BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Universal Health Care

First off on the bread and circuses point....... um what? case in point? you have given no warrants for how they are doing nothing, you do bring up the NHS waiting times in the UK but let's take a look at your conclusion drawn from it.... you say this is all because of no competition between hospitals or insurance companies but this is wrong..... The real problem with the NHS waiting times is an influx in patients where the infrastructure of the health care system isn't built in a way to handle it, so it slows down.. Let's look at Japan who also has a universal health care system yet is able to keep waiting times down.... why is this? it's because they have the infrastructure to support it......... (Also life saving surgeries don't go through the NHS in the UK which means that they wouldn't be waiting) On your second point you say that if there was less interference then private companies would compete more...... if this was true then we would've had the best health care system in the world for the last 40 years..... however we see through US history that this isn't the case as the World Health Organization has ranked us as 37th..... Your other point about free health care not actually being free is correct in the that instance however when you say that the average man would have to pay insanely high taxes , this isn't true... Let us remember that when you have the govt involved as the middle man they are able to negotiate the prices lower so it is more affordable...... ALSO you have not attacked my point when I was talking about Health care being an inelastic demand, this means that companies can raise their prices and people still need the insurance just as much and so they are forced to buy it anyways. the WHO ranking is based on first off the quality of our care, which we ranked 15, and secondly how much it cost which we came in 1st place, as in our health care costs the absolute most.... this gave us an overall ranking of 37..... if you want to call it biased then that's your choice but these are the 2 issues here, that I have stated over and over, it costs too much, and it lacks quality. You have stated that if we left the companies alone then we would see better quality and lower prices... this hasn't been the case when we did leave them alone so we know that that isn't true... There has still been no argument against mine that universal HC should be a right There has been no argument against mine that universal HC saves money.
Universal Health Care

I was honestly expecting for this to result in an all-caps I'M RIGHT contest. :) First off, you attacked my bread and circuses point. You say 'the government is essentially acting as a middle man between insurance and the people". Really now? You do realize that paying insurance companies to give absolutely no real care is ridiculous? Case in point. Recently, the NHS waiting list for care in Britain has reached 2.9 million people! And I'd guess that a few of these people are waiting for, oh I don't know, life saving surgery? This is all because there is no real competition among hospitals OR insurance companies, so this is excruciating to people who need quick surgery. You repeatedly argue that a poor man can't afford insurance, usually. Absolutely correct. But again, if there was less regulation and less government interference, private insurance companies could compete more. With more competition, companies would be forced to have prices lowered, eventually reaching a point where the poor man could afford it. Now, this is circumstantial, but still better than a system where the man is forced to pay insanely high taxes for 'free' health care. I say insanely high because, let's be honest, to have a 'free' health care system, taxes would have to be completely abolished, and we would all have to live in some utopian, lollipops and rainbows state (i. e Obamanation). Also, the Who is extremely politically biased. Fox could say all non-universal health care systems are best. Thing is, they're just as biased, so just as wrong. I look forward to your final arguments, and to the voting!
Universal Health Care

Thank you for joining me, Progressive Slayer! I am hoping this will be a very interesting debate. Please understand that I am new to this format and website, so please excuse any faults in sentence structure, as well as certain rules. An issue with government run health care is the bargaining side of things. What do I mean by this? I mean that when a single entity controls what the price for health care is, who is to say what the actual quality will be? In this case, the hospitals. However, when hospitals are being paid off by the government, the quality begins to diminish. After all, what's the point in having good service, when you have no reason to get better? No matter what, the government will continue to subsidize the faulty hospitals anyway. Remember that the people who own these hospitals are out to make money. They are businessmen and business women. Helping people is secondary. Of course, my argument may be biased because I cannot stand subsidization. This is exactly what government run health care is, a subsidization of hospitals. You have to remember that humans are always out to gain, which isn't always a bad thing. But in the scenario of universal health care. .. it becomes disastrous. As previously stated, it's all about the money. Who cares about helping people when you're rolling in Benjamins? I would also like to address your counter argument of my point, "major insurance companies fail because people flock to the government". It is quite apparent that throughout history, when a government provides a service this big to people, people most definitely do flock to the government. All you have to do is look at the ancient roman program, 'bread and circuses', whereby the government would provide certain types of food and basic entertainment to the public, in exchange for some salary. This system, introduced by Emperor Augustus, eventually collapsed, and threw the entire economy into disarray. Thank you for reading.
Universal Health Care

FIRST - I want to make it clear that in this round I am going to support single-payer health care rather than the health care mandate that Obamacare is. Contention 1: Health care should be a right the problem with companies providing health care is that it is, in a way, an inelastic demand. What is an inelastic demand? well it is a service that if the price was raised people could just stop buying it. A lot of people say "Well, You can stop buying health insurance," and this is a troubled way of thinking. Think about a man who is so poor that he can barely pay for the clothes on his back, he finds it hard to make it to every next meal; this man gets a cut on his hand, he wraps it up and moves on. 2 days later his hand hurts where he was cut; he has the obvious choice of going to the doctor and getting it looked at, or being able to pay for his next few meals. He chooses to eat, because you cant live without food, 3 days later the man is dead from staph infection. .. . This man had to choose between dying from starvation or dying from staph infection. .. .. . AND the government is the only thing suitable for providing rights to people because of the fact that there isn't that competition there. Contention 2: saves money You feel a pain in your side and ignore it, a few days later your appendix explodes and you're in the hospital getting an expensive surgery, if you had caught it at the pain and gone to the doctor then it would have cost a couple bucks of antibiotics, but the surgery cost thousands of dollars. .. .. You can't pay it because you don't have insurance, you file bankruptcy and the cost of that surgery is added to the premiums of other people with insurance. .. .. . catching things early is key to saving money and we can't do that when we're so reluctant to go to the doctors, in Japan people go to the doctors 6 times a year on average. On Capitalism194's points (his point) 'Major insurance companies will fail because people flock to the govt. ' -------- first off this isn't true for the fact that I think all universal health care systems except Taiwan have it set up like this. .. . the government pays for the insurance. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. that means that they pay the insurance companies. .. . All I have to do is point at Health insurance companies in the UK which are doing perfectly fine. (his point) 'competition is non-existent' -------- All insurance is, is paying for health care, the actual care received comes from hospitals not the govt. .. and the fact that the insurance companies are still there means that this point fails to gain traction. .. .. SIDENOTE----- nearly all of our serious developments in medication happen due to publicly funded universities and hospitals
Universal Health Care

Hello. It is my argument that universal health care doesn't work. I have multiple reasons for this. First and foremost, in my mind, is an economic reason. When a government runs a 'business' as large as universal health care, lots of citizens flock towards the program. Now, because the government now has the majority of citizens in this program, major insurance companies begin to fail. This results in a loss of thousands, perhaps millions of jobs, and millions of dollars in revenue. Of course, another major problem arises; if there is no competition for the government, than who is to say what the quality of the insurance is? After all, you can't expect a company to have quality products unless it has a reason to become better. This means that the quality of health insurance drops significantly, and many people aren't happy with the program anymore. Now, I would like some opposition to this.
Government intervention is always a retardant of beneficial market mechanisms.

This is a philosophical defense of government intrusion into the markets, for they can be capable of rational and efficient economic order. This will be a refutation of the notion that government is wholly incapable of efficiently allocating scarce resources towards warranted economic employments. Like free markets, the government isn't perfect, nor able to usher in immortality. However, my defense is of a mixed economy that leaves particular aspects to government, while leaving others to markets. I agree to all 3 definitions put forth, and I will leave the next round to Pro's arguments, points, refutations, and criticisms. Also, thanks for the debate challenge.
Government intervention is always a retardant of beneficial market mechanisms.

This is a philosophical defense of markets and an attempted refutation of government intrusion into market activity. To be clear, my argument is not that politicians/the government are evil, in general, but rather that it, the government, is structurally defunct and wholly incapable of efficiently allocating scarce resources towards warranted economic employments. My argument will focus on the incentive structure set in place for politicians, and the fact that the government (central planning) lacks certain mechanisms/social institutions that are absolutely required for a rational and efficient economic order. Essentially, the government has a knowledge problem. Again, I do not believe that free markets are perfect, or that they will usher in a utopian paradise of infinite abundance, immortality and perpetual peace. Key concepts and definitions: Profit: (From previous debate): Profit (in an unfettered economy) is comprised of two different components, namely revenue and costs (revenue – costs = profit). In order to maximize revenue, firms must produce goods and services that are desired by society and they must out-compete their competitors. In order to do this, they must offer the highest possible quality for the lowest possible price. Next, minimizing costs means using as little resources as possible in the production process. Thus, profit maximization is the production of the highest quality goods, at the lowest possible prices, while utilizing the minimal amount of scarce resources as possible. Rational: The desire to better ones own condition--doing the best you can with what you have available to you. Not to be conflated with reasoning ability/knowledge. Tacit/Idiosyncratic knowledge: Knowledge that is difficult to transfer to another person by means of writing it down or verbalizing it and which exists at the individual level. It differs from formal, explicit, and scientific knowledge.
This house believes that "Knowledge is impossible"

There was a time when people accepted that the world was flat. One day we will look back on what we knew now and see that it's just as stupid if not even more drastically. I mean where was the 20th dimension in their texts, no where. Is a human capable of knowledge whether solipsism is real or not. Does am ant have knowledge? It's meaningless so would it even be knowledge, no. A being from an advanced future would do the same thing about whether current knowledge is possible. They would say it's pointless so it's not knowledge. You can't even say that futuristic knowledge is possible because it's not confirmed.
This house believes that "Knowledge is impossible"

1. The idea of using evidence in terms of repeat testing. The same outcome may come for endless tests but this does not mean it is meant to forever be the outcome. 2. Probability is used with the acceptance that it is just an estimate, yet it is still used. Why can it not be the one red ball each time over the five yellows? The entire drakes equation is refuted apart from it explaining what the conditions for Asian life WOULD be without accepting that estimates based on probability can also have the opposite unlikeliest result. If your taking the content of what the piece of knowledge is as what it materially represents then it is impossible as it is not that absolute thing. For example a diagram of a network of roads is not the actual roads. It is possible to visualise a diagram of the roads but not the entirety of the actual road network from ground level, that understanding of seeing the whole number of roads is impossible. This kind of knowledge, the knowledge of how something feels which is limited to a humans sensory capabilities.
This house believes that "Knowledge is impossible"

Knowledge is usually seen as doing the function of thinking of or acting upon something mentally retained, if it is a sapient organism with the Earthly organ of a brain in question or even a solipsist cosmos where that one being is the whole of the surrounding physics. I argue that whether a claim is logically proven or not logically proven it is the behaviour of the sapient being that is what makes that "knowledge" or claim of fact have a point to it. For logically proven knowledge it does matter, something as simple as happiness is good and sadness is bad. Knowledge that is not logically proven yet still matters. There actually can be knowledge that is not logically proven. Where a statement of claim turns out to be fact. It is all down to the sapient being behaving according to the knowledge that makes knowledge itself matter.
# of rounds in debate should be increased

My opponents point was that debates can go on forever( round1) and hence more time is needed.As i have already pointed out, if its going on forever then no amount of time will be sufficient. He argues that there should be a higher limit. I asked him to state his limit and justify it. He could not do so because if he did, it would go against him. This is point is important becuase he wants a higher limit and not no limit.I have made a strong case for limiting the rounds to maintain the quality of debates. My opponent has not been able to refute it.My opponent wants more choices. Continuing the topic on a new debate represents not only more choices but a better quality of choice. We can continue only if the debate is good. If the rounds are unnecesssarily long then we cannot stop because it may count as forfeiture.Limiting the number of rounds does not limit our choice to having an extended debate.Our current system maintains a certain quality of debate and this is relevant because it is the intention of Juggle to build and create websites heavily focused on engaging users with quality content. http://www.debate.org...Lastly i want to point out that even in this debate, 4 rounds have sufficed. As the reader may have noticed the same point was repeated by my opponent over and over again even though he was effectively rebutted right from round 2.Have mercy, vote con !I thank the reader for taking the time to go through this debate, we love you!I thank my opponent for this topic and for consistently posting all his arguments. I hope we debate again.
# of rounds in debate should be increased

My argument is a simple one pro choice, if two debaters want to have 1 long debate. Why stop them. My opponent offers an alternative start a new debate that continues the previous. My response is, why should one have too. it's complicated, inconvenient, messier, annoying ect. The fact that they could do it another way is not a reason, to make them do it that way with no other reason. More freedom, more choices, more options, is good. Let people do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't negatively impact others against their will.
# of rounds in debate should be increased

Regarding link, just select the web address in the new window and press enter, usually does the trick in these cases.Ill try posting it again anyway:http://www.debate.org...I did respond to my opponents argument.As I have already stated, participants can always start a new debate. This is good because you can always choose to continue only if your opponent is good. My opponents response:a)If I haven't argued my point as well as I'd like to, I don't want people voting.If your opponent does not want to continue because he is not making a good point, you can always get a vote on your current debate.People do have a choice.Just start a new debate with the same topic and continue from there.
# of rounds in debate should be increased

((Note to my opponent I left a message that your link did not work. This came up: 404 - File or directory not found. The resource you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable. As far as I personally am concerned I am aware of the problem so you needn't fix it for me, but you may want to do so for yourself/readers. (As an aside It would help if we could make voting abilities to people of all countries this prevents me from voting.)) The crux of my argument is a simple one one that was unfortunately drooped by my opponent in the previous round, that is why not give the debaters the freedom to chose. Yes, there are good reasons to limit rounds as my opponent says but why not leave the decision up to the debaters. There are after all situations were the debater may have reason to want more rounds, as I mentioned in round 1, so why limit them. more choices and more freedom here is better. The voting argument is irrelevant bec.: a)If I haven't argued my point as well as I'd like to, I don't want people voting. b)as above give people the choice. If they want to take a risk let them.
# of rounds in debate should be increased

At debate.org we are allowed a maximum of 5 rounds and a maximum of 8000 characters. I find this to be sufficient.My first point: Having this limited format helps retain the quality in debates. When i say quality i mean both the quality of the debates and the quality of joy that participants get from debating. When the quality of rounds is increased, there is a tendency for debates to get repetitive. Opponents have a tendency to repeat the same points and at times to go off topic. In the words of Oliver Goldsmith:In arguing too, the parson own'd his skill,For e'en though vanquish'd he could argue still;Second point:At DDO we let readers decide on the winner, it is in the interest of both participants for the reader to go through their debates thoroughly. At DDO we are having facing the problem of unvoted debates. Proof:http://www.debate.org...;A larger number of rounds would discourage potential voters. As far as voters are considered, more the merrier. My opponents pre-emptive argument:1. that the fact that it can go on forever just proves my point that more time is needed.2.I never said no limit I only said a higher limit.If the debate can go on forever, then any finite number of rounds would be insufficient.I intended to give my opponent freedom to manouvere(with regard to number of rounds) but since his point is that we need a higher limit, i must ask- how many rounds do you want?And why that specific number?It is possible (improbable but possible) that two participants may want to continue their debate even though five rounds have elapsed. This would probably happen when both participants find each others arguments interesting, develop mutual respect for each other and want to continue debating. In this case, participants can simply start another debate on the same topic and continue where they left off.
# of rounds in debate should be increased

My argument is simple it doesn't hurt to give people more options. some debates are very long and very complicated and more rounds are needed to sort things out especially with regard to culture based debates It can take quite a few rounds to get a paradigm shift. The reason for limiting rounds would be bec. then they would go on forever. to that my response is 3 fold 1) that's up to the debaters let them chose what they want. No one is being forced or tricked just read before accepting. It can also be discussed in the comments box prior to accepting. 2)the fact that it can go on forever just proves my point that more time is needed. 3) I never said no limit I only said a higher limit.
Merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant part of K-12 teacher compensation

What a shame. After CON's last rebuttal (or lack, thereof) I would posit that not only should we give teachers merit based pay, but we should give debaters merit based pay also. This might encourage people like my opponent to stop posting debates and not following up on them. The problem is rampant. Of the 16 total debates I've had, 5 had forfeits. http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... (due to someone's poor judging, I'm actually losing this one) http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org...
Merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant part of K-12 teacher compensation

I advocate making Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) [1] a significant part of K-12 teacher compensation. It is a form of merit based pay that assesses how much a student has improved since last year. This allows us to be sure teachers are actually teaching. The source I provide talks largely about ensuring accountability for schools, and I contend that we can use the same accountability to ensure quality teachers. I'll let CON attack this first so that we will have an equal amount of rounds to debate, then defend AYP in my next 2 speeches. I will end with a single question for CON to answer in the next round: What alternative system of teacher compensation would you propose to ensure that schools have the most educated teachers? [1] http://www.ed.gov...