BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Just Governments ought to ensure food security for their citizens

What YOU are failing to realize is that this is going to take too long to feed people what you consider "luxurious" people will not care what they are given and and should be great full for the food provided in stores near them instead your claiming luxurious food should be fed to everyone, well what do you consider to be luxurious? If you gave a home less person a bag of apples is he going to ask for something more luxurious? The government needs to supply food, water, and safety if people are going to complain about how there not being served "proper food" how is it the governments fault? The Government needs only to provide for the STANDARDS of it's citizens. The government aren't and won't give every homeless man steak dinner at the local restaurant. And if people are having such horrible problems well then they should have worked harder in life immigrants on the other hand have an excuse but no one in the U.S can help EVERYONE starving in the U.S and getting the government to do this is stupid and will not be reconginzed to be a MAJOR problem. If your plan for food security is to feed people hundred dollar steaks then your way off the economy.
Just Governments ought to ensure food security for their citizens

What my opponent has failed to realize is what a just government is and should be. For a government to be just, shouldn't they ensure food security? If citizens are starving, shouldn't they make an effort to help that cause? We waste a lot of government funds on programs that aren't beneficial to the people. We can use that energy and money and direct it to food security instead. We're not feeding people luxurious food, instead he are providing for their basic needs. And because my opponent has failed to refute any of my contentions, I shall assume he agrees with them. This is why this resolution will and must stand.
India's success at Beijing Olympics 2008 will make the Indians lose interest in cricket

My opponent has suggested that Indians will lose interest in cricket due to the 2008 Beijing Olympics. However, gaining interest in sports X and Y does not stop Indians from remaining interested in cricket. For example, my favorite movie might be The Butterfly Effect. Let's say a movie comes out tomorrow, and I decide to see it. Even if it turns out to be better than my old favorite, there's no loss of interest. I'd have simply found something I'm more interested in. Even so, it's doubtful that Indians will enjoy these other sports more than cricket, the old favorite. They'll still enjoy cricket, and they'll still be just as interested in it, they'll just have other interests as well. And if sport X did cause Indians to become less interested in cricket, it would not be the 2008 Olympic Games that caused the loss of interest. If I show you a motorcycle for the first time, and you get in a horrible accident using it, it is not my fault, it is yours and the bike's. In this same way, if the Beijing Olympics causes Indians to look at more sports, and one of those sports causes interest in Cricket to fall, it is not the Olympics' fault. Of course, that's assuming sport X will cause Indians to lose interest in cricket, which is highly unlikely. My opponent has shown no reason why interest in other sports would make interest in cricket fall.
because of healthcare, on balance obama as president was a good thing

even what con found to be the source of the study the oregon experiment showed things like diabetes detection and management. it is simple. all con's wordy bluster is a way to deny common sense. without health insurance or coverage you die, or at least regulations. if you have no money and have a heart attack, it's only the law that says they ahve to operate. otherwise what's in it for them? if you have diabetes even the ER, which is a regulation of care, doesn't maintain a regiment of care... yyou need extended care. if you spend more than you do on insurance for things lijke medication or healthcare in genearl, you are getting what you otherwise couldn't. "Economists agree that voluntary exchange increases the welfare of both parties. The free market is simply an aggregate of voluntary exchanges. Supply balances demand and results in market prices, with resources automatically allocated to their most urgent need." if you have no money, opr little money, you can't enter into exchanges. "Obamacare is a Pareto inferior policy - it may help some, but at the expense of many." this almost goes against con's resolution, that gov3ernment involvement does nothing. it deos do something, even he admits it, some good. it mgiht do bad, but it does some good. and all my resolut8ion in this debate was was obamacare set a heightened expectation to anyone who dare repeal or reform his laws, to ensuring something in fact exists to help people. " Also, government involvement in health care has crowded out charity." if the free market is so good, why is there need for charity? because the free market isn't so good. and, it's not charity's place to give a basic need like healthcare. things like food or healthcare should be part of the social contract. "There are more efficient ways to help the poor than through health care. For example the Earned Income Tax Credit " con rails against government involvement, then proposes a government involvement alternative. the EITC gives back mroe than they pay, it is welfare. and, per my resolution, if you were to do away with obamacare, you'd have a heighted expectation that the credit would be enough to afford healthcare, insruance, or whatever. that means it's good we had obamacare to ensure we have a baseline expectation to any alternatives.
because of healthcare, on balance obama as president was a good thing

i wish con would have started into his arguments more that the free market would properly take care of healthcare, so that we can delve into it all sooner than later. cause you can count me as prime skeptical. free markets leads to people not having health care, and thus they get sick or die. it's pretty simple really. if con wants to argue the free market is cheapest, i might not disagree. but it comes at hte cost of thousands of lives and isn't really a health plan. as to the medicaid expansion saving lives. harvard studies show that more than two thousand florida citizens will die if that state doesn't take medicaid expansion. and i'm sure that i could find more stats on a national scale, which i think might actually be in that study. http://www.sun-sentinel.com...in general, the lack of healthcare at least before obamacare was enacted was well established to be over forty thousand a year. again based on harvard studies and lots of other studes. http://obamacarefacts.com...to be sure, there are plans that are similar to other industrialized nations use for healthcare that is cheaper than obamacare. they range from single payer to private insurance that is tightly regualted. and a firmly established number is that they spend ten percent of their GDP on healthcare and we spend seventeen percent. that represents a big number, a trillion dollars. bottomline. if they can do it, we can do it. insurance for everyone, while cheaper. but again this is all getting beside the point. the point is that obama made the issue of healthcare front and center. if a republcan says he wants to repeal it, he has to say with what. or not one takes him seriously. it might be expensive, but at least people have health care in the mean time too until we find a better solution.
because of healthcare, on balance obama as president was a good thing

Following suit with Pro, I will briefly cover my position in round 1. Note that I will use the term "health care" to mean health care and/or health insurance, and the term "Obamacare" to mean any federal government health policy changes implemented under President Obama. Pro's uses the word "good" in the resolution, which I will take to mean an on-balance improvement in the lives of American citizens. Rather than take the position that some alternative government plan, or perhaps the status quo, would have been better than Obamacare, I will be taking the more radical position that there is a direct correlation between government involvement and a reduced quality of life related to health care. If this is the case, the resolution will be negated, since Obamacare increased federal involvement in health care. I will accomplish this by refuting Pro's claims and covering the following: 1) a theoretical basis for free market health care2) real world examples of free market health care3) negative affects of government involvement in health care, in theory and practice Since Pro mentioned medicaid expansion, I don't want to be accused of dropped arguments, so for now, I will just briefly state that I will be challenging any study that shows Obamacare results in a statistically significant decrease in death rates.
because of healthcare, on balance obama as president was a good thing

because of healthcare, on balance obama as president was a good thingwhether you like obamacare or not, which i tend to dislike, had mccain or a republican been president we probably wouldn't have accompished healthcare reform. it took the phenomenon that was barak obama when he was first elected, with all the democratic congressment that went with him, to get that change. he's also changed the conversation to anyone who dare question to repeal his healthcare..... to, what are you going to replace it with? yes republicans do tend to say repeal and replace, but now because of obama there's a certain heighted expectation for health care- you can't take away people's healthcare, and you need to have a plan. for real, because not everything is wrong with obamacare, they could just as easily talk about reforming it, but they mostly tend to be political and say repeal and replace. (and, for all the states that accepted medicaid expansion, their death rates have fallen accordingly)obama care isn't perfect, but it's changed the conversation, and is a step in the right direction.
Taxation should be voluntary

Your argument seems to suggest that if you are in a democracy, but you don't agree with everything the group does, then it must not be a democracy is silly. If you got married, would you expect to have it all go your way? Any time you have a group acting as one, someone will have to compromise. Compromise. What a lovely word. Too bad it's been turned into a curse by those who have no real understanding of what it means to live in a democratic society.
Taxation should be voluntary

Any dictionary definition of voluntary will include acting in one"s own free will, any threat of penalty voids an act being of free will. The IRS webpage on "Penalties for late filing" , uses the term penalty many times, not one person interacts with the IRS by their own free will Government affects every American, yet the only time government representatives face consequences is at a ballot box every few years. In the Gettysburg's Address, Lincoln referred to the American government as a "government of the people, by the people, for the people", which is exactly why taxation should not be at the tip of a bayonet. The people should be able to persuade others to fund the government. Especially, since the money will be spent on fine purposes, like pouring water on terrorists, bailing out failing companies, enabling a household with no workers to maintain a comfortable lifestyle, fund art projects, ineffective schooling of children, and many others. As for changing the way people vote, from Bloomberg, "A record 49 percent of Americans live in a household where someone receives at least one type of government benefit, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. And 63 percent of all federal spending this year will consist of checks written to individuals for which the government receives currently no services," with 49 percent receiving money from the government, these voters have zero financial motivation to change their vote. The next way to get them to change their vote is on morality, which, this debate is about. In this week's news, the American government is facing a shut down, and our elected representatives are arguing small points of an $11,000,000,000,000 spending bill. None of the small points are if the American people are will to pay the cost. In conclusion, the case for making taxation voluntary is strong. Voluntary taxation will strengthen the American republic by building a government that is responsive to all citizens, not just voters. This government will be of a free people forming voluntary organizations for the common good. Yet, the best part will be that only death will be inevitable, no longer taxes. Thanks for considering this position, http://www.irs.gov... http://www.bloomberg.com...
Taxation should be voluntary

All that is interesting, but off point. The fact is that taxation is something we voluntarily impose on ourselves because we recognize the need. In that respect, in a democracy, all taxes are voluntary by the will of the people. There has been a concerted effort over the last few decades to give people the impression that our govt is an entity that is somehow separate from ourselves, and that is totally wrong. Our govt is us, and if you find that distasteful, your choices are to change how people vote, or go someplace else. In
Taxation should be voluntary

People are simply a group of persons. A simple majority, the key to democracy, is the goal of every politician. Using American political system as an example, in 2013, 47% of Americans are registered or lean democrat and 41% are registered or lean republican (Gallop). Considering the prior numbers, that leaves 12% of voters to decide elections. In most elections turnout is less than 60% of voters (Bipartisianpolicy). With 12% as true independents and a maximum of 60% turnout to vote, the "people" become 7%. How can such a small group be considered the "people"? Very few people chooses citizenship, less than 13% of American citizens are foreign born, these are Americans by choice (Census). Most Americans citizens gained citizenship at birth. The price to leave America is high. To legally leave, government approval is required in form of a passport. The fees to obtain then revoke a passport will cost around $2,500 (Forbes). (USA passport $135, revoke USA citizenship $2,350, addition compliance costs vary) (Travel.state) Few have chosen to be American, and those that choose to leave are financially punished. Lastly, the fear of anarchy, people will naturally form voluntary groups for many reasons. The key word is voluntary. As long as everyone understands that their membership and participation in the group is voluntary people will support the actions of the group. The best way to affirm membership in a group is financial contributions. Voluntary taxation would motivate government to respond all the people, not just a handful.
Taxation should be voluntary

Government is 'of the people', and not 'of the persons'. 'People' is a collective noun as used in this context. When the people decide to tax themselves, that doesn't mean that every person agreed to it, but that the 'people' did. Each person who wants to be a part of the democratically organized nation has to agree to abide by the majority's decisions, or has the freedom to find somewhere else to live. It's time we stopped pretending that we can have a useful government and still retain all the personal freedom of an anarchist.
Taxation should be voluntary

By the words of the American Declaration of Independence, " Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" consent has been thought of as voting. What is consent? By Miriam-Webster's dictionary definition of consent is as a noun "permission for something to happen or agreement to do something" or as a verb "give permission for something to happen". Should voting alone be consent? The purpose of government varies from Jefferson's idea that "government is to protect the individual rights of its citizens" to Rawl's veil of ignorance ""intended to situate the representatives of free and equal citizens fairly with respect to one another". Regardless of a person"s point of view a true measure of consent is if a person is willing to purchase the produce. In this case the product is government. Recognizing that people working together for common goals and protection is essential. This cooperation should be voluntary in nature. Once coercion is added to this collective agreement then the goals are no longer common. In majority rule democracy, magic happens at 51 percent agreement. This 51st percent becomes a target of those of power. Since this 51st percent holds such great power, it should be a society's smartest, and wisest. Moreover, this 51st percent is never thought to be either the smartest or the wisest of a society. The forces on both sides of an issue will attempt to manipulate an issue to reach the magic 51 percent. By the time a compromise is reached, original supporters may not agree with the compromise, yet will continue support, for many reasons. Many supporters will state that something is better than nothing. Currently, measuring support for laws is by polling, which is easily manipulated. A time tested way of measuring support is through an exchange of currency. If a person is willing to voluntarily exchange their property for a service then a person receives a benefit from that service. No person will voluntarily purchase a non-beneficial service. The American federal government system uses a system of check and balances, yet a citizen's only input is their singular vote. With no validation of consent until an election, citizens should be able to withdraw consent at any time. By making taxation voluntary a person can withdraw consent to a government in a way that government must respond. This would create a government that of the governed, not just a simple majority. http://www.archives.gov... http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com... http://plato.stanford.edu...
children should be strongly pushed to achieve their maximum

in my opinion children should't be controlled all the time because they become antisocial, and more you controll your child, less you leave chance to reach to a success as you child is not independent person. you'd better try a lot of spheres where your child can be involved, and then if you want, to push this way to maximum, but of course we all know that we stop loving a thing when it becomes not our dream, but our debt.
children should be strongly pushed to achieve their maximum

YES, I agree that thee are a lot of famous people who achieved their dream. But not all people have the same nature. People are different.Many well-intentioned parents encourage their children to accomplish great things. Most are motivated by a strong desire to see them succeed as well as by parental feelings of pride in their accomplishments. Nowadays, the world is dangerous. And parents should know what their children do, what they watch, what they eat, with whome they play, because it affects to childrens' behaviour.
children should be strongly pushed to achieve their maximum

You may be talking about children in past. Nowadays children know what they want know and can explore what they need to know. When children is forced to do something it's too depressive for him, the stress can cause fatal consequences on the mind of a child, so that means to press on a child is a wrong thing. People reach their goals when they're people, when they feel their personality, and no difference if he studies not good. This child just want what he wants to reach and do everything for this. Here are examples in life: Steve Jobs, Bill Gates that didn't graduate even college, but knew their subject well and made multimillionaire companies.
children should be strongly pushed to achieve their maximum

But children should be advised what to do. They are too little to do something themselves. The kids, for example, are taught and discriplined to understand different behaviour needs. In case, they can have knowledge in difference of lazy and hardworking characters. That hardworking deed is considered important for their future. If children are not strongly pushed, they will not achieve their dream. They will feel freedom and do what they want. And it is not good for their future life.
children should be strongly pushed to achieve their maximum

Of course every parent wants his child to be clever and successful in life, but in my opinion there is no use in forcing children do the things that they don't want to do. It's the choice of every individual person to do or not to do something, and forcing to do will not affect the way child thinks and do. Anyway when you want something to reach, you do it yourself, not listening to other how it must be. For example if i want to sing in public, there is no good to force me to study math because i don't want it and don't see reasons to study it.
children should be strongly pushed to achieve their maximum

Everybody wants their children to achieve what they want. And, of course, parents do everything for their chuldrens' future. it is important to nurture more academic skill among the kids for better future.Both teacher and parent always work together to teach and practise the kids by giving home works that they should complete practically when on their school holiday. Morever, they can have opportunities to succeed intellectually in their academic qualification intellectually, so they can enter into the most prestigious university.