BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Health insurance profits are not a major part of health care costs in the U.S.

Let's suppose that Con's bizarre definition of profit is correct. If so the percentage profit of the insurance companies would be much higher than 2.2%, Con says 25%. Fudging the definition more creatively could make it a bazillion percent. Yes, that much! However the dollar amount of the profit would not change at all. The industry profits were $12.87 billion and $8.4 billion, and adding $0.24 billion for executive compensation as Con insisted, would make the contributions to total health care costs 0.596% and 0.37%, respectively for 2007 and 2008. They remain insignificant, exactly as before. Con's definition of profit is nonsense because the main way that insurance companies make money is by investing the funds held in trust. That's true of life insurance and virtually all forms of insurance. An insurance company may actually pay out in benefits more than it receives in premiums. The profit comes from investing the reserves, and an insurance company that does a better investment job earns more profit. That's what they do for a living. Con's definition of profit is also not what any reasonable person refers to as profit. People like Congressman Weiner are obliged to use the standard meaning as used in the financial community, not some double-secret meaning they divined for themselves. Health insurance company profits ran up about 400% from 2001 to 2007, then they fell by about 30% from 2007 to 2008. To make a more dramatic story, critics ignore the 2008 data. It's likely 2009 will be even worse, so of course that will have to be ignored as well. What the large percentage changes mean is that the industry is volatile. Anything that can go up rapidly is subject to coming down just as rapidly. Profit margins of 2% to 8% are well below the 9% average for the market as whole, so the picture is not particularly attractive. All of Con's arguments about percent profit and trends in profits are irrelevant to the debate. I've explained them in an attempt to avoid confusion among those following the debate. (Rachel Maddow, Rhodes Scholar that she is, has never figured it out either.) The facts are that health care industry profits were 0.37% (that's 0.0037) of total health care costs in 2008, and they were less than 0.6% in the industry's most profitable year, 2007. Con has not disputed any of the dollar numbers I have presented, and in fact has presented no references whatsoever. At well under one percent, health insurance profits are not a major part of health care costs in the U.S. The resolution is affirmed.
Health insurance profits are not a major part of health care costs in the U.S.

According to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings the 10 major private health insurance companies reported a 428% increase in profits from 2000 to 2007 (the companies are listed in the Corporate Libraryï¿½€™s ï¿½€œInsurance Health and Disabilityï¿½€� category). In the simplest terms, profit represents the difference between revenue and cost of production. So what are health insurance providers selling? Administrative services. A major accounting difference between other types of business and private health insurers is the inclusion of policy holder money held in ï¿½€œtrust fundsï¿½€� for the future payment of medical claims. This money is represented by a medical loss ratio, a number that usually ranges from 75 percent for the most cost-effective and efficient plans to more than 100 percent for the losing plan (Washington Post). Business costs associated with the services offered are typically around 15% of their revenues. It would therefore be more appropriate to calculate profit margin based on a business model of providing only administrative services, and not on funds held in trust which incur only slight expenses and provide long-term investment income for the company. The 2% to 8% profit margin alleged by my worthy rival includes the funds held in trust. If the accounting methods used were attuned to include only the costs associated with the operation and marketing of their administrative services, the reported profit margins would be much closer to 25%.Moving private health insurers onto the Fortune 500 list of profitable firms and placing them in front of the network and communications equipment industry (reporting 20.4% profit). My opponent is correct; reducing national health care expenditures by 1% would have an insignificant impact. However, the elimination of a 25% incentive on a product designed to limit access to health care we all need would have a considerable impact!
Health insurance profits are not a major part of health care costs in the U.S.

Con's arguments are (1) to redefine "profits" to include executive compensation and (2) to claim (or imagine) that historically health care industry profits used to be much higher than thy are now. He provided no evidence that either allegation was true. Because these are unsubstantiated claims I could ignore them until proof is offered, but I will do the research that Con should have done. The claims are clearly false. Ten companies account for the health insurance company profits [1]. The highest paid executive received about $11 million, and the others much less, going down to a few million. In each company the top guy gets by far the largest compensation. The pattern I've seen is that the top person at any large company gets about half of the total pay. To be generous to Con's contention, I will suppose that the average top pay is $8 million, and that it is only a third of the total executive pay. So that would make the total for the industry 10 x $8 million x 3 = $240 million. The industry profits were $12.87 billion and $8.4 billion, so $0.24 billion would be added using Con's definition of profit. that would make the contributions to total health care costs rise from 0.59% and 0.36% to 0.596% and 0.37%, respectively. Even if one were to indulge fantasies that executive compensation were much higher than I had supposed, it would not approach being a major part of health care costs. Critics counting the numbers from public records for top execs claim that compensation was about $115 million in 2007 and less in 2008. [2] That's much less than the $240 million I've estimated. My estimate includes second-tier execs. It's worth noting that executives earn their pay by reducing costs. In Medicare, some put fraud as 20% of the programs costs. That would be 20% of $440 billion, $88 billion. Private insurance companies police fraud, so their losses to fraud are much less. The reference [1] says that the health insurance industry profits rose "from $2.41 billion in 2001 to $12.87 billion in 2007." Thus contrary to Con's speculation that I picked the low profit years, I included the highest profit year. Critics uniformly ignore the decline in profits since 2007. The profits in health insurance vary between about 2% and 8%. The historical average for the stock market as a whole is about 9%. I have helped Con by doing the basic research he should have done as part of building his case. His charges are false. If he wants to claim different numbers, he should now produce them with proof they are valid. Congressman Weiner and his fellow critics are indulging fantasies. The resolution is affirmed. 1. http://www.politifact.com... 2. http://www.healthreformwatch.com...
Legalization of marijuana

Addressing P1: Laws exist to limit personal freedoms for good reasons. There are good reasons for not legalizing this substance. These reasons are outlined in my premises in Round 1. Addressing P2: According to your argument, there is no reason to legalize marijuana. Consumers can purchase it either way. Addressing P3: Legal medicine has been found to have profound medical use with all that you mentioned. Addressing P4: There is no direct correlation between your premise and your argument. While this may be a fact, it does not imply that marijuana should be legalized. My arguments from Round 1 still stand.
Legalization of marijuana

P1: The legalization of marijuana would put thousands of marijuana street dealers out of business. P2: Marijuana may not be a direct cause of death, but just like cigarettes it increases the probability of lung damage. http://www.drugabuse.gov... P3: Heavy use of marijuana stalls brain development in youth. http://www.sciencedaily.com... P4: Marijuana's medical practicality is not unique as there are plenty of other legal and more effective alternatives. C: Marijuana should not be legalized.
Legalization of marijuana

Response 1: What supports your claim that marijuana dealers should be the least of the issue? Saying what would happen to the drug if it was legalized does not address my initial premise which raised the issue of the dealers being unemployed if marijuana was legalized. It doesn't look like my P1 was actually addressed. Response 2: Cigarettes were used as an example by me because they were brought up by you. However, the issue itself does not involve them. My argument was that marijuana increases the probability of lung damage and the eradication of cigarettes is not relevant to it. Your red herring is furthered when you bring up the cost of something that has nothing to do with the legalization of marijuana. Response 3: While you have given no proof of the side effects of legal medications that can replace marijuana, here is proof that marijuana is no exception when it comes to negative side effects: http://www.lcsun-news.com... Marijuana, if legalized, would not necessarily be a better alternative to other medicines because just as other medicines, it has risks and side effects. Response 4: I would expect society to have trouble utilizing marijuana with closed eyes. My argument is that marijuana should not be legalized. I did not bash medical use nor did I support drug dealers. Bringing up the issue of putting thousands of street dealers out of a job supported my argument as did my claim that marijuana's medical use is not more effective than that of other medicines. My initial arguments stand to support my conclusion that marijuana should not be legalized. This debate is over as we are only supposed to have 3 rounds. Let's both write "ok" for the next round so that the debate will be concluded and move into its voting period.
Legalization of marijuana

Addressing P1: If you want to keep marijuana illegal, the marijuana dealers should be the least of the issue. if it was legalized like it is in certain states like Colorado and California it could be moved from the black market and taxed.< Addressing P2: According to your argument it raises your probability of getting lung cancer, being around a person smoking such as second hand smoking could also raise your risk however I don't see society trying to eradicate cigarettes. Especially at the fact that it is very expensive.< Addressing P3: A lot of legal medications have side effects and though may treat symptoms may cause problems in other areas which would make an individual get hooked on more addictive medication. With people with terminal illnesses it subtracts that.< Addressing P4: Medical marijuana use is actually unique off the fact that it has been utilized in higher amounts since society has opened their eyes. Your argument also goes from supporting the drug dealers to bashing medical use.
Anger can be a good moral motivation.

SO BASICALLY WHAT YOUR'RE TELLING ME IS IF SOMEONE WAS TO THROW SOMETHING AT YOU IN THIS CLASS ROOM AND YOU GET ANGRY YOU WOULD HAVE A FEELING OF DOING SOMETHING THAT'S MORALLY MOTIVATING. ARISTOLE ALSO .STATED THAT AT SOME POINT RIGHT ACTION CEASES AND WRONG BEGINS, SO CLEARLY BEING ANGRY CAN'T BE SO RIGHT ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU WANT TO MENTION SOLDIER IN YOUR PREVIOUS ARGUMENT , KEEP IN MIND THAT THE U.S SOLDIERS ARE NOT MAD THEY ARE JUST DOING THEIR job
Anger can be a good moral motivation.

IT'S POSSIBLE THAT, pity is defined as a feeling of pain at an APPARENT EVIL. But pain and anger does not correlate as Seneca stated. You must look at both words individually. Anger is A strong feeling of displeasure or hostility. Pain is An unpleasant sensation occurring in varying degrees of severity as a consequence of injury, disease, or emotional disorder. Yes both does inflict an emotion but both are two separate actions. At the end of the day anger is a good moral motivation because it allows someone to ignite their bravery and fight for a purpose. If anger did not exist IT'S POSSIBLE THAT, many would not have the motivation needs to stand up for a cause.
Anger can be a good moral motivation.

Yes I agree you must know the three components in order to understand anger. Those being the state of mind of angry people is, who the people are with whom they usually get angry, and on what grounds they get angry with them. IT'S POSSIBLE THAT, the US soldiers of our country demonstrate good morally motivation from anger. They are angered by the other countries who attempt to harm those who they love. In response they fight back to defend their loved ones from being harmed. Yes their mind state has altered from calm to furious, yes they are getting angry because harm is being directed toward their family, and lastly they get anger with the individual attempting harm and not at their family members. This example is one used by Seneca who state that if we control our anger and use it to ignite our bravery then anger is a good moral motivation to have.
Anger can be a good moral motivation.

IT"S POSSIBLE THAT, 1)Violence is morally good. 2)Anger provokes pain. 3)A good temperate man avoids delights and good temperate stands against pain. 4)According to Seneca anger can be used for good actions. 5)Virtues need no vice. 6)Therefore anger can be used positively if it is monitored. Emotions are all those feelings that so change men as to affect their judgments, and that are also attended by pain or pleasure. Anger is a desire accompanied by pain, for a conspicuous revenge for a conspicuous slight at the hands of men who have no call to slight oneself or one"s friends. Both Seneca and Aristotle state that anger does provoke an outcome from an individual. Aristotle believes it is violence or a good tempered man. Seneca states that anger either provokes bravery or cowardly actions from an individual. Both believe the need of anger is necessary.
There is nothing wrong with homosexuality or gay marriage.

REBUTTALS:"Even if you're against the idea of people of the same-sex having sex, what you need to understand is that gay relationships are not all about sex. They're literally exactly like straight relationships. They're about romance, happiness, love, connections."What authority does Pro have to make these claims? Pro is equating that men behave the same around men as men behave around women, or vice versa in terms of women. This is simply not true. Men and women behave differently; that is not a matter of opinion but a fact[1]. There will be a difference in neurological tendencies as well as significant affects in heart rate. The idea that a person interacts with the person of the same sex is the same as interaction with the same sex is erroneous. [1]http://www.scientificamerican.com..."And yes, sex is a part of it, but it's also none of your business. "It is my business as well as most people's business when they promote it in public."If you think that the purpose of marriage is to have children and that gay couples are somehow morally corrupt because they can't have children, do you think that married straight people who are infertile are also morally corrupt? "Yes, it is morally corrupt. We will fix them in the future with eugenics." Imagine, just imagine, that a group of people suddenly came forward and said that your relationship, your love, was against their particular beliefs, for whatever reason. It would be absurd. It would totally make no sense. You wouldn't have any particular connection to their beliefs, and would completely disagree that there is anything wrong with the love between you and your straight partner. "This is an equivocacy, a belief is not similar to an attraction. The attraction is biological and a belief is not."That's what gay couples go through all the time. Now how can you tell me that my love is the wrong love? "Many things are wrong with love. A person gives into irrational that has its' consequences. There is a saying, "it is hard to hate up close." It is simply not true because most murderers or rapists know their victims. I will argue more seriously the next round. I want to my opponent one question, are they for homosexuality or homosexual marriage, or perhaps both? Once, this is answered, I fully intend to post my arguments.
There is nothing wrong with homosexuality or gay marriage.

Even if you're against the idea of people of the same-sex having sex, what you need to understand is that gay relationships are not all about sex. They're literally exactly like straight relationships. They're about romance, happiness, love, connections. And yes, sex is a part of it, but it's also none of your business. If you think that the purpose of marriage is to have children and that gay couples are somehow morally corrupt because they can't have children, do you think that married straight people who are infertile are also morally corrupt? And what about all the children that need homes? You think that it's more moral to keep spurting out babies when the world is already grossly overpopulated and so many children need homes, rather than allowing same-sex couples to adopt and be happy? For those of you in loving straight relationships, Imagine, just imagine, that a group of people suddenly came forward and said that your relationship, your love, was against their particular beliefs, for whatever reason. It would be absurd. It would totally make no sense. You wouldn't have any particular connection to their beliefs, and would completely disagree that there is anything wrong with the love between you and your straight partner. But because of that group's beliefs, you love would be illegal. It would be absurd and devastating. That's what gay couples go through all the time. Now how can you tell me that my love is the wrong love? (The rules of this debate are that you cannot use religious doctrines as a means of proof. As I said, these are the beliefs of other people, not mine, and are not facts that can be used as evidence. Any bible quotes or other religious citations used as evidence will be ignored or shot down.)
Should highschool seniors have an exit exam to graduate

I'm not familiar with the Arizona system, but I'll take your word for it. I know for a fact that this doesn't apply to every high school because I attended a private high school and didn't have to take an exit exam.Also, it's untrue that a high school diploma is needed for every mundane job. I know plenty of people who dropped out of high school and went to a trade school, and are perfectly happy with their lives. The fact of the matter is, a high school diploma isn't necessary, but if you're going to have one and use it wisely, you should pass a certain proficiency standard and there is no problem with a school wanted to gauge this before graduating a student.
Should highschool seniors have an exit exam to graduate

For example In Arizona every High school student need to pass (AIMS) Arizona Instrument of Measuring Standards.Which in lack of a better term, an exit exam and I believe every high school have some form of this. In today's workforce a high school diploma in necessary to get even the most mundane jobs out there so by holding these below average students back (students who can't pass the exam) we are hurting our future more than helping it.
Should highschool seniors have an exit exam to graduate

First of all, seniors do not have to take an exist exam -- or at least I didn't have to take one when I graduaed a few years back.But anyway, seniors should have to take one. Your argument is largely invalid, because the intention is that it will hold people back who shouldn't move on and who are struggling. If you aren't proficient in math, english, et al. why should you move onto college? You're going to struggle even more than you already did. The same goes for a student who wants to enter the labor force.
Mechanical Pencils are better than [regular] Wooden Pencils

Unfortunately my opponent has forfeited the second round of the debate.In my opening round acceptance, I added a picture of a pencil which should be proof enough that regular pencils are better than mechanical pencils. Any pencil that can be used as a drumstick is justification against the debate proposition, after all imagine how awesome this drum solo could have been if Keith Moon was drawing a picture at the same time.http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com... Another reason to love regular pencils surely has to be the fact that you can have multiple colors. You are even able to get pencils with more than one color in it, see the picture below. There is no way that mechanical pencils can beat the ease of color when they can only hold a maximum of one color and there color range is so limited. http://img.alibaba.com...; /> Lastly, can you do this with mechanical pencils? http://assets.dornob.com...; width="464" height="604" /> I hand the debate back to my opponent.
University tuition fees should be abolished.

I strongly believe that University tuition fees should be abolished. Currently, people in the United Kingdom pay around "60,000 for 4 years at University, including accomodation. This results in many students coming out of University with heavy debt. Now, this leads on to more homeless people, and people who rely on charities until they can pay back their loan (presuming they have one). People may say, 'Why don't they just work before going to University', but there is a lack of jobs available. The Government NEEDS to make getting a job ALOT easier. So what other benefits would abolishing tuition fees have? More people will go to University, which makes people get better jobs, wich means they can pay their taxes as they have a good job. Thank you.