BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
universal health care in America

The secod point is that businesses and individuals are having trouble affording health care. Businesses and indidviduals that keep their health plans have to pay a much higher amount. If a business must spend more on health care cost, the it has less money for raises, investments, and more employees. The employee or indidvidual who has to pay high permiums has less money to spend on food, housing cost, and other purchases. If they have to spend less money, it only hurts the economy. The cos of Health care our economic well being. Third point is we could eliminate all the duplicate paperwork involved everytime you submit a insurace claim. Each and every time we go to the docto you have to fill out a medical history form. The system in place now has doctor's office keeping medical records. If we locate all records in one place, we could eliminate the eed for submission of isurance forms. Then we could stop having insurance compaines approving or denying a claim. Checks would not have to be mailed or patients send bills. Overall there wouldn't have to be a need for maintaining insurance information or ever submit a claim again.
universal health care in America

"There are forty Million uninsured American citizens who need Health Care. Health Care premiums continue to go up and climb faster that the rate of inflation. Many businesses do not even offer health plan coverage, those that do will often pass the cost of it to the employee. Even though people with no health care can go to the hospital when they become ill, any cost not covered by them get passed on to the rest of us in higher taxes." I agree, but I do not believe in universal healthcare. Why change the system that ruins the whole purpose, good healthcare. People come from Canada , England, and the rest of Europe to come to America. Why? Because the line in those places are to long. You know Romney care, it's almost exactly like obamacare and socialized medicine. Well one Romney adviser met with the president to make the bill. And since they are the same here's a video that shows the system and how it fails: http://www.youtube.com... Here's a site that shows 10 reasons that obamacare is a mess: http://fixhealthcarepolicy.com... And here's a site that shows you that obamacare helps ruin the economy restricting job growth: http://www.bnet.com... So since I decree that Universal Healthcare isn't that good I will ofter an alternative. It may not be the best, but it is better then your idea currently. They do this in my home town in Texas, or used too. It's where you have a private hospital, people with insurance go there and get some of the best care in the country. But next to it is a public hospital. Where an intern operates on you and If he messes up you can only sue him for 250,000 dollars. No matter what. This may sound cruel but it works. Obviously you have a fully trained physician overlooking the intern to make sure he doesn't screw up. So people who pay that good healthcare, people who don't get healthcare that is O.K. not great but it will keep you well. If you disagree it's like saying that If pay 500,000 dollars on a Ferrari I should get equal luxury,service, and handling/speed as a 1970 hippy van. Here's a video that shows that the obamacare plan is SUPER expensive: http://www.youtube.com... Hence prices rise.
universal health care in America

good luck and have fun. 1 round opening argument no rebuttals. 2 round second argument (back up yours, add on to it Rebuttals) 3 round rebuttals 4 ending argument rebuttals "Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc. There's an entitlement mentality in this country that believes the government should give us a number of benefits such as "free" health care. But the government must pay for this somehow. What good would it do to wipe out a few hundred dollars of monthly health insurance premiums if our taxes go up by that much or more? If we have to cut AIDS research or education spending, is it worth it? Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility. At first glance, it would appear universal health care would increase flexibility. After all, if government paid for everything under one plan, you could in theory go to any doctor. However, some controls are going to have to be put in to keep costs from exploding. For example, would "elective" surgeries such as breast implants, wart removal, hair restoration, and lasik eye surgery be covered? Then you may say, that's easy, make patients pay for elective surgery. Although some procedures are obviously not needed, who decides what is elective and what is required? What about a breast reduction for back problems? What about a hysterectomy for fibroid problems? What about a nose job to fix a septum problem caused in an accident? Whenever you have government control of something, you have one item added to the equation that will most definitely screw things up--politics. Suddenly, every medical procedure and situation is going to come down to a political battle. The compromises that result will put in controls that limit patient options. The universal system in Canada forces patients to wait over 6 months for a routine pap smear. Canada residents will often go to the U.S. or offer additional money to get their health care needs taken care of. Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care. When government controls things, politics always seep into the decision-making. Steps will have to be taken to keep costs under control. Rules will be put in place as to when doctors can perform certain expensive tests or when drugs can be given. Insurance companies are already tying the hands of doctors somewhat. Government influence will only make things worse, leading to decreased doctor flexibility and poor patient care. And you pay for the unhealthy people. Lets say your fit and eat well, almost never sick. Well you have to pay through taxes the hobo down the street whose a tobacco smoker and has become obese through cheep food from mcCdonalds. Sound good? We may have to pay for them in the emergency room, but as I said if he gets poor patient care they'll see him once twice thrice and so on. All of which you pay for. http://www.articlesbase.com... http://oneminute.rationalmind.net...
ODT: The U.S. should increase its nuclear energy development.

As this is a debate with an equal BOP, I assume we go with a normal 4 round Format R1) Acceptance and Definitions R2) Contention R3) Rebuttals R4) Closing Arguments C1: Nuclear Power Plants have a risk of High Environmental and Societal Damage [1][2] Nuclear Power Plants always come at a high risk for a disaster. Almost any environmental change or Natural Disaster could lead to the plant not producing nearly as much energy, could close the plant, or, even worse, could leak out radiation. This was seen recently with the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster last year. Some, but not all of the environmental changes and natural disasters that would alter Nuclear Power Plants are: Earthquakes, Tsunamis, Tropical Depressions/Storms/Hurricanes, Heat Waves, Reduced Precipitation Levels, Tornadoes, and Hurricanes.These environmental changes and natural disasters occur almost every place in the United States[3]. Seawater is also highly corrosive to Nuclear Power Plants, so it is Extremely Dangerous to put it on an ocean coast. Nuclear Power Plants themselves don't produce CO2, but all other parts of the Nuclear Fuel Chain, mining, milling, transport, fuel fabrication, enrichment, reactor construction, decommissioning and waste management, all require Fossil Fuels, hence those other parts all produce CO2. Also, it would be quite a challenge to dispose even more Nuclear Waste. Decommissioning the plant safely would be occupationally dangerous, as would working in a Nuclear Power Plant. C2: Nuclear Power Plants are Uneconomical[1][2] Nuclear Power Plants require high capital costs to build them. True, during the expected Nuclear Power Plant lifetime of 60 years, that Nuclear Energy is cheap itself, but you have to also pay all of the workers, and you would have to pay them a lot, since you are working with Uranium. It also requires money and Fossil Fuels to fulfill the rest of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle. Once the Nuclear Energy stops producing energy, Nuclear Plants have to go through a process of Decommisioning, which normally costs $300 Million-$5 Billion per plant, as you have to pay the workers to decommision the plant, and you have to fulfill certain standards to decommision, which also requires a lot of money. The process of Decommisioning also takes a long time, as no Nuclear Plant in the U.S. has finished Decommisioning. C3: No Fossil Fuel Independence[2] America has recently been trying to break away from Fossil Fuels. Nuclear Energy would not give us Fossil Fuel Independence. All other parts of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle require Fossil Fuels to run. Therefore, we still have to pay money to import oil and other Fossil Fuels from other countries. Nuclear Energy is not the way to break away from Fossil Fuels. Other power sources break away from Fossil Fuels, such as Wind Turbines and Solar Panels[4][5] Sources: [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org... [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org... [5]: http://en.wikipedia.org...
ODT: The U.S. should increase its nuclear energy development.

Resolved: The U.S. should increase its nuclear energy development.Definitions1. Should: implying an action resulting in a benefit2. Nuclear energy: atomic energy; the energy released by a nuclear reaction for purposes other than nuclear weapons proliferation. Rules1. No semantics2. Drops are concessions3. No new arguments in the last round4. forfeit(s) will result in a loss*Rd. 1 is for acceptance
Resolved: The US should raise the Social Security age of eligibility

This debate will be the beginning of Round Two of the official jury voted tournament.The debate shall go for four rounds. First round will be acceptance, voting shall last seven days, and the jurors are F-16, YYW, Thett3, Zaradi, and Bladerunner060. If you are not a juror and you wish to leave an RFD, please do not allocate any points, or your vote will be countered.For reference, the current age of eligibility is 65, and at 62 one can receive reduced benefits. Larztheloser will be arguing that it should stay as is, and I will argue that the age of eligibility should be raised.As I am arguing for change, I will accept the burden of proof. Good luck to Con, and thank you to the jury voters.
DNA Profiling

Round 2 I strongly am for the use of DNA profiling. Almost 99% of the time DNA profiling works. Even if the testing leads you to the wrong person you will still have a person of interest for the crime. If we were to stop using DNA profiling crime rates would increase drastically. Since the 1980"s when DNA profiling was established, the crime rate has dropped remarkably. There are so many times when DNA profiling solves the crime because the criminal almost always leaves the right evidence. And yes, DNA does degrade over time but is there many times when police are too late? Not really. And police forces always hire the best DNA analyst for the job. Oh, and what if you're a kid wanting to know about his family heritage? It is extremely simple, all you need to do is leave it to DNA profiling and the analyst. There are many cases won by the use of DNA profiling. For example, a 1988 murder of a women named Georgina Pacheco. The body was found by an officer and reported immediately. They police force couldn't solve the case until they had the right technology in 2009 which told them Robert James Parks was the suspect in the murder. DNA profiling is oftenly used for children looking into their family heritage Without DNA profiling, adopted children would never be able to find their legitimate parents. It would be impossible without it. This is yet another great use of this great technology..
DNA Profiling

Imagine that there was a case of a murder and there might have been evidence of the killer and another innocent person who might have been with him/her before the incident has happened, yes dna profiling is alright for those types of things but they can also convict an innocent person of a crime that they did not commit. Some people think that DNA Fingerprinting is infringe upon privacy and civil liberties, and also if a person with a certain race is convicted there is a discrimination of against race.
DNA Profiling

DNA Profiling (pro) Blood, saliva, hair, skin. Any of these parts from the human body can be used during DNA profiling no matter what amount is found. DNA profiling is the analysis of DNA from samples of body tissues or fluids in order to identify individuals. Mostly used to convict criminals (murder, rape, kidnapping, etc") . But also it can be used for kids looking into their family heritage. It is extremely important to have this biotechnology because without it the world would be a much more violent place. With the right forensic analyst, DNA profiling can be a quick easy process by following these steps: First a blood, saliva, hair, etc.. must be collected. Then the forensic analyst must use a method called Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) to make millions of copies of revealing DNA. After PCR the forensic analyst must count the repeats/copies so the region can be distinguished from others. Then the mixture is run through a capillary electrophoresis machine. Last the scientist must look for a match in his/her STR repeats. This will distinguish the person of interest. I am strongly for the use of DNA profiling. I think without it the world would be a much more violent, scary place to live in. There are many times in history where DNA profiling prevents murderers from killing.
Gay Marriage

Con inexplicably asks for a tie, but given that I have answered every single one of his arguments in detail, and he hasn't even responded to 3 of mine, I see this as both a desperate and rather unsavoury attempt to prevent what should be an inevitable affirmation of same-sex marriage. Given that Con was online for the past 6 days frequently, that I actually accommodated him by delaying my own posts to the last few hours to give him extra time at his request, and that he was the instigator of the debate in the first place, I find it utterly bewildering that Con seemingly can't even concede gracefully, waiting until the last minute, and then asking voters to consider leaving the debate a tie. As such, I implore the voters to judge accordingly, and to see this as a promising debate spoiled by Con, and as such, a debate demanding a resounding Pro vote. My thanks and apologies to the readers in advance.
Gay Marriage

Unfortunately, I simply don't have the time to write up a full response. Therefore I concede. While I ask that we leave this at a tie, whatever the voters decide is fine by me.These are the correct sources for Round 3:[1] (a) http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com...(b) http://tech.mit.edu...(c) http://plato.stanford.edu...[2] (a)http://en.wikipedia.org... (b) http://criticallythinking.blogspot.com... Court Rulings(a) http://www.marriagelawfoundation.org...
Gay Marriage

16kadams told me I should do a Gay Marriage debate, so here we go.We'll be debating about gay marriage. Meaning that this debate will be about marriage between homosexual couples which includes both gay and lesbian couples. This debate will not be about marriages that are stupid, or marriages that are dumb, or marriages that are n00bish, since gay can also mean these things (that's not hate-speech, I'm just pointing out that adolescents often use the word "gay" liberally). Since this debate is about homosexual marriage it is about same sex marriage. The definition of same, is, same. The definition of sex, is, sex. The definition of marriage, is, marriage. Also, since we are debating about same sex marriage, gay marriage, and homosexual marriage, we are also debating about lesbian marriage. Which means a marriage between a lesbian couple which does not exist (also, pigs can't fly. That's logic). This is because marriage is defined as a union between a heterosexual couple (don't ask for a source, you know it is). But since we know we are debating about words that contradict each other we thus know that we are debating about which word we should change. Now, personally, I think "gay", "lesbian", "same-sex", and "homosexual" should all have their meanings changed to mean "as though they were not". So you could be like "Hey, you're a gay fish", which means that you're not a fish. However, I don't think Pro will agree with me on that. Thus the REAL debate is about whether "marriage" should be redefined so that it includes unions between heterosexual unions so they can have tax benefits and all that.Also, this debate is NOT, and I repeat NOT about transexual couples. This is very important. Do not turn this debate into a debate about transexual couples. Because I don't even, man. I don't even.If you argue semantics you thus declare yourself to be a n00b and forfeit the entire debate. Rules: 1. R1 is for intro, definitions, and acceptance (no ACTUAL arguments, please) 2. Make some sort of spelling or grammatical error in R1.3. Be nice to me because I like you, but I don't like like you. So don't get that idea.4. Make good arguments because if you don't I'll call the police.5. Never mind. 6. No new arguments in R4. Srsly.If you accept this debate I love you unless you turn this debate into a debate about transexual couples because the psychological implications of debating about transexuality far outweigh the pros to such an exchange.Also, to clear things up this debate will not be about gay fish because I have neither the time nor the tolerance to debate about gay fish. This debate is about marriages between one man, and another one man. Or, this debate will be about a marriage between one woman, and another one woman.In addition, this debate will not be about marriages between members of another species because that's honestly weird. I know that my subjective opinion is irrelevant but I just don't want to debate about marriages between like two dogs or whatever.
Pedophiles Should Be Executed

Con you have mixed general criminal elements with the single criminal element of which I reference. I, like you must consider my actions and/or my support of another's action based solely on the right thing to do. However, pedophilia is not a generalized crime like shoplifting and the like. Pedophilia has proven in countless cases to be non-rehabilitative, and it is very often treated like any general crime, with the exception of the Sex Offender Registry, which I reiterate has become ineffective and antiquated, already. Pedophilia does not constitute any consideration of Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative, if it did then wouldn't it be an even better consideration that the pedophile is treated in the very same manner in which he treated his prey, he or she should be terminated, immediately, it is my hope in the very same fashion. There is substantial evidence to support that the age old myth of "what comes around, goes around," has never really proved one hundred percent effective. A majority of the pedophiles in the penal system are housed separately, obviously to detour Karma, which some would consider prison justice. We protect these sick minds even after they've committed the most horrific crimes. Why? Regarding my source and it's contradiction of my beliefs...you are accurate it does present these concepts as a means to an end in the pedophile mind, but if you read further you'll discover that not one case of castration has deterred a pedophile, NOT one. They are referencing mere experiments that to date have proved ineffective, thus my source remains in tact. Pedophiles cannot be rehabilitated, there are no simple resolutions to the issues that these men and women represent nationwide, but on a daily basis approximately six hundred children are affected in some way by a pedophile, be it a mere touch or the full extent of the damage that he or she can cause. There are children that suffer quietly, they are afraid to speak up, and when they finally assemble the courage to speak the pedophile has already destroyed many lives. I reference the Sandusky case, need I say more? A pedophiles behavior is usually marred with many red flags, it is up to the various systems in place to see these flags and thus stop the madness, until such a time comes to us, our children will continue to suffer. And when that single pedophile whose history has repeated itself time and again finally presents his/her ugly head to the justice system, they should be sentenced to immediate death. There should be no further consideration of rehabilitation that has not proved successful, to castrations that do not work, nor to any type of segregation from an already angry population, hurt a child, come to prison, and you may die in prison. That is until and of course the penal system is forced to consider that this twisted human has any rights. A child is innocent, devoid of judgement, and in most cases consumed by child like manners, for any adult to take advantage of pure innocence calls for immediate death, as I assure you that pure and innocent child died the moment the pedophile puts his/her hands upon the child's body.
Pedophiles Should Be Executed

John Couey was arrested for the sexual battery and murder of Jessica Lunsford in February 2005. His criminal record was extensive, included many crimes, but overall and in the majority the molestation of a child occurred. He honestly admitted during the multitude of justice and medical interviews that he participated in that he could not stop. He had previous convictions of molesting children, and was often released early post conviction, because at that time pedophilia was a misunderstood crime. There is a long list of pedophiles to be reviewed, it is there that one will learn of the quandaries that face the medical profession in determining what makes the twisted mind of this individual work. It is there that one will learn that the majority confess that thoughts of children stimulate their minds and control their normal and daily activities. You can read that in a pedophiles mind the thoughts of the crime itself never reside too far from the central core of their lives. I offer you this reference, http://en.wikipedia.org..., while simple in this discovery it gives you reference to a majority of the reading material available online, most of which supports my conclusion that pedophilia cannot be changed. It cannot be rehabilitated, it cannot be loved away, and it cannot be controlled. Pedophiles are sexual deviates, unable to respond and/or perform in a "normal" sexual relationship where the scales are balanced and both parties choose to participate. Regardless of homosexual or heterosexual preference, the pedophile does not seek the attention of any one but that of a child. He or she will never change. Therefore it is a futile attempt to rehabilitate them, even more futile to house them and pray for change. There is absolutely no evidence to support that a pedophiles behavior can be controlled, nor a case in existence that supports a good and moral attempt. On average it costs the taxpayers approximately $20,000 annually to house, feed, and clothe an individual inmate. It has been suggested that pedophiles should be locked away for the balance of their natural lives, but truth is, at present there are approximately one million pedophiles registered in the United States, do the math, it would cost the taxpayers billions annually to support an individual that has no promise of rehabilitation. The plight of a criminal that becomes incarcerated is commanded by the promise to the taxpayer for not taking his life to rehabilitate, it is that simple. Pedophiles cannot be rehabilitated. I ask you, why waste these funds?