BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Privatization of Government Policies

Privatisation will always result in an emphasis on efficiency and profit. The vulnerable and the poorest in society will always suffer from such a scenario. The question of prioritising health care and rationing will always favour the rich, since targeting vulnerable groups will be an inefficient use of resources. It is simply impossible to have a free market in, for example, national defence or street lighting. Furthermore, the best choices for funding Health care and education in the long term are made by disinterested governments rather than egoistic consumers. If a government-owned company providing an essential service (such as the water supply) to all citizens is privatised, its new owner(s) could lead to the abandoning of the social obligation to those who are less able to pay, or to regions where this service is unprofitable.As many areas which the government could provide are essentially profitless, the only way private companies could, to any degree, operate them would be through contracts or block payments. In these cases, the private firm's performance in a particular project would be removed from their performance, and embezzlement and dangerous cost cutting measures might be taken to maximize profits.Industries with extremely high barriers to entry, specifically those which require large levels of infrastructure such as Land Line Telecoms, Water, Gas, Electricity should only be privatised if genuine competition can be introduced. Otherwise the incentive to increase profits can be too easily met through price rises, as consumers have no alternative. This means there is no incentive to invest in efficiency or service as a means to improve profit, as this requires avoidable risk taking.
vaccinations

yes there are a lot of chemicals that are used to keep the vaccine at a homoestasis state while it is being stored but you keep bringing up how alot of people die from vaccinations. 1 in 1,000,000 people die from a vaccination annually. that is not alot of death due to vaccinations. yes diseases have been going down before vaccinations because of improved sanitations and hygein but whern vaccines came into play the death rate dropped significantly. http://youtu.be...
vaccinations

I must agree with you, however vaccines can become contaminated. These contaminents come from many place. One example of a case of these contaminations is the case of the Rotarix vaccine contamination in 2008. (CNN) Also there are the items used in a vaccine such as the preservative Thimerosal. Thimerosal is a murcury- based preservative. (Vac-Gen) Also the onther things that can contaminate a vaccine are virus DNA, fungi, the same virus DNA , larg amounts of specific ingredients like Thimerosal that are present in vaccines already.http://www.cnn.com... http://www.cdc.gov...
vaccinations

yes allergies can happen and yes they can be bad but that's when you have to think about the single person over the whole population. weigh the risks for getting and not getting vaccinations. Not getting vaccinated leaves a big chance for infections to happen and from one person the infection spreads more and more till it can get as bad as a epidemic. Making vaccinations mandatory is also a god think what happens when someone from a foreign country comes into ours and they are carriers to some disease. If we make vaccinations mandatory then that immigrant who carries a disease can be cured and treated before it gets to be a big problem. www.healthychildren.com
vaccinations

I see your point as well, but there are sideffects that also can occur when having a vaccination. These sideffects can range from a sore area aroung the injection site to austism. (Vac-Gen) There is also a chance that a vaccine can cause an extreamly high fever in childred. This fever could very well cause a seizure. (Vac-Gen) If that is a risk in children of all ages then would it not stand to tell somone that a vaccination is not so easily thought about.http://www.cdc.gov...
vaccinations

i see your point but, the amount of people who are allergic to every vaccination that is put out is not very big. people may get some permanent injury's from a vaccination but they can got those same injury's with out the vaccination. the whole point of a vaccination is to kill a certain virus, bug, or bacteria that is spreading rapidly (healthny). The chance there is to get a injury from getting a vaccination is slim to none but getting a injury with out the vaccination is a bigger chance. A single vaccination can reduce the chances of disease, flues, or illness passing around down by 60%. the whole point of a vaccination is releasing a small controllable dose of the disease into the body so the white blood cells can adapt to fight the disease quickly and efficiently.
vaccinations

There is a possibility of a person becoming ill after a vaccination. This happens do to a great deal of reasons varying from previous illnesses and environmental issues. Vaccinations also have a small trace amount of the virus that they are meant to prevent. In some cases there is a possibility that that small amount of the virus can make the person sick. Thus meaning that vaccinations will not always prevent someone from getting ill. Also a person could have a compromised immune system when they go receive their vaccination. If that is the case the vaccination will not work. On top of that is the possibility of having an allergic reaction to all the chemicals and materials used within the vaccine. If someone does have such a reaction then they could be permanently injured.
vaccinations

vaccinations have been used for a long time now. people talk about how bad the economy is and how they do not like wasting money. making vaccinations mandatory saves more money than not using a vaccination and getting sick. (procons). studies have found out that for every 1$ spent on vaccinations 10$ are saved from medical cost. (medscape) Making vaccinations madatory also not only can save 151 billion dollars in 10 years but it can prevent the death and illness of 6.4 million people. (procons) A study has recorded that vaccinations can save 20,000,000 people from death,sickness, and disease saving a net of 13.5 billion and 68.8 billion in societal and economical costwww.medscape.com/viewarticle/744285vaccines.procon.org/
vaccinations

To end my side of the argument I will first relate back to the part of this debate where i mentioned the preservative Thimerosal. Thimerosal is a major igredient in childhood vaccines. It is aslo known as a neurotoxin. (Vac-Gen) Neurotixin are extreamly dangerous. It can kill you, cause you to become incopacitated, enter a coma, along with many oth issues. Also Vaccines contain aluminum. Aluminummakes the body produce more antibodies, but this could lead to allergies, asthma, eczema, lupus, inflammatory bowel disease, ADD, ADHD, and autism. (Vac-Gen) Also do to the aluminum there may be affects on the TH1 and TH2 parts of the immune system that could cause juvenile diabetes mellitusm rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, and uvets (NVIC) That is why a person sould not be mandated to have vaccination. http://www.nvic.org... http://www.cdc.gov...
vaccinations

to end this argument i will say i see and in a way agree with your points but, according to the The MMR vaccine controversy centered around the 1998 publication of a fraudulent research paper in the medical journal The Lancet that lent support to the subsequently discredited claim that colitis and autism spectrum disorders could be caused by the combined measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine. www.cdc.gov/ the vaccinations that gave people autism were a combination of two vaccinations not just one single vaccination. i believe vaccinations should be mandatory because people can be safer and with every safe person builds up a safer community which will expand to the world. On the flip side vaccinations not only prevent sickness but save alot of money in the long one in medical bills. According to MEDSCAP for every one dollar spend on vaccinations about 10 dollars are saved. i end this debate saying i had a good time arguing with you and that you had some really excellent points
Limerick War

Con thinks that his rhymes amuse, when frankly they only confuse, for his rhymes are so lacking when my verse is cracking he knows that this battle he'll lose. My style flows with such perfect meter, revealing that you are the weaker, I'm afraid your debate will deteriorate as mine just seems all the more sweeter. Beating you is just so easy, as your round was incredibly cheesy, recognise I'm the greater then take an inhaler and next time you won't sound so wheezy.
Limerick War

I would like to apologize for missing my round I had prior engagements, but because the format o the round needs to be 3 verses not on I would request that the round not be counted for we both made mistakes. My opponent has made his case, But much difficulty he will face, For if he wants to beat me, The loser he shall be, For epic rhymes he shall taste. I know he will try to win, But this round is in my bin, Deprive you I shant, For losing I can't, I shall end this debate with a grin. Now things are getting real, The round I am about to seal, I clearly can rhyme, The best in my time, In this debate I shall not kneel.
Limerick War

I'm saddened to see you withdraw, Was my chorus a chore to ignore? Did you not have the time, To respond to my rhyme? It was clear that you could not endure. Despite this, this round I'll enjoy, A host of techniques I'll employ, Sit son, take a seat Halt your hasty retreat, Your out of your depth, sonny boy. Last one now and this has been fun, Eating Santa from a hamburger bun, I gulped him down quickly But found him quite sickly As his style was a touch underdone.
Hitler was a hero

I apologize for forfeiting the previous round. I was busy then and so am I now, so I'll respond quickly. 1. My opponent said that those things Hitler did helped Germany out of problems, even though his intentions were evil. My opponent should understand that Hitler did bring Germany out of some problems, but the ship Germany was sailing avoided waves but not the iceberg. It means that the course Hitler chose for Germany was leading it to destruction, even though it also helped avoiding/solving some problems. 2. As I said before, all those good things Hitler did disappeared almost in no time, which led Germany into a state of destruction and occupation. The military was strong, but in the middle of 1945 it was very weak. The economy grew stronger, but in 1945 it went down. 3. As for Germans being proud of who they were due to Hitler, I think it's the opposite. It may be that they were proud whilst they believed in Hitler, but when the game was over, their land was occupied for a very long time, and Germany was bombed from all sides.
Hitler was a hero

My opponent argues "it was a big false promise to the people" 1.)Hitler gave Germans hope, Germans were ashamed of themselves because of being forced to take the blame of world war 1, at that time no one wanted to be a German but Hitler made the Germans proud of being German. 2.)Hitler tore up the treaty of Versailles which took land from the Germans unfairly, Hitler gained back the land that was stolen from the Germans 3.)Hitler made Germany's military power strong. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...
Hitler was a hero

To begin with, my opponent said that Hitler did not necessarily destroy Germany, because it was in a bad state from World War I already. I say that waging war against several countries, killing millions of people, and giving false hope to the citizens of Germany was not something that should have brought Germany out of a bad state. The people of Germany at that time wanted their country to be stable again, so they saw Hitler as being one who could solve all the problems, because he gave good, convincing speeches. However, no matter how convincing his speeches were, his plans to rule over Europe and slaughter innocent people cannot be justified. As I said before, what he achieved went to the ground in 1945. This means that whatever grew and became strong, vanished in 1945, hereby the financial growth my opponent mentioned. Moving on, my opponent staid that had it not been for Hitler, World War II would not have started, and USA might not have gotten out of depression. Let me ask: Is it good that the U.S. got out of the hard financial times, while over 50 million people died? Weren't there other ways to fix the economy? There were, indeed. Even thought it may have taken much longer, it was not impossible at all. Today, we have a world financial crisis, which is worse than the Great Depression, yet no fair-minded person I've heard of would want to kill numerous people to solve the problem Rather, there we must find other ways which are peaceful, and luckily it seems like we are able to follow the road to stability. Lastly, my opponent said that whether or not Hitler loved his people or not, they loved him, and that gave them hope to live another day. I've mentioned before that what he promised was no fulfilled, rather it was all a big, false promise to the people. And just because he influenced our modern culture in many ways does not mean that he was a good person.
Hitler was a hero

my opponent states "He was the reason why Germany was destroyed. " This is not neccesarily true as history tells us Germany was left in a bad state from world war 1 and other countries left Germany to suffer. With the Germans in a desperate state Hitler gave them hope and rose to power. 1. ) Through Hitler's polices the German economy increased. . http://www.schoolhistory.co.uk... 2. ) If it wasn't for Hitler world war 2 would have never started and the USA might not have gotten out of the depression. 3. ) Weather Hitler loved his people or not, his people loved him and that gave them hope to live another day. . http://www.jrbooksonline.com... Weather we want to admit it or not Hitler has influenced are modern culture in many ways.
Hitler was a hero

Many people in today's society see Hitler as an evil person but I am here to prove that Hitler was a hero I am not for the gruesome things Hitler did to Jews, gypsies, and handicaps and such but Hitler helped out people so much even at one point in history Hitler was a well known hero and I am here today to shed light on the heroic deeds of Hitler. Hero: a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities. http://dictionary.reference.com... Hitler:http://www.solarnavigator.net... If my opponent doesn't mind I would like to let them take the first speech and tell why Hitler was evil, and I thank whomever accepts this debate.
Soul exists

if I imagine a truck driving around, Is there therefore a truck driving around on or beneath the surface of my brain? The mind does not exist in this 4-D world. We can run through vivid visualized scenarios in our mind with full control over the objects and time in our minds. A blind man can still imagine shapes without a visual representation gained through sight. We may contribute to our minds through sensory organs, but even if we had less our minds would not be less.(Helen Keller) Mind does not have an alternate world... Mind IS an alternative 4-d world where we manipulate time and space. The brain being destroyed does not merit the destruction of the mind. The brain is simply the connection between the 2 groups of 4 dimensions. Destroying the brain is only destroying the connection. Since the brain is the only connection, the mind becomes intangible therefore Immortal. Regardless of if you can continue to think or it is partial, it is still there, it is immaterial, it is immortal
Soul exists

A1) Since I said Mind is a function of the brain, my opponent's question "where is the mind's place" is illogical. R6) No, we can't "manipulate time and 3-D space", we can imagine world with less dimensions, and we can imagine we are doing something in these dimensions. But, we can't imagine new dimensions. We can only think about 4 dimensions that do exist. R7) Mind does not have "alternative world". Daydreaming is only brain processing information. About brain-mind relation: . http://youtu.be... R8) If brain is destroyed, there is no more mind either. Of course past will not alter, all thoughts that were, will remain in the past. But after brain is destroyed, there will be no more new thoughts. Conclusion: My opponent failed to name a reason for us to believe that soul exists.
Soul exists

Where is the minds place in a 4 dimensional(incl. time) world? In our minds we can manipulate time and 3-D space, yet the 4-dimensions found outside our mind are not altered making them independent. we can conceive more then 4 Dimensions. When one daydreams they are not conscious of their surroundings, only of the alternative world of their mind. you can then say there are therefore 8 dimensions, 2 independent groups of 4 dimensions. the outer 4-dimensions and inner 4 dimensions with the connection being the brain. if consciousness were sand and these 2 groups of dimensions were opposite sides of an hour glass. we can roughly illustrate how consciousness can travel back and forth between the inner and outer dimensions. If the 2 dimensional groups (inner&outer)can not interact without brain, even with the destruction of the brain how can mind completely be destroyed? only one side of the hourglass is destroyed(outer), not both, making the other half(intact inner half) immortal.
Soul exists

R1) We can't look at the world as more then 4 dimensional(incl. time). We can only look at the world as 4 dimensional(incl. time). R2) World with more then 4 dimensions(incl. time) is inconceivable. Q1) What is dimensional aspect and how is it measured? Q2) Within what? R3) Consciousness: 1. the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings. 2. a person's awareness or perception of something. https://www.google.me... Neither state, or awareness or perception can move. R4) Mind is not result of the brain, it is function of the brain; One of the things brain does. R5) Matter is indestructible, it can only change its form. As far as we know, atoms that once were part of human body are no different then atoms that never were.
Soul exists

If we look at the world as more then just 3 dimensional(4 incl. time) we would then have to find three-dimensional objects with a higher dimensional aspect. Where could these greater dimensions be found? The only place that would seem logical is within. I will use our minds as an example. We can move our consciousness from this reality to our own. never truly being in both with complete focus. We can alter time and space there. It can be considered a 4-d universe of our own we fill with information we gain in life. It is believed the mind is a result of the brain. Can the result continue to exist even though what created it has perished? we are simply a cloud of electrons, if such electrons can not be truly destroyed can this additional aspect of ourselves truly be destroyed? or does it become self sustained and free from its 3 dimensional form? The soul is a logical possibility, it is a rational expectation. to prove it could exist is possible, to prove it does exist is irrelevant.
It's better to have a katana than a shotgun for a zombie apocalypse.

This debate had one too many rounds... though I suppose my opponent will disagree :D I suppose the question really comes down to, are there enough shotgun shells available - either premade or through some form of manufacture, should such a means be found - to clear out a big enough area for a long enough time to ensure indefinite survival? My opponent thinks no, I think yes. When it comes down to the purposes of this debate, it's less about which is better and more about whether a shotgun is suitable at all. I know of no "silencer" for a shotgun, though I hardly consider myself an expert on the subject, so as noted above, I concede the point about noise. My opponent has shown that the katana is a viable weapon for someone who is trained in its use or can train on the fly. As far as smell, I don't think fish will fool a zombie, I think only dead zombie flesh in large quantities will fool a zombie nose, flesh which was already established is a dangerous thing to be around more than is absolutely necessary due to the risk of infection. If the slightest drop in an open wound or a mucus membrane would cause a person to turn, then one would want to distance themselves as much as possible from any dead humans, whether it is known if they're a zombie or not. So that, dear judges, is what this debate hinges on. Are my points more compelling, or are my opponents? That is for you to decide. Thank you, DakotaKrafick, for this most interesting and thought-provoking debate.
It's better to have a katana than a shotgun for a zombie apocalypse.

1. Opting outDropped by my opponent.2. Availability of weapons/ammunitionI already stated in my previous round that it should be assumed we'd start with either weapon. The question of the debate is "Which would you rather have" not "Which could you more easily get".And my opponent has done nothing to further rebut the point about the scarcity of ammunition, except equate that to the deterioration a katana would undergo if not properly cared for. The response to this is simple: take proper care of your sword and there will be no deterioration. The most it seems you need, according to my opponent's source, it some cleaning alcohol, a napkin, and some kind of powder and oil, though the source doesn't seem to mention how often you will need to apply these items.A shotgun also requires proper cleaning regularly, with the use of gun oil, cleaning rods, patches, etc. [1] especially if it's used often and in undesirable conditions (such as rain, but what are you going to do, not shoot zombies because it's raining?). Otherwise it can experience severe performance problems, such as not being able to chamber a round or having too much built-up gun residue (and other blockage) that the pressure caused when the trigger is pulled is too high and the barrel can literally explode in your face.So I disagree that the maintenance required for a katana balances out the scarcity and necessity of 12-gauge shells. More accurately, the maintenance required by a katana balances out the maintenance required by a shotgun, plus there's the extra problem of a shotgun needing scarce 12-gauge shells (giving the katana in this case the... edge! Get it?).3. Time taken to kill/number of kills possible per swing or shotgun blastFor the most part, I must agree with my opponent. The time taken to severe the hands will be about equal to the time taken to chamber and pump each shell, if the weapons are both expertly wielded.And I do even have to give the shotgun the slight edge in the sense that a single shot can conceivably take out more than one zombie if they happened to be standing close enough to each other. However, the slight edge the shotgun has on this point is not equal to the edge the katana has in the last point. I would much rather have a weapon that can kill zombies for a virtually infinite number of kills (even if it must be one singular kill after another) than a weapon that can take out two zombies simultaneously for a finite number of kills (being however many shotgun shells you have in your pocket at the time).4. Clean killsNeutrally dropped.5. NoiseConceded by my opponent.6. SmellMy opponent says, and I quote, "there is as much basis for saying they have no sense of smell as there is for saying they have a supernaturally acute sense of smell" (which is to say none at all). I gladly agree to this. His argument had no basis. But again, no matter how acute their smell is, it was outlined in the instigation that you can trick a zombie's sense of smell, a point my opponent did not address. Therefore, stealth with a katana is possible (but impossible with a shotgun).[1] http://www.ehow.com...