BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Obamacare is not good for the country

I believe that the health care bill that President Obama has passed is not good for our country. I think their were other better options on the table that were passed over to satisfy this presidents political agenda. The main problems that explain why I think this is wrong for the country are: 1. A mandate that individuals purchase insurance. This means the government will decide what type and when we are to receive health care, and what fines and penalties there will be for those that refuse to pay in to health care. 2.A "pay-or-play" mandate for employers. Employers would be forced to either pick up a substantial part of their employees' insurance premiums or pay a tax. As businesses absorb this blow, jobs will disappear and workers will face lower wages. 3.A national health insurance Exchange. Proponents of this approach say it would "streamline the purchase of health insurance" by giving consumers one place to purchase government-approved insurance policies. In fact, it would be a vehicle for the federal government to get into the business of sweeping regulation of health insurance that inevitably would destroy choice and innovation.4. The cost. This bill is estimated to cost $1 trillion plus dollars over 10 years. Right now there are about 30 million people estimated to be uninsured. this is roughly 10 percent of the country. Logic then suggest that there must be 90% total coverage as of right now. Obama claims that his health care will insure coverage up to 95% of our country. 95-90 is 5%. So those of us with insurance, will be paying taxes to subsides 5% of the country's health care. 1 trillion dollars is alot of money for only 5 percent of the country. And this number is just an estimate. As most people will agree, numbers always change. Look at social security and Medicaid. These programs are broke, and this was not the "projection" when these programs were first debated. So what makes us think that 1 trillion dollars will not increase to 2 trillion or 3 trillion? chances are, that is exactly what will happen. Further, there is no way that insurance premiums will go down or stay the same when insurance companies are required to cover children on their parents plans until the age of 26, not to mention that now insurance companies will be required to cover people despite pre-existing conditions. Lastly, ill be the first to say that there is a health care affordability problem. NOT a health care problem. America is the best and most innovative when it comes to actual health care, we have the best specialists in the world. But this care is not always affordable to everyone. There are solutions to this problem, though what obama has crammed down Americans throats are not part of any valid solution. I welcome anyone who thinks that they can challenge the logic of this assertion.
(MIG Tournament) In Defense of "An Open Society and it's Enemies" Vol. 2

I accept all of my opponent's rules. I'll use this round to roughly define Marxism. Marxism is defined as the comprehensive social, economic, and political philosophy posited by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels which included the philosophies of historical materialism (and within that dialectical materialism), class struggle, and the necessity of revolution in order to overthrow capitalism (distinguishing itself from evolutionary approaches to dismantling capitalism) among other tenets. Texts of particular importance within Marxism include "Theses on Feuerbach" (Marx 1845), "Capital" (Marx 1867), and "Critique of the Gotha Program" (Marx 1875). I trust my opponent and I are in agreement on what constitutes a valid critique.
(MIG Tournament) In Defense of "An Open Society and it's Enemies" Vol. 2

My advocacy is that Popper's critique of Marxism is valid. This critique can be found in his work An Open Society and its Enemies volume 2. Note: I am only defending his critique of Marx, and not of Hegel or Plato. Rules1. No new arguments in the last round which includes new warrants/justifications or evidence for a previously stated premise. 2. Drops are concessions3. No semantics (but SPinko is a good debater so Inot worried about this) *Arguments start Rd. 2Good luck to you, SPinko! :D
omosexuality = a genetic disorder

Ten percent is a high number, ten percent means one out of ten, which is very high for a genetic disorder. Out of genetic diseases cystic fibrosis is the most common. According to the Boomer Esiason Foundation "one in every 31 Americans " are carriers of the defective CF gene, but do not have the disease." Much much less actually have the disease. Autism, which I consider genetic (But not a defect, it has a real reason and point to exist in the gene pool, society would be nothing without it), is between one in sixty eight and one in a hundred of the population. Being sexually attracted to your own gender has no reason to exist in the gene pool, and would naturally die out, if it was truly genetic, it would almost purely happen out of a random genetic mutation, and besides the commonness going way down, it would also likely come most commonly with other affects including likely intellectual delay, and physical problems. -i dont know what your point is with the infatuation v love tangent. and all that other stuff. if you are saying it's not a disorder but they are just confused, that could be true but it isn't a very good argument against my general thesis.- That is my counter theory.
omosexuality = a genetic disorder

homos aren't common. less than ten percent have the deviance. but even if you thought that was high it isn't, as we can see with so many people with all kinds of diseases and disorders, such as poor vision, or whathaveyou. i dont know what your point is with the infatuation v love tangent. and all that other stuff. if you are saying it's not a disorder but they are just confused, that could be true but it isn't a very good argument against my general thesis.
omosexuality = a genetic disorder

People can be attracted to anything, and I mean anyone at that. If homosexuality really was a genetic disorder, chances are it would be a whole lot less common, as it would have to be a specific mutation each time. Homosexuality would have very little chance of surviving the gene pool as they aren't attracted to- and probably will not mate with- the opposite sex. The way I see it anyone can be attracted to anything or anyone, but to actually love someone and stay in a committed relationship, they have to actively choose to over and over. That is perhaps my biggest qualm with the idea of lgbt, they treat love as a feeling which shows they often mistake infatuation with love. None of this is genetic, it simply shows confusion, and no wonder as to why too. Many spent their life being told that they have to like certain things, girls should like pink and barbies and boys should like trucks and army men, which puts the idea in their mind that if they like something that doesn't go with their biological gender, they must not be. A lack of strong parental figures who love each other for good no matter what, can also confuse some. Or low self esteem, and trying to kinda just be someone else. Possibly even just experiencing infatuation as a teenager, and not knowing it's different than love.
omosexuality = a genetic disorder

homosexuality is a genetic disorder i'm not arguing it is or is not natural, cause you could argue it's the way nature made em. but if homos were functioning they way they were suppose to, they would be attracted to the opposite sex. people with down syndrome dont pretend they aren't disordered. anaology applies to homos. look at their genitals, that indicates they are suppose to mate with the opposite sex and implies be attracted.
Canada is not a legitimate country

I don't mean to be condescending, but many of my your main points are based on a completely invalid premise.A country does NOT have to follow democracy to be legitimate. I don't know why you are so stuck up on that. Democracy is the foundation of USA as a country; it is NOT the definition of any country anywhere in the world. And even if democracy WAS the prerequisite to becoming a country, Canada is STILL legitimate. It may have not been a democracy in the past, but in modern times, it has become thoroughly democratic in nature (1).You also talked about how Quebec rejects Canada's constitution. However, this does not make Canada illegitimate. It makes Quebec a semi-autonomous region within Canada. Sure, it wants independence, but there are devolutionary movements like that in many, many countries around the world (e.g. Spain, Italy, Brazil, Great Britain)Then you went on to state that "although English-Canada does have a distinct culture, it is NO MORE distinct from North East American culture than Texas Culture is distinct from California is distinct from Black Georgia, is distinct from the bayou, is distinct from New Hampshire Hipster culture."Texas culture, California culture, and Black Georgia culture are VERY VERY different from each other, and you would know that if you had actually been to those places (I travel a lot). So by stating this, you have just invalidated your own argument.Your seemingly favorite argument to use is based on the faulty premise that Democracy makes a country legitimate, and it is faulty for two reasons:1) Democracy DOESN'T make a country legitimate, according to the fact that there are many other forms of government2) Canada's current form of government IS democratic...Canada is legitimate.Your arguments, however, are not. SOURCES:(1) http://www.parl.gc.ca...;
Canada is not a legitimate country

One: I fail to see how winning over Canada's French population to the monarchy in any way excuses Canada's Anglos from rejecting democracy. I see no need to argue this point further. But since my man con bring up the French Canadians, this might be a good time to point out that Qu"bec, Canada's only French-speaking province, has NOT ratified Canada's constitution, and that every one of it's governments-even the most staunchly unionist, federalists governements-have refused to do so. If only for that reason, Canada is illegitimate. Two: No one argues that as a land mass with a government Canada is a "country". The point is that a country founded on the rejection of democracy is not legitimate by modern standards. Now you might be tempted to bring up the repatriated constitution of 1981 which sort of "re-founded" Canada on a better foundation. But considering that this was done despite the opposition (see point One) of both French (then 25% of Canada's population) and Native Canadians, I fail to see what legitimacy can be claimed from that document. Three: CON claims that I can't ever have been to Canada. Yet, I'm as Canadian as that guy in that Molson's commercial. Therefore I maintain that although English-Canada does have a distinct culture, it is NO MORE distinct from North East American culture than Texas Culture is distinct from California is distinct from Black Georgia, is distinct from the bayou, is distinct from New Hampshire Hipster culture. Canada is a country that was founded on the rejection of democracy and liberty and has consistently failed to correct that historic mistake. Canada is illegitimate.
Canada is not a legitimate country

My opponent's first argument was about how Canada "rejected democracy and... self-government" by not joining the American Revolution, but the reason they didn't join is because the British Parliament took SPECIAL MEASURES to appease the French population of Quebec into not joining the revolution (1). As a result, the Canadians had no real reason to join the American Revolution. Why shed blood when it's not really needed? Next he went on to state that "...the legitimate foundations of legitimate statehood [are] democracy and self-government." I completely disagree with this point. That is simply the foundation of AMERICAN statehood. The definition of a "country" is an area of land that is controlled by its own government (2), and Canada achieved that status on July 1, 1867 (3). Just because Canada still pays respects to the British Crown doesn't mean it isn't a sovereign country. Then he stated that "the culture of English-Canadians is indistinguishable form any regional variation of American culture, as the Britsih empire is no more, as free trade and open borders is the stated objective of both countries,". First of all, anyone who thinks Canadian culture is indistinguishable from American culture obviously has never been to Canada before. And second of all, if open-borders is a sign of illegitimacy, then the European Union makes all of the countries in Europe illegitimate, as well. Lastly my opponent stated that "[Canada] serves no legitimate purpous." No purpose other than to govern its people... the same purpose that pretty much every other country exists for... Canada is a perfectly legitimate country. There is no proof to show that it does not meet the definition of a country, and it is no more or less "useful" than any other country. SOURCES: (1) http://www.mcgill.ca... (2) http://www.merriam-webster.com... (3) http://www.historyofnations.net...
Canada is not a legitimate country

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.."Canada exists as a separate and independent country because in 1776 the ruling men of the northern territories of British North America read that and thought:"Nah, we ain't about that."Canada was founded not ONCE but TWICE on the rejection of democracy and responsable self-governenment. The modern structure of the state as a federation of ten provinces was created to dilute and devide the opposition of the pro-democracy Upper and Lower Canada patriots and crush the uprising of the Prairie Cree so the barons of Montreal could build a railway and lay telegraph lines to connect Canada with other fine examples of modern statehood as British India and Rhodesia and to protect british land from the American traitors.Canada as created on the rejection of all the international community now agrees are the legitimate foundations of legitimate statehood: democracy and self-government. Now, yes, contemporary Canada has slowly evolved, british parliementary system-style, towards democracy.Precisely. As it's opposition of the values on which the United States were founded has eroded, as the culture of English-Canadians is indistinguishable form any regional variation of American culture, as the Britsih empire is no more, as free trade and open borders is the stated objective of both countries, of their european allies, and indeed of most Nations in the world, there simply is no need for Canada as an independent nation in the world. Canada can remain independent if it's citizens wish to remain indepedent and if the members of the United Nations recognize that independence, but it serves no legitimate purpous, unless you feel that protectionist barriers to shield the world's most destructive natural ressources industry (just google Fort McMurray) from competition and accountabilty is legitimate.Now my man PRO wil no doubt want to argue that Canadians are so nice and polite and that Bryan Adams rocks, and that it is a less racist and violent culture that the US and that, if only for that, it is legitimate.They are not, he does not, it is not and it is not and if he want to argue that he best be ready to demonstrate because I am. Do it!
Goodbye DDO! This will be my last debate before I retire and do something better in life.

Debating is useless in the way art is useless. It in most cases won't bring in the bread or keep you alive.But it does have a use, infact more than one;Broadening people's viewpoints,Anxiety relief,And as a brain exersize.For some people arguing online in some form is shown to even give a mental health boost. https://www.newstatesman.com...Now for a list of reasons for voters to give me a win for conduct:"annoying, ridiculous, retarded""good riddance"" I hope some of these trolls like KwLm go to hell.""I wish bad luck to the trolls who never gave a f**k."Thank you. For anyone looking at this, I need to get into another argument soon. Challenge me please.
Goodbye DDO! This will be my last debate before I retire and do something better in life.

I'm about to leave this website to do something better in life. Good luck to all who wish to do something better in life. Debating is such an annoying, ridiculous, retarded thing to do in life, but that is what it takes to prove just one simple thing right or wrong. If I lose this debate, I don't care. This is all it takes to matter. Goodbye, so long, good riddance, farewell, happy trails. Thanks for 3 years of me debating from my first account, to my last account. I hope you guys do well. I hope some of these trolls like KwLm go to hell. I wish everyone the best of luck, I wish bad luck to the trolls who never gave a f**k. Most of all, good times and bad times, for those who earn it. Have yourself a good life. Goodbye! Goodbye!
The question of the existance of God is the most important question.

I have made two points that I believe tip this debate in my favor. The first is that the existence question is unanswerable. My opponent disagrees. He seems to believe that an opinion is a definitive answer, and to his point, maybe, if people actually do ask themselves if God exists and come to a firm opinion, than to them that is a definitive answer. However, I don't believe that happens on a large scale. Which brings me to the second point I have made, people are set in their ways. Their opinions about the existence of God are strong, and much of the time it is ingrained in them since early childhood. Without being able to definitively prove an answer to the existence question, than the question is not making a big impact. Organized religion, indoctrination, tradition, fear, love, and hope are making big impacts, but not the question 'Is there a God?'. Pro seems to think that 'people come to the conclusion that God does or doesn't exist', and the only way this supports his argument is if they come to this conclusion by asking themselves 'does god exist'. Religion is often inherited, not derived from internal pondering. Many of the most religious people would never dream of questioning their faith. I'm sure there are examples of people who think and live the way Pro lays it out. But are there really that many people in the world that are affected by questioning the existence of God? I leave it to the voters to answer this, With the following groups of people alive today: Devout religious folk (from all religions) Less devout religious folk (from all religions) Hard line atheists The spiritual non-religious The non-spiritual non-religious and yes Agnostics How many of these people would actually be affected if they stopped and thought 'is there a God?'. How many of these people would actually be affected if they stopped and thought 'what makes me happy?' Which of these questions is really more important?
The question of the existance of God is the most important question.

It's the final round. I'll try not to bring up new arguments, but only reinforce and summarize old ones, and Con will have the final word. We are in agreement that for most purposes, an unanswerable question is pointless, as answerable ones are more pertinent. However, people, reasonable people, come to the conclusion that God does or doesn't exist, and use this as a base for a core life philosophy. i.e. Atheism and Christianity. As this is the basis of so many people's world view, I'd say it is answerable, and pertinent.
The question of the existance of God is the most important question.

Sorry, missed a round. To answer the question you posted, 'if the substance of the answer is unobtainable, wouldn't the question be moot?' I am in agreement with you, yes it would be moot. And that is the main point of my argument against the existence question being the most important question. I also agree with you that the implications of the two possible answers to 'is there a God?' are staggering. That is, if the answer was obtainable. This is where we seem to disagree. You argue this answer is obtainable. 'Based on all of what we do know, I believe one can come to a reasonable conclusion that one of the above scenarios' (God exists, or doesn't exist) 'is accurate, and the other is not. i.e. an answer'. Maybe I should have been more clear and said that there is no definitive answer. Sure, anyone can answer any question, but without a definitive answer, you are really just stating your opinion. My personal beliefs aside, and given your statement I quoted in the paragraph above, I think two reasonable people can come to completely different conclusions, and thus there is no answer, only an opinion. I don't believe there is any scientific evidence for the existence of a God, and under our current definition of God, you can't prove he doesn't exist. People can and do have their own beliefs about the existence of God, and to my previous point these beliefs are frequently strong and unchanging. Debating the existence of God, without the ability to prove or disprove a final answer, is a fruitless effort. As you put it, this makes the question moot. I don't think a moot question can be the most important one. Do you?
The question of the existance of God is the most important question.

Thanks Pro, this is my first debate, so please excuse any etiquette breach. I accept the Con side of this debate and will argue that the question 'does God exist' is not the most important question that we, as human beings, can ask. I'd like to define importance as: 'of much or great significance or consequence' http://dictionary.reference.com... I won't pretend that I know what the most important question is, as I suspect and hope, that that question is different depending on the person. However, I'll offer a MORE important question; 'what makes you happy?'. I'll argue that this question is more important because: 1. The answer to the existence question is currently unobtainable. Without an answer to the question there will be no convincing certain people or groups that the, admittedly, very significant actions that they take in the name of religion, are or are not justified. Hence asking this question has little significance or consequence to the world. 2. The answer to the question 'What makes you happy?' is obtainable. Once the answer is discovered we can take action in order to gain said happiness. The pursuit of happiness drives actions and has great consequence. While the belief in God drives actions and has consequence, belief in God has very little to do with people asking the question 'Does God exist?'.
The question of the existance of God is the most important question.

One of the most hotly and frequently debated....debates....on DDO is whether or not God exists. This is because the implications of the answer are too powerful and far-reaching to logically ignore. This debate is not on whether or not God exists, but on the importance of the debate whether or not he exists. Someone may take issue with my use of "he" when referring to God, but I'll warn you beforehand, such arguments will be taken lightly, as I'm an old-fashioned Christian. Besides, God's gender isn't what this debate is about. God- A supreme being Existence- current or in the past Most important- overriding or surpassing all others in importance.