BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Universal Health Care in the US

"Okay, but if the government didn't take our money, we wouldn't have anything. We wouldn't have public school, social security, agricultural programs, welfare, legitimately every government program ever done." It is nessesary for the government to fund some programs, but taxes are already high for people and UHC would make taxes more expensive to taxpayers."nearly one-third of Americans face each day without the security of knowing that, if and when they need it, medical care is available to them and their families." 82 million people out of 320 million is not 1/3 people, but 1/4. My site says it's closer to 10%. I think the Centers for disease control is more reliable then PBS because the CDC is a .gov site whereas PBS is a .org site.You said that a church would have to pay almost $1 million a year for healthcare costs from our similar fiscal estimates. But is this actually feisible?80% of people are religious to some level. Of them, https://en.wikipedia.org...;(a little reliable and very convienent) states that about 50% of Christains attend religious worship services, this is probably more common for religious minorities, since they tend to be more religious. 20% of Christains tithe, but if all other donations get added up, and since some tithers pay more then a tithe, lets assume the church gets paid by about half of their attendence tithing since it's about equivilant..8*.5*.5=.2 or 20% of the US population tithing to the Church.The US GDP per capita (their annual salary) is about $57,000 (https://data.worldbank.org...)(), $18 trillion when including the whole nation(https://data.worldbank.org...).18 trillion*.2*.1(a tithe)=$360 billion a year going to churches. $360 billion/350,000=$1,028,517 per yearThere are matinence costs, but these are nominal by comparision. If the church raises $1,028,517 and has to pay $914,284 in the name of their religion, since Jesus says, "Sell all you have and give to the poor", then the church could donate their money to paying for poor people's health insurance, with enough cash to sustain the church worker's lives.Jesus sais to help the poor, so if the church donates money to people to pay for their healthcare bill, then this is a religious cause for the church. If your an atheist, this doesn't stop you from going into churches and asking them for health insurance money. I'm an atheist an I plan on going to church. Since Churches can afford it, a truly Christain Church would pay for it. Given that they have about $110,000 left over, this can pay for their annual expenses.Vote Con.Thanks, I await your big boy response.
Universal Health Care in the US

"How is it that if the government pays for it, that is "immoral." It is the government's job to take care of its citizens, and that is exactly what UHC does. " It's immoral because the government requires very high taxes to pay for UHC, and it's kindof like legal stealing since not all people involved consent to it. If 2 people decide to steal money from a 3rd person, this wouldn't be moral since it infringes on the rights of the 3rd person."You are providing a red herring instead of actual reasoning by saying that it isn't morally correct, because it is." This was an accident if it happened at all. I don't even think I went off topic, I was merely stating how the church would be better then the government, since it usses consensual funds whereas the government uses funds collected by force.I'm assuming you believe that donations would not be able to fund this, but many people to the church tithe so they alone contribute more then a $5 donation.Lets see if the church can pay for it. Given that churches and other POWs claim to be religious and non materialistic, they shouldn't care how poor they become."1/3 of the US population has no healthcare/inadequate healthcare" No. It's closer to 10%(https://www.cdc.gov...). 1/10 of the US population is about 32 million people(https://www.census.gov...)(http://www.worldometers.info...). Although grudingly I say this, the average cost of health insurance was higher then your number ($18,764 on average)(http://www.ncsl.org...). Since these are poor people that we're talking about, their insurance won't be super great. Lets assume that theirs is $10,000 per year.$10000*32 million= About $320 billion, slightly less then your estimate.http://www.tithing.com... that collectively Christain causes alone got about $370 billion from Christains. While these funded other causes, like giving food to the poor, this money could be used to fund their health insurance.
Universal Health Care in the US

Okay. So I'm just gonna go back to something you said in your first response. "there are more moral ways to do pay for it." How is it that if the government pays for it, that is "immoral." It is the government's job to take care of its citizens, and that is exactly what UHC does. You are providing a red herring instead of actual reasoning by saying that it isn't morally correct, because it is. And instead, you say that it becomes the churches job to supply millions of people with "donations?" It makes absolutely no sense. This whole "church thing" is so weird to me. I'm confused on what you think the churches would be doing for you. You say, "donations," but the churches simply can't pay for it. Lets do some math! 1/3 of the US population has no healthcare/inadequate healthcare (so by your logic, they should get church donations). How much is 1/3 of the population?: 82 MILLION. Now, how much is average healthcare for an individual annually?: $4,358 Lets multiply 82,000,000 x $4,358 = $357,356,000,000=about $357 BILLION So you expect that amount of money to come from CHURCHES, which as you've said, get money from donations, so their income isn't that much. And on top of that, they have to pay for expenses to host events, pay rent, etc. Your entire plan revolves around POW, but as I have proven, it is extremely unfeasible, and even if it was possible, it would be harmful to POWs all over the country. Thanks
Universal Health Care in the US

"In my area, there aren't any churches because my cities and the ones around it aren't religious." I thought every city had at least 1 place of worship(POW) for people. The city I live in has 12. Nonetheless, if there was someone who couldn't afford health insurance and there were no POWs around, they could move to a city where there was a POW so they can collect health insurance money.If moving sounds very crazy, it is a very common thing to do for young people, my parents moved 2x each. https://fivethirtyeight.com... that it's much more common. https://www.census.gov... that 1/9 Americans move per year. If this is compounded over 20 years, it's easy to see how common it is.When I said people should be encouraged to get healthcare, it means that getting healthcare would be a good idea. However, it also ment that the government shouldn't force you to get it, even if you could afford it. The site also says that poor people are disproportionally more likely to move. The more moral ways I believed that people could raise the money for their healthcare is by:-The POWs. If your in a rare enough situation to not have a church around, then you can move out of your town to a place where there is a POW. If your an atheist, you can still get money from churches since churches are willing to help out anyone since they want to do the Christain thing and love their neighbor as themselves, even if that neighbor is non religious.-They can depend on donations from their family and friends to help pay fot it. Families and friends tend to be generous towards one another.-They could pay for it if they can afford to. If they can't, they can use either or both of the bullet points above.
Universal Health Care in the US

Okay, but not everyone has access to these religious places as you have stated. In my area, there aren't any churches because my cities and the ones around it aren't religious. I am ultimately really confused by what are you trying to say. Because you say, "people should be encouraged to have health care (what does that mean? What if they can't afford it?)." Then you say, "I simply think that there are other more moral ways for the money to be raised for those that can't afford it." Can you give some examples? And then you talk about the churches, but as I have already stated, that isn't the most reliable way to help poor people.
Universal Health Care in the US

While I think people should be encouraged to have health insurance, I don't believe that it should be mandatory to the extent of having Universal Healthcare(UH).To me, it's not about how much it costs but how the money is raised. Advocates of UH claim that the government should pay for UH. I simply think that there are other more moral ways for the money to be raised for those that can't afford it.I think that if someone is poor enough to not be able to afford health insurance, they can depend on church donations to get some money for UH. If they are Jewish, they can depend on a synigoge and so on. This way, they can get enough money for insurance with consensual means, since churches are funded by donations.I await Pro's response.
Essential state services should not be privatized

To answer my opponent's question, robo-squirrels were, and may still be on development as part of the US's spy program. Yes, I know. Now, on to the matter at hand: Competition My opponent can be assured that I fully understood his point, and responded to it in my previous entry. Two candidates competing over who can provide the highest-costing services at the lowest prices is not a viable way to manage money. Occasionally, a potential fiduciary will pop up who endorses fiscal responsibility, but if the US budget is any indication (1), their either lying or do not get elected. Voters are furthermore quite unlikely to support someone who promises to cut budgets for utilities or raise the prices of these federal services. Any competition within government is either nonexistent or not beneficial. Much of the electorate will cast their ballot for the candidate offering them more luxury, not prudent monetary application If lawsuits are tedious to file in South Korea, then I am afraid that is yet another failure of the government, not of Capitalism or private industry. Spending Others' Money My opponent's use of a borrowed textbook is invalid. Tax money is not borrowed, it is taken, by force if necessary, and it is delegated to the sole ownership of government. One would happily take notes in a text book if it was officially theirs. Candidates know that the more money they spend, the more likely they are to be elected. Additionally, since the government belongs to the government and not a specific leader, that delegate has no personal connection to the money, and so possesses no reason to use it. I must ask, really? The government is motivated to do good by obligation? Yes, and high school students always turn in excellent homework due to obligation. And convicts always try their best when performing community service because of obligation. The point here is, an involuntary action is not favorable as a consequence of its mandatory nature. It is, in fact, the other way around. When no great personal accomplishment is achieved by an action, there is simply no motivation to complete it. I have great respect for my opponent, but this strikes me as quite a desperate argument. In conclusion, I find no real reason that government can, will, or has provided good service without monetary waste, whereas the natural forces of the free market, competition and the division of labor, almost guarantee both these things.
Essential state services should not be privatized

Thanks to Con for diligently posting his arguments. I'll move on to my rebuttals right away. Rebuttal) 1. About his first rebuttal) I'll start from the back. First, about the government. I think Con may have misunderstood me. Let me try and explain things a bit more clearly. No citizen would want to support a politician who takes astronomical sums of money and wastes it all on useless things like robo-squirrels. When a political party makes motions in which money is used wisely, as such in state services too, the number of the people supporting this party will obviously increase. And to parties, supporters are everything. They will do their possible best to fulfill the needs and wants of the citizens, which includes the quality and etc. of the state services. Next, about his first reason. Yes, that might be true in western capitalist society. However, in our society lawsuits are very hard to file. The procedure is much more complicated than the States. But I think this is kind of a stalemate. 2. About his second rebuttal) OK I get what you're saying about robo-squirrels. But about 'not their own money'? That I find a bit hard to accept. My view is that because it is somebody else's money, precious taxpayer's money, the government would try to use it much more wisely. For an everyday example, if you borrow somebody else's textbook, you don't doodle on it like you usually do. Also, about the 'government's duty' thing. Con accuses the government of having no motivation to provide quality goods; but in fact they do. The motivation they have is their duty, their responsibility, their sense of obligation is their motivation, which is a much more purer motivation than personal gain, which can lead to more selfless services. That's about it. Oh yeah, why the hell was the government making robo-squirrels in the first place? Just curious
Essential state services should not be privatized

1. I was under the impression I had responded to this in my previous round, but perhaps I ought to elaborate. My opponent claims that a business's drive for profit will inspire it to reduce quality and "cut corners", endangering lives and providing weak service. However, the forces of the free market prevent this from happening for two primary reasons. The first of these reasons are lawsuits, a popular pursuit in western capitalist society. If a corporation harms the customer or the market, or engages in shady business, then it is liable for massive, crippling payouts that serve as harsh justice, and deter enterprises from deviating from health and safety standards. One such example would be the car giant Toyota, who is being taken to the bank over alleged failures in the break system in a number of their models. (1) You can be that other dealerships will not fall to the same error anytime soon, serving as an example of how lawsuits control business. The second reason is the business itself. Providing shoddy service, whether it be a problem of quality, price, treatment, or otherwise, will result in a loss of clientele and customers. An example to this point is Chick-Fil-A, who is suffering heavy boycotts because of the owner"s anti-gay policies. (2) Should Chick-Fil-A wish these customers back, an alteration in attitude would be required; the business would have to change. This is a principle that is fundamental to capitalism, and keeps the society afloat. I would argue that the Government is not sufficiently subjected to these tests of legitimacy. Lawsuits against Government are quite futile, as Government claims no responsibility for the individual grievances against its employees. Furthermore, my opponent"s attempt to argue that politicians vying for a fiduciary position allow for business competition within government is simply invalid. Taking money from other people and seeing who can spend the most of it and make the least back is not a promising business model. For competition to work, personal gain must be at stake. 2. I must make this brief. My point about the robo-squirrels is the extreme waste one allows for when they do not spend their own money;if government cant waste millions on these squirrels, why should be believe they will spend wisely on education or safety. Now, my opponent says "government does have the duty to provide its citizens". Indeed, but "duty" doesn"t imply a desire to do something, whereas businesses actually want to conduct the operation, as there is personal gain in it. Government has no motivation to provide quality goods, whereas business does. It"s all down to competition. As I have few characters left, I must wrap up. Good luck to my opponent. (1) . http://injury.findlaw.com... (2) . http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Essential state services should not be privatized

Thanks to my opponent for responding to my challenge so enthusiastically. Now I'm going to move on to my rebuttals. Rebuttal) 1. About that 'invisible hand'- My opponent has agreed that these corporations are more interested in profit. So, to repeat, because they want more profit, they have high possibility to provide less quality of service than the government. One side of that low quality would be that they would like to use less money and get more profit. And if they wished to provide high quality, their price would get higher, because they need to make money. The job of the companies is to make money, whereas the government tends to strive more for the citizens. This means that however feasible the prices of the companies are, it cannot be lower than the prices of the government, which means that private services tend to have the possibility to exclude poor people with no money in the services. I'll explain the other side in other rebuttals. 2. About his next paragraph- This paragraph seems to be an extension of the former paragraph. That's cool. I'll pass. 3. About his accusation about the government- Just because the government made mistakes in the cases the opponent has listed before doesn't mean that their quality is lacking. In fact, I can't find a link between 'robo-squirrels' and 'essential state services'. Where I come from(South Korea), robo-squirrels aren't essential state services. At least the last time I checked. My point is that the government does have the duty to provide its citizens a certain quality of life. And there is one more thing the companies can't win the government in. And that's stability. Corporations go through a number of crises. In course of these crises, the price could become higher, the quality could become lower, or the system itself might fail entirely. However, the government's services are much more stable. It's always their duty to provide citizens with a stable service. Additionally, about the government having no competition, in fact it does. All executives always look toward reelection. This causes the government to strive toward getting a good image. So, it tries to provide low prices, good quality, and not wasting taxes, etc. My opinion is that the pressure of the reelection will make the public services much better. Back to Con...
Essential state services should not be privatized

Thank you for starting this debate, sir, and I hope it will be fun and informative. My opponent provides the definition of a "public service". He made it clear that we refer not to welfare or military strength, but instead to slightly less necessary functions, among which might include electricity and water, mail service, public transportation, education, and certain medical services. Thus, it is my incentive to prove that government provides inadequate coverage of these utilities, at unreasonable prices, and that private business offers a much more sustainable alternative, while my opponent must endeavor to show the opposite. Best of luck to him, and may the best man win. The Beauty of Greed My adversary makes several claims that while I do not question factually, are misconstrued as negative attributes. Indeed, a business does strive toward the ascertation of profit, but is the magnificent "invisible hand", as Adam Smith puts it, that makes private corporation superior to bureaucracy. It is the very need for profit that not only results in feasible prices and costs needed to overcome competition, but that drives private service above that of any government. My opponent says of corporation, "they are not interested in things that have no profit because there will be only economical loss". Because of the inexorable connection between profit, service, and price, this is simply a fallacy. If a business fails to provide adequate goods, or charges too much, their competition, or indeed the government, will ensure their ultimate demise. This is the grisly fate that awaited, for example, Tielenic Acid, a tragic story I would detail had I more characters to spare. (1) While my opponent believes government has a "duty" to provide various assistances, the results of government meddling, both in quality and fiscally of these services prove otherwise. Endless examples of government throwing away money can be found. 27 million spent on pottery classes, half a million spent on a lavish bathroom in a national park, millions of dollars spent on robo-squirrels (2), the list goes on. The reasons for this are simple, and they came in two forms: government doesn"t spend its own money, and is not subjected to competition. Government has no need to be frugal with its monetary supply, nor does it need to provide quality service, as it is neither challengeable nor replaceable. Were essential services privatized, even in the few cases where utilities became more expensive, citizens would still net an ultimate gain as a result of lower taxes: for example, were education privatized, the American people as a unit would retain 809 billion dollars every single year.(3) I have much more to say, but I must wait for future rounds. I eagerly await my opponent"s next entry. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) https://www.mytotalmoneymakeover.com... (3) http://rossieronline.usc.edu...