unlimited access to doctor's won't do anything. It isn't going to cure cancer patients, or any other incurable disease.
Implementing some form of Universal Healthcare in the United States would be beneficial

I disagree, the US should not implement ANY form of universal health care. In my opinion the last thing this country needs are more people that are dependent on our government. As humans we should be able to take care of ourselves, and not rely on others, to take care of us. Having universal health care isn't going to make people prevent ailments, it's going to make people want to get all out of system that they possibly can. Also, having a medical record available around the country will not help anything. It only allows more room for problems to happen. There are more opportunities for computers to break down with an overload of information, and there is also more room for information to be stolen. ~Nikki
Implementing some form of Universal Healthcare in the United States would be beneficial

I assert that implementing some form of universal healthcare would be beneficial for the U.S. government and citizens. Universal healthcare in the United States would encourage citizens to take preventative measures towards ailments, save our country trillions of dollars on healthcare, reduce mortality rates, and create a national database of citizens' medical records for easier access by health providers to medical history across the country (Messerli). I will let my opponent begin this debate. References: 1. Joe Messerli, BalancedPolitics.org , http://balancedpolitics.org...
Implementing some form of Universal Healthcare in the United States would be beneficial

Obviously not every person in the US is handicap. I understand that they can't take care of themselves, I do think they should get help with healthcare. Next, are you that oblivious to how people act in this country. What about racists? Do you think they will agree to raise their taxes in order to pay for a race they are against? I think it's terrible, but this country isn't as honorable as we would all like. I'm sorry to say this so bluntly, but you are very naive if you believe that people are that nice. I don't think that having the government and it's citizens raise their taxes is the right thing to do. I don't want to pay for the rest of America to use me. It's just how I want to spend my money. I realize it sounds terrible, but I just don't think that every single person in the country deserves free healthcare, or reduced price healthcare. Maybe you think it's ludicrous, but I don't. I will refuse to have my medical records broadcasted to the rest of the country, just in case i break a bone in Colorado. As for your paragraph about Michael Moore, are you kidding me? First, this isn't Britain. Second, you're going to trust a lazy director that feels he knows everything? That's really not smart. About the spending, I don't care about the rest of the world, I care about our country. I don't think you should be comparing us to France and Canada, you should be ending the comparisons, and focusing on us. ~ I don't think that Universal Healthcare is the right solution for America. I believe that we should all be focusing on getting people jobs so they can afford healthcare on their own. Thanks for the debate.
It is impossible to argue against logic.

Logic itself is subjective; different people have different forms of logic and time itself is logical. Even over time, things that were once logical are not longer so. Logic is explaining an event based on knowledge that you already have and unless you know everything, logic is bound to fail from time to time and it does. seeing as logic fails, there is plenty of basis to argue against it. It's not a perfect source; therefore, it is arguable.
It is impossible to argue against logic.

First off. Your definition of logic as "explaining an event based on knowledge that you already have" is dead wrong Logic is a way of organizing premises to form a conclusion. Any and every argument at least attempts to use logic correctly. Every argument is comprised of three elements 1. The premises - which can be true or false. 2. The logical structure (i. e. logic) - which can be valid or invalid. 3. The conclusion - which can be true or false. All three elements operate independently. The premises fit into the logical structure (i. e. operate in a logical form) If all the premises are true and the logic is valid then the argument is sound and the conclusion must be true. You have claimed that logic fails from time to time. I'm sorry but I don't think you understand what logic is b/c if you did you would never make this claim. Logic has never failed even once. If you could provide an example of logic failing not only would I gladly forfeit this debate but I would surely check myself into a mental asylum. There is a very specific procedure necessary to prove that logic itself has failed. One must set up an argument with only true premises and a valid logical structure (such as modus ponens, tollens, etc…) and derive a conclusion that is not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many arguments fail b/c they use bad logic. But logic itself does not fail. Its just that the argument uses an invalid form of logic (i. e. a logical fallacy) what is most ironic is that my opponent has decided to use logic itself to argue against logic. 1)logic fails 2)something that fails has plenty of basis to be argued against –(implicit) 3)Ergo there is plenty of basis to argue against Logic This my friends is a classic example of Modus Ponens as I stated above. It is a valid form of logic and the conclusion would certainly be true if the premises were true. Alas, the first premise is obviously false. The most baffling question here is if she is arguing against logic itself why would she go and then use the very thing she claims does not work?
Traditional medicine is a business

To clarify:[1] Traditional medicine is the sum total of the knowledge, skills, and practices based on the theories, beliefs, and experiences indigenous to different cultures, whether explicable or not, used in the maintenance of health as well as in the prevention, diagnosis, improvement or treatment of physical and mental illness. Con has the burden of proving that traditional medicine is not a business. I hold the burden of refuting his arguments. As of now, Con has only mentioned the topic. I shall wait until the next round for his arguments.[1] https://www.google.com.au...
Life after death

In my opinion life on earth isn't just it. There's a whole world out there waiting for each one of us. Life on earth is just an experience that God has given us to freely decide whether we want to spend a lifetime after death with him or not. If there's no life after death, then what's the point of living it? Everything's going to vanish away sooner or later, each one of us is gonna end up all alone. That's why I truly believe that money, houses, being popular, poor, what car you have, work, the school you attend.. nothing really matters. It's just a test that let us discover ourselves, clear our minds. Even if I'm wrong, even if there was nothing after death, at least I held belief and hope throughout life. I had something to look up for!!
Life after death

If there's no life after death, then what's the point of living it? Everything's going to vanish away sooner or later, each one of us is gonna end up all alone." If there is no point in anything that ends then why do anything. Why go see a movie if it ends. Maybe because it is fun. This life is only ride we got (as far as we know ) so lets make sure we live it full of happiness and fulfillment. This debate was set to be 5 minutes per argument. I didn't know that when I accepted. So sorry if it wasn't as good as you expected. Thanks Pro for interesting debate. And sorry for noob snipe. I wasnt aiming for that.
Life after death

Pro said : "Even if I'm wrong, even if there was nothing after death, at least I held belief and hope throughout life. I had something to look up for!!" Beliefs are our internal assumptions about the world andthey lay the foundation for everything we do and say. This particular belief will make your life very different. You will concentrate on fulfilling your duties for afterlife ( being a religious and devoting your life to God ) and this life will be less valuable to you since its only transitional phase. This is in fact very wrong belief to be had. Not to mention that we got no rational reason to believe it is true.
Gambling should be banned!

Ok! Let"s say it like "we are dealing with habitual and poorly informed choices"" - http://sydney.edu.au... Anyway, if gambling had banned this incorrect choice wouldn't have made. Further this addiction wouldn"t develop! Alcohol is not ban because economy of many countries (such as France, Italy, Georgia and so on) are developing by producing wins. As I know from school France is one of the best producers of the wine. Also some religions like Judaism, Christianity use wine - http://www.cypruswinemuseum.com... So if we ban alcohol there will be many religions opposition and problem. In addition, alcohol was banned earlier but there were no any good results. People began to drink surrogates, and colognes. - http://nv-online.info... (although it is in Russian language but you can easily translate by electronic translator, especially fourth paragraph) One more example that even normal person who did not commit crime earlier, commited after gambling - "Tony Washington"s addiction to gambling was so strong that he robbed to gamble. What began as a flirtation with gambling on weekends, soon suffocated him in unpaid bills. For Washington, a 40-year-old Wisconsin man, the compulsion to gamble led to life in prison". - http://www.citizenlink.com... . Moreover, gambling lead to problem in family especially financial problem and problem in relationship. There is the author of the article reports that in his childhood he already faced with such problem. And it was terrible - http://newamericamedia.org... Also "Researchers found that women whose partners had problem gambling were more than 10 times as likely to have suffered partner violence than women whose partners did not have problem gambling". - http://www.webmd.com... One more reason: gambling leads to the problem with health: problem with stomach, depression, they will think about suicide etc. - http://www.webmd.com...
Gambling should be banned!

My opponent and I have both been using the term “gambling addiction”. Allow me to explain what this is. A gambling addiction is not a true addiction but rather an obsession that can be controlled by the individual. A true addiction is characterized by biological process that the individual has no control over. Gambling addiction, problem gambling being a more accurate term, is based on “habitual and poorly informed choices”. This means gambling is not to blame but rather the gambler for having a “gambling addiction”. http://sydney.edu.au... This debate is about whether or not gambling should be legal, so let me draw attention to other questionable things that are legal. Alcohol is the second most consumed drug in the world after caffeine and it can be very addictive. Yet it is legal. Alcoholism affects about 5%-10% in males and about 3%-5% in females. This is more addictive than gambling “addiction” which only affects about 3% of people. Also, alcohol affects the health of the body and not only the finances and family relationships like gambling. In my opinion, Alcohol is a much bigger problem than gambling. So why should alcohol be legal and gambling not? http://www.alcoholaddiction.info... As we have already established, gambling addiction is based on poor decisions. As my opponent said in the previous round, "According to a 1990 Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene survey, 62 percent of problem gamblers in treatment had committed illegal acts as a result of their gambling, 80 percent had committed civil offenses". These problem gamblers are already known to make poor decisions, so who’s to say they wouldn’t commit these crimes without the catalyst of gambling. I don’t believe that is a very valid argument. I would now like to make an argument. A lot of games in gambling involve probability or some kind of strategy. This could make gambling a good way to sharpen your mind. I believe this undermines the problem that gambling is not very beneficial to the body’s physical health.
Gambling should be banned!

"However, when done occasionally, gambling has some advantages". Exactly, majority of people cannot do it occasionally. When the man begin to play, it becomes interesting for him. He wants more and more. Then he becomes a slave of the game. Further, it everything leads to addiction " is terrible thing. At the present time we have so much other fun which can give us not only fun and good mood, at the same time they can be beneficial for us, for our health: going to the picnic and play volleyball, surfing, and to enjoy by weather, talk with friends. To play football with friends, go to the bowling etc. We can find other entertainment instead of gambling. I agree that gambling can influence to the economy positively but not so much that economy can base on it! Gambling has a lot of disadvantages than advantages. " A recent research reveals that in America, approximately 2.5 million adults suffer from compulsive gambling, about 3 million are considered problem gamblers, around 15 million adults are under the risk of becoming problem gamblers and 148 million fall under the low risk gambler category". - http://rehab-international.org... ""According to a 1990 Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene survey, 62 percent of problem gamblers in treatment had committed illegal acts as a result of their gambling, 80 percent had committed civil offenses""" - http://erlc.com...
Gambling should be banned!

Allow me to use an analogy. Think of gambling as fast food and the gambler is the consumer of that food. If the consumer eats fast food every day, then they will eventually become obese. This is the equivalent of the gambler losing their money, time, and themselves. But let's say that the fast food eater only eats every so often. Then they will most likely not become obese. This is the equivalent of healthy "every now and then" gambling. The point that I am trying to make is: gambling is fine in moderation. I completely agree that a gambling addiction, which is what my opponent described, can be a horrible thing that can ruin a life. However, when done occasionally, gambling has some advantages. Gambling can be a great fun. Gambling is often performed through games that are fun even if no gambling is involved. These games can also be played with friends and when playing with friends, you can become more connected with them. Playing with friends may even strengthen relationships. Gambling also affects the economy in a positive way. It gives money to the local government allowing them to lower the tax put on citizens. This is why real estate in places such as Las Vegas is so desirable. Gambling also provides jobs which can provide economic stimulus in communities.
Gambling should be banned!

I absolutely agree that gambling should be banned! When say "gambling" I immediately imagine the person sitting in one slot machine whole day trying to win, waste his time, lose money and control over himself. Even the word "gambling" says for himself - we are trying to win forget about everything and we become obsessed by this game. In addition gambling affects negatively to people. It can change our life to the bad side for example: family breakdown, destruction of friendship and so on.
MESSI is better than RONALDO

I like messi ok. The only thing is Ronaldo has better league records, way better at shooting witch also means accuracy, and he can cross people up with really great foot work. They have both dominated an era of football drawing comparisons to the very greats of the game such as Pel" and Diego Maradona " but which one is a better player? Messi had a golden year in 2012, breaking all sorts of records and is widely considered the best player in the world and perhaps ever. However, Ronaldo, for me, seems to be the more complete and superior player. He is more complete than Messi and possesses a vastly wider array of skills: he has the pace of Bale, the flair and skills of Neymar and better shots than those of Falcao. It is common knowledge that he is able to dance around players and he is not the only player in this category but only Ronaldo can completely take to pieces the ability and confidence of a player. He is almost unstoppable as witnessed by the lamentations of many a manager throughout the world as they describe what I call the "Ronaldo paradox". Essentially Ronaldo knows that he is going to beat his man, either with the ball or by winning a foul, so what he does is he runs straight at them and if they show him away from goal he beats them down the flank and if the other occurs he reciprocates and cuts in to shoot on goal. And if they commit Ronaldo simply has to knock the ball past them and go down with the inevitable contact. Messi uses his quick feet and low centre of gravity to squeeze his way through defenders but when teams assign more players to him inevitably this system becomes a lot harder. If the player commits, which more often than not they do, then Ronaldo will be able to use his "knuckleball" technique to bamboozle the keeper. Only a few players " notably Bale and its creator Juninho Pernambucano " have come to grips with this system and it is evident to many that Ronaldo has mastered it. I hope this is not too damning on Messi because he can strike a dead ball, but I think everyone has to give this accolade to Ronaldo and not Messi. Ronaldo and Messi have time and time again proved themselves to be outstanding players possessing better understanding and better technique than any other player. However, Ronaldo has done this at every club he has been at from Sporting Lisbon and Manchester United to Real Madrid. Ronaldo has braved the likes of Stoke and the notorious physicality of the Premier League and come though them unscathed, whereas it is hard to imagine Messi adapting to the rather more size-orientated aspect of the Premier League especially without his buddies Xavi and Adres Iniesta. Which brings me onto my next point: conveniently Messi has always, from an early age, had the benefit of playing with two of the best passers, and thus assisters, in the world.
MESSI is better than RONALDO

See those things are popularity contests not actually skill based and this is why I feel CR7 is better Speed: Winner Messi Sprint Speed; CR7 Agility:Messi Acceleration:Messi Strength: Ronaldo and no he doesn't flop much more to the morons who argue he does watch a game now would ya Pure muscle-Ronaldo Shooting: Ronaldo by far Shot power:Ronaldo FK's: Ronaldo-he has scored two recent fk's tying him with messi recently and has a better past Penalties: Ronaldo Accuracy:Ronaldo Passing: Tie Short passing:Messi Long passing: tied-and to you morons who think messi is better at long passing none of his passes are past 6 yards Crossing:Ronaldo Heading: Ronaldo by far Vision: Messi Work Ethic: Ronaldo Attacking Position: Ronaldo League Records: Ronaldo Club Records: Messi ...typical messi and barca fan to only pay attention to one part of the argument and ignore the other blatantly obvious facts proving him wrong. and more of messi fanboy logic...he's just better I have nothing to back that up but he's better Source(s): Forgot skill moves which again Ronaldo is much better at and dribbling I find them even as well all these people rant about messi's dribbling but he always slows down after he speeds up which I feel is due to the fact he doesn't have the ability to go at full pace
MESSI is better than RONALDO

Stats are all that I've got.here's the reason why Messi is better than Ronaldo, Messi have scored 238 goals for barcelona in 270 apperances,By the age of 21, Messi had received Ballon d'Orand FIFA World Player of the Yearnominations. The following year, in 2009, he won his first Ballon d'Orand FIFA World Player of the Yearawards. He followed this up by winning the inaugural FIFA Ballon d'Orin 2010, and then again in 2011and 2012. He also won the 2010"11 UEFA Best Player in Europe Award. At the age of 24, Messi became Barcelona's all-time top scorerin all official club competitions. At age 25, Messi became the youngest player to score 200 La Ligagoals.
Abortion!

1. Since life begins at conception, abortion is akin to murder as it is the act of taking human life. Abortion is in direct defiance of the commonly accepted idea of the sanctity of human life No civilized society permits one human to intentionally harm or take the life of another human without punishment, and abortion is no different. 2. Adoption is a viable alternative to abortion and accomplishes the same result. And with 1.5 million American families wanting to adopt a child, there is no such thing as an unwanted child. 3. An abortion can result in medical complications later in life; the risk of ectopic pregnancies doubles, and the chance of a miscarriage and pelvic inflammatory disease also increases. 4. In the instance of rape and incest, proper medical care can ensure that a woman will not get pregnant. Abortion punishes the unborn child who committed no crime; instead, it is the perpetrator who should be punished. 5. Abortion should not be used as another form of contraception. 6. For women who demand complete control of their body, control should include preventing the risk of unwanted pregnancy through the responsible use of contraception or, if that is not possible, through abstinence. 7. Many Americans who pay taxes are opposed to abortion, therefore it's morally wrong to use tax dollars to fund abortion. 8. Those who choose abortions are often minors or young women with insufficient life experience to understand fully what they are doing. Many have lifelong regrets afterwards. 9. Abortion frequently causes intense psychological pain and stress.
unmanned drones

Pro has forfeited this argument, I will still show my reasons though Reasons drones are bad: 1. The average terrorist/civilian ratio is 1:50. That means for every terrorist killed, about 50 civilians are also killed. 2. The government now has the ability to spy on Americans 3. Once a man shot down a government drown that was spying on his daughter, the government then fined him for "damaging government property" I could keep going, but since pro has already forfeited, I guess I win. source: http://rare.us...
unmanned drones

If you accept you accept all rules, terms, and conditions. Rules: 1: Use sources 2: Be respectful 3: Stick to rounds 4: Have fun 5: Breaking a rule results in automatic forfeit to me Rounds: 1: Acceptance 2: Opening statements 3: Questions 4: Answers 5: Closing statements and why the viewers should vote for you. Good luck and let the debate begin whenever my opponent is ready!