BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
national health care

Why would anyone oppose national health care? It all comes down to taxation. The United States' current fiscal policy is broken up in a pie chart method. The major areas are: education, military, and social security, plus numerous other social reform programs. To really believe a current candidate can bring you a health care plan that will justly help all Americans is unattainable. We need to first look at, is health care a privilege or entitlement/ right? We have billion dollar health care insurance agencies who have themselves situated right in the government's pocket. Health care is a service. It is a marketable entity, and it not a right. What happens to other universal health systems globally? They experience a lack in medical equipment advances- we evolve because extensive monies fund new technology. New technology leads to new cures, and furthered human longevity. Canadians comes over the border just to get an MRI in a timely fashion. Universal health care= consumers being treated all equally. There is no triage. You wait. Who is going to pay for this? Other nations pay further taxes than we currently do. If America is taxed further, then the economy will not continue to grow. We will become stagnant. Health care is a privilege. Social Security needs to be on the forefront, more than any other issue. That system is on the verge of going bankrupt in a decade- and we need to protect our older generations. Supplemental health care assistance makes more sense.We have too many illegals entering our country yearly, that our helping feed into the chaos. Something has to give before health care because a higher priority. These are not easy issues.
Racial profiling.

yeah bro ive been in this situation before. You can use racial profiling in a range of things that can benefit us including physicality, intellect and ect. for example as of the olympics maybe you can divide the standings into countries based off the average speed or strength of the average man or woman from that country. yes there can be the stronger or faster man or woman for example an English sprinter is faster than a jamaican sprinter (stereotype not intended) than we can find out the strongest of there closest match than filter out the results and find out who is the fastest/strongest.
George Zimmerman is not racist towards Black People

Thanks CON for a thought provoking debate. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts on this matter. Racism is a prevalent factor in American culture. We can't know that Zimmerman is not a racist, because we don't know the confrontation that took place, because he killed the only other person that was there. Therefore, the only narrative that we are provided on what happened, was dictated by him. There is no evidence that Trayvon did anything to merit suspicion. There was no compelling evidence as to why Zimmerman got out of his vehicle. It is reasonable to conclude, given these circumstances, that Zimmerman targeted Trayvon because he was black. Having no training as to what constitutes suspicious behavior, the question is, Why was Zimmerman suspicious? I feel that CON has not met his BOP. Racism is prevalent in our culture, our justice system, the media, etc. Is it harped on, debated, joked about, scientifically studied, wrote about, and hypothesized about. There is no reason to believe that Z is exempt from making false correlations in regards to color. Z would defend a homeless black man because his sense of justice outweighed his racism. Cops beating a homeless man would incite a response in many people, even racists. The aggressor is even more offensive when the victim is vulnerable. Very less likely that Zimmerman would have called the NAACP about a black teenager being 17x more likely to being stopped and frisked in New York City. It is the less obvious racism that Trayvon was a victim of. It is the unacknowledged predisposition of the human race to judge people just a little bit more harsh, because they don't look alike. George Zimmerman let go of his good sense when he got out of his car, and deserves the term racist murderer because there is one less person on the planet for no distinguishable reason.
George Zimmerman is not racist towards Black People

PRO thank you for your arguments. I must point out though, that you have agreed with me in that Z is a racist based on your following words QUOTE: We aren't done yet. One thing we left out is that George Zimmerman voted for Obama in the election. He agreed with Obama's character. He also felt that electing a multi-racial president would set a new standard for racial relations. Zimmerman wanted to see an end to the presidency being only a "Club of White Men."(n) PRO has proved my point for me. Zimmerman voted for Obama partially or solely on the issue of race. Therefore, Zimmerman has shown prejudice and is in fact a racist by PROs own definition. PRO's "facts" are not linked properly to any articles, only the main web sites. I did not call your friends stupid, I did not call you racist. I said, that dumb conservatives are more likely to be racist based on the following evidence. I apologize if you took offense. I did not call anyone a racist that is not alive, a baby, a prosecutor, judge, white, black, cancerous in nature, a prison, or an Oprah audience member in the 1990s, or George Zimmerman. Your facts are all circumstantial and fail to prove that Zimmerman is not a racist. Did Zimmerman profile Martin? Yes, because Martin wasn't doing anything wrong. If he wasn't doing anything wrong, why would he be suspicious? This is watertight logic. I tell you what is suspicious, following unknown teen age boys around a condo association. PRO has agreed that Zimmerman is a racist towards Obama. "Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago," - Obama. So, Zimmerman was racist towards Obama, fact. Obama could have been TM 35 years ago, fact. The evidence is overwhelming. Zimmerman is a racist.
George Zimmerman is not racist towards Black People

It is quite difficult to prove or disprove someone's state of mind in every encounter. Maybe in some encounters Zimmerman did not *display* racism, but it is very obvious to any casual observer and trial enthusiast like myself, that he is a racist and acts with hostility towards any and all members of any race with a skin tone of slightly more color than say, fresh white snow. He is so racist he hates the half of himself that is not white. He is so racist he hates his wife for marrying someone not of her own pure white race. There is ample evidence to support the fact that George Zimmerman is, in fact, 100% racist towards Black People.
George Zimmerman is not racist towards Black People

This is the third time I've tried debating this topic. Both times my opponents FF immediately. Do NOT accept unless you intend on debating with me without FF. I am not debating whether or not George Zimmerman was innocent or guilty. I am arguing that George Zimmerman was not racist toward the Black Race.The media, the NAACP, and numerous others are pulling the Racist Card on Zimmerman, but I feel there is no evidence that he is Racist. If you are unbiased in your views, and can hold a source-based discussion, feel free to accept.* Round 1 is for acceptance.** Round 2 - 3 is establishing a case with evidence and sources.*** Round 4 is a conclusion. Using only prior mentioned evidence from rounds 2-3, you conclude your case.The RESOLUTION is simple... George Zimmerman is not racist towards Black people.Because both sides must prove their case, BOP is shared. While I will attempt to prove Zimmerman not Racist towards Black People, the Con must prove he is.
Nutella is the only reason to live

People reading this, I implore you not to vote on this at ALL. It was frankly a waste of 5 minutes for my life, and judging by the size of my opponents arguments (only in the technical sense), a waste of about 15 minutes of his. My opponent listed reasons why he should get votes however, I will tell you that even clicking on those bubbles is a waste of your time. This debate was a farce and not worth any of the effort that went into it. Get out now while you still have the chance. My opponent also said he was insulted by my statements. I did not attack him, rather his poor attempt at humor. I have no hard feelings toward him personally, and I do not question his character in anyway. I am sorry if I hurt his feelings, but I stand by what I said in round 3. Well there just went the 7th minute I've wasted on this debate, and I'd rather not make it eight.
Nutella is the only reason to live

Oh well. I guess at this point It would be alright to ask for the vote. = Voters or whatever= Conduct- My opponent ruined this debate, and insulted me. Spelling/Grammar- Whatever. Arguments- Well all my opponent said was "No." I guess that's a concession? Sources- The squirrels. Squirrels! Anyway have some GloZell. http://www.youtube.com...
Nutella is the only reason to live

= Opening = Dude, you totally reminded me of this one time I was at the doctor's office and I had to get some surgery! I was deathly ill with a super-rare disease that affects one in ever 14 trillion people, it was called Phantom onychositis. Or, the inflammation of a toenail that isn't really there. I was prepped for surgery when a nursed came in with a meal tray. Naturally the doctor began to berate her for interrupting a surgery, especially one so delicate as mine - in her obvious guilt the nurse hit the edge of the tray sending it's contents flying across the room. As a peanut-butter and jelly sandwich flew through the air, it hit me in the head and I died. My funeral was swift but as the preacher spoke, he iterated how I might have survived the fatal sandwich had it been filled with Nutella instead of PB&J. = Framework = Observation 1: These words are written in english. Observation 2: You totally can't lick your elbow. And no, touching your tongue and then your elbow does not count. Observation 3: My opponent lives in Nashville, or so his profile claims of the time I post this, thus he must know Talyor Swift. Dude, you should totally get me an autograph! = Arguments = 1. Nutella saves lives- a. Hard evidence already presented- Dude, I told you; I died because my nurse brought me a PB&J sammich instead of Nutella one! b. Empirical data points to this conclusion- My Mom told me that Nutella saves lives, so I believe her. What? Are you calling my mom a liar? jerk. 2. Animals love the stuff- a. this cute squirrel- http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net... b. THIS cute squirrel http://24.media.tumblr.com... 3. The stuff is freaking cool- a. Pietro Ferrero; And Italian Willy Wonka- From Cracked.com [1] "Ferrero SpA (the Chocolate Factory) has been described as "one of the world's most secretive firms," making Ferrero himself like an Italian Willy Wonka." "Chocolate was being rationed during World War II, because we all know how much those Nazis love their chocolate, so Pietro used Hazelnuts which were plentiful and cheaper as an alternative, no one complained." b. Nutella is healthy! Nutella is Kosher, Gluten free, contains no peanuts and is marketed as a breakfast food! Everyone knows that all breakfast foods are super healthy, like Ihop's[2] Big Steak Omelette! With 1210 calories, you'll barely have to eat anything else that day, how convenient! And wit just a few handfuls of Nutella on it, it'l be even better for you! = Closing = Later y'all! I'm boutsta take a spoon to this magical jar of nutella sittin in front of me. = Evidence = [1] http://www.cracked.com... [2] http://www.ihop.com...
Reading and/or Watching the News is important

I. ForewordFor this debate we will be considering news recieved from the television, online, or a newspaper. If you have relevant information about a certain broadcasting network that you want to present, go ahead but make sure it pertains to the resolution.II. Definitions Important - something that is relevant or carries great significance directly or indirectly to a person or group of peopleIII. RoundsRound 1 - Acceptance onlyRound 2 - Opening Arguments only, no rebuttalsRound 3 - Rebuttals and closing statements
The Catholic Doctrine saying you must repent and confess for salvation is completely Unbiblical.

This debate is over. My opponent has failed to offer an argument despite having the full burden of proof. With this in mind, I have won by default. I was really looking forward to refuting my opponent's claims, but he has left me with nothing to refute. With this in mind, just for fun, I will offer an affirmative case: John 20:21 Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone"s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." The fact that sins could not be forgiven requires actual knowledge of the sin. This implies confession. Therefore, the resolution is negated. Summary of the debate: Conduct: I should get this point due to Pro's forfeiting of rounds. S and G: Tied. Arguments: I am the only one who has offered an argument. Sources: I am the only one who had a source. Six points for me! Sources: 1.https://www.biblegateway.com...
The Catholic Doctrine saying you must repent and confess for salvation is completely Unbiblical.

Hello everyone and thank you for viewing this debate. Who ever does choose to accept will be entering an arguement already lost. so i wish the best of luck to you! lets keep this clean. Salvation, in Roman Catholicism, is a process with many steps: Actual Grace, Faith, Good Works, Baptism, Participation in the Sacraments, Penance, Indulgences, and Keeping the Commandments. Basically, salvation is attained through baptism and good works. It is maintained by good works and participation in the sacraments. If lost, it is regained through the sacrament of Penance which only a Roman Catholic priest can administer. Add to this purgatorial cleansing after a person dies, and you can see that salvation is an arduous process. In Catholicism, a person can gain salvation and lose it many times depending on the number of sins committed, their severity, and how much of the sacraments that they participate in--in order to regain grace which enables them to do good works by which they are justified. Furthermore, justifying grace is infused into the Catholic upon baptism and via the sacraments. This grace can be gradually lost through venial sins or forfeited all together with mortal sins. -Matt Simms If you believe you can prove this false doctrine to be correct then best wishes. (;
Given the Bible, God is Morally Repugnant and Undeserving of Praise (+).

INTRODUCTION For the sake of clarity I will numerically list the contentions that must be addressed before the resolution is true. 1. The resolution necessitates the use of the Bible in order to define the Judeo-Christian God. Given the Bible (as it is stated in the resolution), it is a contradiction to state that God is morally Repugnant (see Matthew 5:48). Morality, and the basis thereof, is unilaterally decided by the creator of the universe. Deuteronomy 32:4 states, "He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he. " David, the psalmist contends that "As for God, his way is perfect," Psalm 18:30a. If, according to the Bible, God is the sole proprietor of morality, how then, and upon what basis does my opponent call His actions repugnant? IF, given the Bible, God's ways are perfect and He does no wrong, how then does my opponent say that He is undeserving of praise? 2. Flowing from the first contention, my opponents concluding statement says, "It's fairly clear from reading these passages that God is not a moral entity and is also clearly not deserving of praise. " My opponent posits an alternative morality that is not specified in the resolution. If given the Bible, God is the one who created all things, living and nonliving, and God and His commandments are how we determine morality (see Colossians 1:16), where does my opponent derive this alternative moral structure? Since my opponent appeals to a morality that is neither specified in his round one, nor consistent with the resolution "given the Bible," the readers should see such an argument as a contradiction and therefore null and void. 3. If my opponent cannot substantiate his claim that God is morally repugnant – his unfortunate attempt notwithstanding – how then can he make the claim that a perfectly just, omnipotent and omniscient creator of all things is not worthy of praise? Given the Bible, God is absolutely worthy of praise! Samuel 22:4 states, "I call to the LORD, who is worthy of praise, and I am saved from my enemies. " Psalm 145:3 states, "Great is the LORD and most worthy of praise; his greatness no one can fathom. " CONCLUSION Although all his references have legitimate responses, I am not obliged to rebut any of them as they are mere red herrings. My opponent must show how calling God morally repugnant is not a contradiction of the Bible. If by calling God morally repugnant he contradicts the Bible (which indeed he does) then he negates his own resolution because then God would only be morally repugnant apart from the Bible and according to an unspecified moral objective. I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you
school children should not able to bring phones to school

Ok. I am going to debate against phones in school, because you debate for. Firstly, when you say school children then I am thinking of children from the age of 6 - 12. Children in this age is still yet to learn what respect is and how to act and behave in school and other social places. If phones were allowed in school, then it would be misused by the students. Facebook and Twitter and what so ever is a curse for all, because it is hard to stay away from if we get a text or a like. I do not see what a child would need a phone for in the middle of a class so i do can not see the point of bringing statement 2 up. you say that: "3. it can be used as a calculator ,a notepad" There is a reason for us to have a calculator with us in school every day, so why not use it. And on the other hand, a calculator can do much more then a phone can.
school children should not able to bring phones to school

you said that school children are defined as 6-12 year olds but the maths level for a 6-12 year old is not on a level of difficulty that cannot be solved by a phone calculator.on a different note schools that allow phones are required to have filters that block certain social medias such as twitter and facebook and as for the statement "Children in this age is still yet to learn what respect is and how to act and behave in school and other social places" schools are suppose to teach these morals to children sine the age of 5 so i deem this statement unrelated.
Caste, Region, Religion- The word Indian has lost its meaning.

My opponents argument is rooted in the fact that Indian has lost its meaning. --> This is untrue. The definition of Indian remains the same. --> Indian: a native or inhabitant of India --> If you areHindu or not the meaning of Indian does not change. she then goes on to say about religion, and caste systems, etc. --> This only furthers the meaning of Indian. Since India's existence, Hindu has been the religion of the Indian people. The Caste system is implemented in society to mirror that devotion to Hindu. --> Therefore, the Hindu religion is Indian, it doesn't at all diminish the meaning.
Red Light Cameras need to go

Argument #1 My opponent claims "you need to remember those rule's it’s the law there is not excuse it’s for everybody’s safety."I'd like to quote Benjamin Franklin:“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”The cameras were intended for people who go through red lights. Now they are being abused and used for other violations.This is all about money and nothing to do with safety.The cameras, according to a study, actually cause more accidents.http://www.motorists.org...Argument #2My opponent wants to claim that the cameras are for: Safety for you and other’s Another income for the government to pay for everything other’s wreak while running a red light’s I doubt very much that they are for safety, since it's been proved that cameras cause more accidentshttp://www.nj.com...Also, car insurance is what pays for car wrecks, not government. The money the government collects on tickets goes intheir pockets and could be used for anything.My opponent claims, "Now you may oppose this idea but if you were to take every Red-light camera down and let the traffic go wild, you would surely see that there would be 10 times more crashes then there would be if there were not red-light camera’s."Where's the evidence for that? Studies show that the cameras actually cause more accidents to happen.http://watchdogwire.com...Argument #3My opponent claims "How can you possibly assume there is going to be black boxes’ in car’s there is no way this is going to happen."It's already happening.http://www.npr.org...My opponent claims, " 99% of the time the government can be trusted in that section but not any other sections."Where's the evidence for that? That sounds made up.Argument #4My opponent describes what can happen when you drive recklessly. That has nothing to do with red light cameras. It's just a red herring.Conclusion:Red light cameras are there for generating money for the government, which my opponent admits to.They do nothing for safety, since studies prove they cause more accidents.They also violate our Constitutional rights to face our accusers in court. This is why red light cameras need to go. Thank you for the debate
Universal Health Care

The Hippocratic Oath is very relevant. The doctor are in the moral obligation to treat anyone. Not only those who can afford it. A person who owns a humble job and just earn enough to live cant afford 17.000$ on medical bills -which is the main cause of bankruptcy in america by the way*-, now, not earning more than 70.000 a year is a reasonable reason to not get access to medical care? 25 million people had lost their jobs due to the economic recession, with no job they cant afford it, is that a reason to not get medical care? And if someone think they like to be unemployed. Who likes to be unemployed? There are people outside looking for job, company's cant hired them due to slow economic. If is only in the individual hands to be responsible; what could a man do to make more money without a job and no one who hire him? The answer is: assaulting, stealing,thieving. Is not a coincidence that the poorest neighborhoods are the most dangerous. It would be just moving backwards.
Universal Health Care

Taxpaying americans and their families should not be paying for health care if unemployed people are not. People that are unemployed do get help from our government by the opportunity to collect unemployment. So if we give money for unemployment and free health care, what is anyone working for? the people that do not have jobs would not have motivation to seek a job because everything is being handed to them. Our government already does help americans have health care by jobs giving health benefits, individuals that go to college and children that are under their parent/guardians health care insurance until they are of age, which is then in their hands to choose what they wish to do. And the "Hippocratic Oath" you speak of is irrelevant because 1) once again we are not discriminating on any of the three. 2) We are not denying anyone of health care, if you don't have insurance its just more money. SIMPLE, nobody is being left to die. its just in the individuals hands to be responsible.