BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
National Health Care

Hello Sorry for the delay, I've been busy and then in my 3 debates all my opponents submitted their argument in 1 day. "with the current system now people are not able to choose their doctor" That statement was a bad generalization. On my family's health care plan, we can choose our own doctor. There are some plans who allow you to choose your own doctor, and then there are the ones that don't. For the taxes: There are 150,000,000 (million) payers in the country (not exactly sure, this was a number told to be in another debate). Those people each pay $2,500 in medical fees every year. NOw multiply the $2,500 to 3,000,000,000 people. That comes out to $7,500,000,000,000 in medical fees. Divide that by the 150,000,000 people who have to pay for it, and it's $50,000 a year extra. That is more than some people make in 1 year. I will make it $1,000 per person and see what we got- $2,000 in medical fees. That is double than what they should actually be paying. So, the cost exceeds the benefit. "Doctors visits would NOT take more time at all. In fact it would take less, yes there would be a whole hell of a lot more patients" Sure there will be less paperwork, but there would be way more patients. People will be coming in with the littlest things, like a jammed finger or headache, because it doesn't cost anything. What about at the ER. Someone jams their finger bad, they decide to go to the ER, because it could be jammed and who cares it doesn't cost anything. Now there is someone there that has something that is life threatening, and they come. There is wait because of the people there for the littlest things, like the guy I explained. She dies while waiting. If it was like it is now, people would toughen things out and if after a week they didn't get better, they'll do something. This would leave room for the more serious injuries. Here are more of my arguments- 1)We have free clinics, community hospitals, and charities to pay for the people who aren't insured. 2)The government will limit the amount of money you can spend, then you have to pay for it. Here is a story about a women in the UK. She had a serious eye condition under her eye and unless treated she would go blind. The NHS told her that she was going to pay for it, because it cost too much money. She ended up getting and the NHS paid for it only because the York Times and Royal Institution for the Blind put so much publicity on it. Check this article with many stories like this one- http://freestudents.blogspot.com... I no it says blogspot, but pay more attention to the links given in that article. 3)what would you do with all the Health Insurance people. They put so much money as a 19-20 year old to have this job. It is the only thing they are trained to do, now they are out of a job, because of the government. That sounds like a communist state to me.
National Health Care

I believe that we should have a National health care system for a number of reasons, but first I am going to put to rest some of the first few arguments, because they are popular myths about universal heath care. 1) You claim that you will not be able to choose your doctor. This is not true at all. In countries where they have a national health care system, people are free to visit any doctor they want to. In fact with the current system now people are not able to choose their doctor. I myself used to go to a doctor that I wanted to, but a few years ago, my insurance company sent me to a new doctor, without me having any say in it. With universal health care it is about treating patients, not making money, therefore the choice of doctor is actually better in a Universal health care than it is in the current privatized heath care system. 2) You are correct, it would raise taxes. What many don't see about taxes, they are simply an investment. Even though a national health care system would raise taxes, it would eliminate the cost of health care. This would save a majority of people a lot of money. All this is doing is squeezing out the middleman (insurance companies), and shifting the burden of health care costs to people who can better afford it. You talk about a recession, what better to fix it than to make sure everyone is getting the proper health coverage, and to kick start the economy by eliminating health care costs on people, and on business. Just imagine how many more jobs there would be (at higher pay might I add) if businesses didn't have to cover their employees health care costs. 3) Doctors visits would NOT take more time at all. In fact it would take less, yes there would be a whole hell of a lot more patients, however in the current system there is so much paperwork and forms. Right now doctors spend more time filling out forms for the insurance companies, than actually treating their patients. A universal health care system would simply make it more efficient, and allow doctor to do what they are trained to do, not filling out paperwork. I am looking forward to seeing what arguments you "didn't have time for" so I can put to rest some more myths about universal health care. -Thank you
National Health Care

Hello I think that having a national heath care system would be terrible. It would make our doctors offices/hospitals. There are many reasons why we shouldn't have it- 1)You wouldn't be able to choose your own doctor. This is very important. When people go to a doctor, they should feel comfortable going there and asking him personal questions. NOw, you meet a new doctor every time you get sick. You will never feel comfortable with that doctor, because you will see him for the first time, then he'll never see you again. 2)It would create higher taxes In a time that we mite be going into recession, the last thing we would need is higher taxes. Buy adding higher taxes there is less money for US citizens to have for them selves or their family. So, we;re now back to block 0 and still in recession. 3)Doctors visits won't be effective and in less time. Now that going to the doctors is free, people will go more often. This will call for an increase in patients, and a decrease in visit times. We don't have enough doctors or nurses as it is now, and in Britan, doctors see 50% patients than doctors do here. There, the is barley enough time to get your temp. recorded and the right prescription fill out. There are many more reasons, but I don't have enough time to explain.
logic is cause and effect

In summary,My opponent has failed to make an argument. My opponent has made a series of assertions, to which I have responded to every single one of them, even the incoherent ones. My opponent has failed to make any definitions about what he means by logic and cause-and-effect., therefore I must assume that he uses the generally accepted definitions. I have defined both causality and logic using the widely accepted definitions and sourced wikipedia to support my definitions and explanations.I should remind everyone that the debate is over "Logic is cause and effect". The argument is NOT "Cause and effect is logic." In other words "All A is B", not "All B is A". I have repeatedly demonstrated that "Some logic is NOT cause and effect". Therefore, all logic is not cause and effect and the proposition is refuted.In conclusion,Having answered all my opponent has offered, and having refuted the main assertion that "logic is cause and effect", my opponent's claim that I failed is false. On the contrary, my opponent has failed to sufficiently fulfill his role as pro, and has admitted that he has not argued for his case.It is my hope that my opponent will be able to collect and organize his thoughts on this topic before entering into another debate. I thank any readers of this debate for their time and I thank you in advance for taking the time to vote on this debate.
logic is cause and effect

An objection to my opponent's behavior:If my opponent wishes me to respond to him in a traditional format then he must present a coherent argument, which he has not. As con I am allowed to present a counter-case for what logic is, which I did. My opponent has merely produced fragmented sentences claiming certain equalities to be true, to which I have responded.My opponent failed to introduce any new arguments which are actually coherent or to further explain his position. I cannot add any productive input except to respond to the challenge he presented.A response to my opponent's challenge:As I said before, causality and logic are two different things."If you drink poison, then you will die"- this is a statement of cause and effect, and does not fall into the category of a logic statement. Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org...However, this debate is NOT "cause and effect is logic" rather, it is that "logic is cause and effect." I'll even make this into a logic problem! Let logic= A, let causality=B. "If all B's are A's, does it follow that all A's are B's?". Your position is that "All A's= All B's" and you're asking me to demonstrate this by showing that "Some B's are not A". Even if All B's are A's, it does NOT follow that all A's are B's.For an example, let A=dog and let B=poodle."If all poodles are dogs, are all dogs poodles?"In the same way, "If all cause-and-effect is logic, is all logic cause-and-effect?"Are you beginning to realize what logic statements are?
Macro-evolution & the Bible are not reconcilable

First of all I need to make it painfully obvious that I don't agree with the bible. But in order to debate this I am going to base (for the sake of argument) that the bible is true and that the Genesis order of creation is true and that the story of Noah's Ark is true; despite there being no evidence for that. I will also base this on the Ussher Chronology in that based on a literal reading of the bible the age of the earth is 6016 years old which: there is no evidence for but furthermore there is evidence against this. However for the sake of argument I will begin with the assumption that the Bible is true; but that modern science is also true: in that evolution (descent with modification based on imperfect replication of DNA) is also true. So essentially what I am debating is that in the period of time which is consistent with the bible based on the Ussher Chronology macro-evolution can and does happen. I will also argue that the bible can support macro-evolution in that large-scale changes can occur not only up until now; but that the process extends into the future. In debating this I don't think it is possible to debate a common ancestor because the bible doesn't teach that (by it's nature it doesn't agree with that): but I can however debate that macro-evolution can be present in a short period of time which is essentially what you mean by saying that 'evolution and the Bible are reconcilable'.
Macro-evolution & the Bible are not reconcilable

Hello! I would like to debate about whether or not we can reconcile the Bible & Macro-evolution(the gradual change from one species into another from a common ancestor). In this debate I will use the KJV Bible as my biblical source. My opponent will take the position that evolution and the Bible are reconcilable. They will not procede into semantics that evidence supports evolution or that creationism is not valid. I do not care who my opponent is but my opponent will, by accepting this debate, accept biblical language. 1) Any forfeited round will be loss of conduct points. 2) Going off topic will be loss of conduct points. 3) We will debate 4 rounds. 4) The first round will be just for acceptance for both. In the last round no new arguments will be accepted and if they are brought forward then that should be loss of conduct.We are allowed to rebuttal in the last round. GoodLuck to whomever accepts.
how violence in the media affects younger kids

i agree with it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pornography

No, I am right and you are wrong. The TOPIC of the debate that YOU posted is "Pornography". You are for it, and I am against you being for it. You are Pro, I am Con. Simply put, you should have made the topic "Pornography is the greatest man-made commodity on earth." I stand by my point that sex, the real thing, is better than pornography. Let me remind you that Pro means that you are for the topic statement. Con means you are against the topic statement and you are willing to provide an "answer" or "solution" to the problem. You must say why you support Porn, and I must say why I do not, and provide a better solution (which I say real sexual intercourse is). Your debate is illogical and misinterpreted by your own so-called "logic".
Pornography

You are wrong. While I DO agree that ACTUAL sex is the balls (no pun intended), that has nothign to do with this debate, and is therefore illogical and irrelevent. Read my initial statement closely. I said that "Pornography is the greatest man-made commodity on earth." Sex is not a man-made commodity. man did not invent sex, nor is it a commodity. Porno, however, was invented by man, and it is a money-makign machine. Therefore, your argument is invalid, and I win the round. I repeat, for emphasis: Pornography is the greatest thing ever conceived by man (it is highly unlikely that woman invented porn). Complete strangers getting together and f*cking each others' brains out is hot. And right. It should be a federal law that sunday nights are family porn night, and families shoul be required to gather around the family tv to watch such classics as "Schindler's Fist" and "Starfish Sluper Sluts from Seattle #3". It would bring people together. Godbless porn. God bless sex as well (obviously, because porn IS sex) but god bless porn, for THAT is the man-man commodity that this debate is about. AMEN!
Pornography

Pornography is not the greatest commodity on earth. I only have one point against it. As a partial Hedonist I find pornography fascinating. It is supposed to provide pleasure and happiness to those who want it. You could say, "What can be better than pornography?" I say, "The real thing." In a Human's search for pleasure, they can find it in pornography. Looking at a playful act of false-reproduction could be entertaining. But what is more entertaining is actually having sexual intercourse. To be there, in the action itself is better than just watching it. Although Pornography is not only the act of sexual intercourse, it can also include fetishes. Which the majority of people who have a certain fetish will participate in the act of doing it and playing with that fetish. They will not only want to sit and watch other people do what they love. So in our search for pleasure, Pornography is no the greatest commodity, the actual thing is.
Gay Marriage is bad and you know it

1-Most common one is that it denies a child a mom and dad, being raised by a father and mother is by far the best way a child can be raised.There is evidence that major mental problems can result when being raised by a single parent, foster parent, a relative eg.aunt. Being raised by same sex couples has usually the same result of being raised eg a single or foster parent. The child will be raised by a person or people that has no blood relation with him. This of course gives the child a curiousity to search for their blood relatives and this urge to find will evolve more later in life. To sum it all up it ignores a child "best" interests. 2 - Homosexual activists argue that same-sex "marriage" is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.This is false.First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.Same-sex "marriage" opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility. 3-Calling it marriage is not marriage and common sense that two entirely very different things cannot be seen as the same thing. 4- Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.On the contrary, same-sex "marriage" is intrinsically sterile. If the "spouses" want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage. 5- It's in the Bible that being gay is bad. Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality: "The Lord rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil." (Gen. 19:24-25)
Showers vs. baths

Well since my opponent provided no evidence that showers are better than baths, I will just provide the pros and cons of of both showers and baths. Lets look at the pros and cons of baths first. Pros: 1. Very relaxing 2. You can add bubbles 3. The extended soak can help get dirt out of your skin 4. A Jacuzzi could help you unwind do to the water jets that are built in. Cons: 1. Your skin could prune if you stay in too long 2. Takes a while to set up the bath Now lets talk about the pros and cons of showers Pros: 1. More convenient 2. Skin doesn't prune Cons: 1. Water isn't always distributed equally throughout your body 2. You could slip and hurt yourself 3. Difficult to get the perfect temperature for the shower As you can see, the pros outweigh the cons for baths, while showers have more cons than they do pros.
A Personal First Cause/Necessary Being Exists

*Leave message to accept*Yay, another God debate (kinda). This one is a little different as I will make some concessions for my opponent. I will concede:1. The universe has a cause for it's existence2. There is an explanation for the existence of the universeObviously these grant premises in the Leibniz and Kalam Cosmological arguments. My opponent can choose to either use those or any other argument of his preference to affirm the resolution. Pro does not need to affirm any superficial attributes of the First Cause/Necessary being except that it is personal, and by extension, intelligent.
Objectively, the most terrifying pre-K/T extinction land animal was the Tyrannosaurus Rex.

I thanks Con for making this wonderful debate, now swiftly to my argument:Although I disagree that T-Rex is the most terrifying land animal, I will try my best to defend my position, good luck.T-Rex is terrifying:"Tyrannosaurus rex was one of the largest meat-eating dinosaurs that ever lived. Everything about this ferocious predator, from its thick, heavy skull to its 4-foot-long (1.2-meter-long) jaw, was designed for maximum bone-crushing action. Fossil evidence shows that Tyrannosaurus was about 40 feet (12 meters) long and about 15 to 20 feet (4.6 to 6 meters) tall. Its strong thighs and long, powerful tail helped it move quickly, and its massive 5-foot-long (1.5-meter-long) skull could bore into prey." [1] http://images.nationalgeographic.com...; /> Look at these teeth and jaws: Imagine this dude coming at you at full speed: http://ichef.bbci.co.uk...; />And now I conclude my argument.
Objectively, the most terrifying pre-K/T extinction land animal was the Tyrannosaurus Rex.

The part of source which you quoted about the Spinosaurus was actually an incorrect earlier estimate. The source clearly says that the Spinosaurus approached 59 feet in length. An undisputable fact is that Spinosaurus is larger than T-rex, as it is without doubt the largest living land carnivore. Thus, Pro's assertion that T-rex is "much bigger" is absolutely false. While Quetzlcoatlus did fly, it was also considered a land animal since it spent a large portion of its time on the ground. In fact, its eating, breeding, and roosting habits were all performed mostly on the ground. Therefore, it can still be considered a land animal. I fail to see what was false about my Carcharodontosaurus facts, as they agree with what you quoted from the source. It is true that Tyrannosaurus rex had mmense bite force, larger than any of the animals I proposed. However, this apparent advantage is contrasted with a lack of maneuverability and smaller size as compared to Carcharadontosaurus and Spinosaurus, as well as less mobility overall as compared to Quetzlcoatlus. While Tyrannosaurus was good at biting, she could not catch you as easily as any of the three animals I described. Megalodon is a prehistoric shark. I fail to see why that is relevant to this discussion, especially considering the fact that T-rex couldn't even swim! Tyrannosaurus might be able to crush Spinosaurus, Carcharodontosaurus, or Quetzlcoatlus, but that is on the off chance that she gets the opportunity! With the maneuverability and size advantages my animals have over Tyrannosaurus, T-rex would be ripped to shreds before he got the chance to clamp his jaws around them!