BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Single Payer Health Care makes most economic sense

we spend more per capita, and get less health care results back... than any other country in the world: http://cthealth.server101.com... -we spend 17% of our GDP on healthcare, while single payer countries spend 10%. that 7% represents a lot of money, a trillion dollars. -the savings come from a decrease in administrative costs: insurance companies are a middleman that serves no real purpose other than spending 30% of revenue on administrative costs and profit, costs that could be just as easily streamlined by the government down to less than 5% or so. (medicare for example requires 3% for administration). -our GDP is 14 trillion, our national debt is close to there. 1 trillion dollars a year, enough to boost our economy significantly, or eliminate our debt if we wanted (political football as to how that would be done), or at the end of the day simply keep more money our pocket. -if the government did it right (big if, granted), it would be a self contained system (no taxes other than from those who want to join), we would not coerce people to join, and/or they could utilize 'supplemental insurance' in addition to the government's system and get more options. they wouldn't have to wait in lines then, which aren't that long to begin with. (two weeks max for most standard procedures, short for emergencies etc, and with many insurance companies worse than many single payer systems... and most citizens in single payer countries do not envy us). -insurance companies could even still exist (they may need to retain the current regulations to cover some preexisting conditions by law, so as to prevent them from skimming off a bunch of healthy people from government plans, to ensure the pool is sufficient to cover everyone in it to a reasonable extent--the most difficult aspect of allowing insurance companies to still exist, the government's power here and the overall give and take here, is huge). -there could be limits on the amount of care which is essentially what insurance companies already do and people understand as a necessity (eg, a 200k policy) (there would be no need for 'death panels'). the copays, premiums (or taxes), carrots and sticks, could be done so as to ensure people don't abuse the system (as they do with so many insurance plans already) -"Why I (an economically right leaning libertarian) Prefer French Health Care" (not directly on point, but interesting and relevant, with decent commentary following) http://pnhp.org... full article: http://reason.com... "For a dozen years now I've led a dual life, spending more than 90 percent of my time and money in the U.S. while receiving 90 percent of my health care in my wife's native France. On a personal level the comparison is no contest: I'll take the French experience any day. ObamaCare opponents often warn that a new system will lead to long waiting times, mountains of paperwork, and less choice among doctors. Yet on all three of those counts the French system is significantly better, not worse, than what the U.S. has now"
Single Payer Health Care makes most economic sense

Even that wikipedia article, con's first link, cites that the insurance companies spend 30 some percent on administrative costs and profit. that's where the savings come in. and, as i cited, medicare for example spends on 3% on administrative costs. (we wouldn't have to do a "medicare for all" either, we could also do as many european systems do and have a tightly regulated insurance market with health care provided by all) con's issue is that he falls into not being able to rise about stereotypical thinking... he thinks that the government can never do anything more efficient than the private sector.... when this has been shown many times here to be untrue. also, even that wikipedia article shows that health care is 17% GDP here while it's lower in other countries. con wants us to assume that the US would be different just because we're fat and unhealthy as a nation. he found one small factor that might make it slightly higher costing in the US, and expects us to believe that accounts for 7% GDP difference and a trillion dollars. that is poor judgement on con's part. also, if the US is so much more efficient in cost, and we have probably at least a third of people uninsured... why isn't the GDP percentage spent lower than european countries? we expects us to believe that's also because we're fat and unhealthy, too? poor judgment, no contest. the reason the government spends too much on health care costs, such as the cited 56% total costs for uninsured, is because they participate in the problem, states often use private insurance companies to provide their care. Not all government health expenditures are medicare. also, ER visits for basic care drives up costs that otherwise would not occur with a public plan. maybe we should do as i suggested a possiblity, and use a tightly regulated insurance industry as europe does, if the way it's done now isn't efficient enough with the government. i'm sure we could find other reasons it costs that much too. at the end of the day i've shown where the savings come in, admin and profit cutting 31% of costs via cutting out the insurance middle man, and our GDP differences with other countries. con's whole argument is basically that we're fat and unhealthy as a country, and all these other countries are so much better... illogical speculation, bad judgment, and with no studies to back up this claim. (showing that there are a few more obese people in france doesn't prove anything. he has to show how it extends to higher costs, so high that it'd amount to almost twice the costs of other countries ie 17% v 10%, a trillion dollars a year) given this is the essence of his argument, his argument fails.
Psycopathy is not a pathology it is a privelege and a gift it is the American Dream

The revised Hare test for psychopathy was derived from interviews with a criminal population and is aimed at assessing level of candidates fitness from incarceration. The term psychopathy is not considered as a synonym for criminality, there are however clear traits that criminals in general share. Of the Hare traits you have starred, I will argue that some if not all are criteria for assessing proneness to criminality. Parasitic lifestyle- Criminals are parasitic this is not the same as lazy the stance of the criminal is one which rejects honest labour as a means of supporting one's needs. Psychopaths are associated with manipulative skills that enable them to control others to meet their own needs. Manipulative skills are important in getting to the top in an organisation. Lack of realistic, long-term goals* With criminals any long term goals are objectively unrealistic, they will remain at the bottom of the heap and the system will keep them there. Impulsivity* Impulsivity the ability to see an opportunity and react to it is a trait that belongs within the mythology of the American Dream. Irresponsibility* Criminals are essentially irresponsible. The quote I would like to make (though I do not have the citation) is that looking for Psychopathic traits which are also criminal traits, in a criminal population is like looking for 'hay in a haystack'. Poor behavioral controls* Criminals are associated with poor behavioural controls being overcome by anger and aggression. Whether psychopathic or in need of anger management. This measure is at least moot. Another trait associated with psychopathy is coldness lack of emotion. I shall argue the Psychopathy is not a catch-all term for the criminally insane and indeed argue that there are psychopaths in the general population who are not prone to criminality. These can be regarded as sharing the same traits that are shown by the psychopaths and differentiate from others within a prison population. Finally, I will argue that these very traits are reflected in the very successful within general society.
Psycopathy is not a pathology it is a privelege and a gift it is the American Dream

These are the traits measured out in diagnosis of psychopathy: [1] Factor 1 Facet 1: Interpersonal Glibness/superficial charm Grandiose sense of self-worth Pathological lying Cunning/manipulative Facet 2: Affective Lack of remorse or guilt Emotionally shallow Callous/lack of empathy Failure to accept responsibility for own actions Factor 2 Facet 3: Lifestyle Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom Parasitic lifestyle* Lack of realistic, long-term goals* Impulsivity* Irresponsibility* Facet 4: Antisocial Poor behavioral controls* Early behavioral problems Juvenile delinquency Revocation of conditional release Criminal versatility Other items Many short-term marital relationships Promiscuous sexual behavior These traits have nothing to do with working hard to get something. In fact, the traits I starred are the opposite of determination and hard work. Therefore, psychopathy is counter to the American dream. [1] The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised
Boys are more athletic than girls

I believe that men are more capable at sports for four reasons: 1. In all running categories men are faster and get better scores in the Olympics (for example in the mile the men's best score is 3:48.45, women's is 4:17.14) 2. Men are stronger and can lift more weight (Paul Anderson, a man, lifted 6,270 pounds, 2844.02 kg) 3. Men are tougher (there are no women in the NFL, they are allowed to but none are good enough) 4. Men just are more athletic overall and can beat women in any sport
Boys are more athletic than girls

Your whole stance where you said am I faster than the fastest woman, that debate could be applied to you too. Are you faster than the fastest man? No. But if a man and a woman both trained hard in a sport then the man would win. Also if a woman was extremely good at football which you need to be to be in the NFL, then she would be accepted and if I saw a woman who was good enough then that's fine by me. 1. My first point you cannot refute and I assume you concede that. 2. Again a man has lifted the most weight ever no debate. What you said how size gives you advantage also proves my point that men have the ability to be stronger and more athletic. Men have better scores in the Olympics so again not refutable. No I cannot lift as much as the strongest woman, but if it was my profession and I trained all of the time I am sure I could. 3. Men are also tougher: wrestling and boxing are more popular sports because men are more attracted to tough sports. There are no women in the NFL, women don't wear pads in lacrosse, and the fact that woman are usually smaller are all reasons that men can be tougher. For example how would a woman fare against a huge linebacker, probably not well right? 4. Men have the fastest times, draw the biggest crowds, and are the most athletic. Boom. Thanks for debating. I hope you actually argue this round.
Boys are more athletic than girls

So you have no answer to how men have faster world records. Well to your point about how I wouldn't be able to beat the fastest woman ever, you are right but that isn't my point. My point was that if you take the fastest MAN and the fastest WOMAN, a man would win. And my point isn't that woman aren't athletic, they are. But if you take a man who trains in a sport as much as a woman, the man would win. As proven before by those statistics. Also you have nothing to say about the fact that there isn't even an event for the +105 kg lift for women. Again I'm not saying that I am more athletic than every single woman. I'm saying that in the professional level men are more athletic. http://en.wikipedia.org... As you can see by this cite, women do play football. And if they were good enough in college then they could get drafted. Also, according to this time article women could play in the NFL, but most people wouldn't wan't to see a woman getting tackled by a 220 pound linebacker. Do you think that most women would be able to do that? http://nation.time.com... I see you have nothing to say about women not wearing pads in lacrosse so I guess you conceded that. When you say that women are naturally shorter that pretty much gives up your argument. Being tall gives you an advantage in mostly every sport, so saying that women are naturally shorter, is like saying that men have the ability to be more athletic. Say you take Maya Moore, a well known WNBA player, and you take LeBron James to go 1 on 1. Who do you think will win? A woman who is 6 feet tall or LeBron James who is 6-8. Also why do you think men's sports are more popular? It's because they are more exciting and are tougher. The average NBA Finals game drew 15 million people last year. The average WNBA finals? 344,000. http://www.statista.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... Again I would just like to note that I don't think that women aren't athletic, I just think that men on the professional level are more athletic than women on the professional level,
Boys are more athletic than girls

In theory guys are proven to be more athletic than girls, but let me ask you a question. Would your mile time be able to beat Svetlana Masterkova, with a 4:12 mile? Unless you are one of the fastest males in the world the answer would be no. Girls may have to work harder but they are just as capable. Second of all, Aneta Florczyk is the strongest women in the world. Are you stronger then her? Unless you are one of the top 10 most fit men of all time the answer should be no, she just worked harder. Women are very much capable when it comes to joining the NFL. But the way society works right now just doesn't allow it. The company doesn't like to accept women and I don't think a women would like to apply against a bunch of men. Its just a stereotype, I don't want to be disrespectful here but women are just as capable they just have to work harder. Girls are naturally shorter than men. They just have to work more hard, men are better at sports because it's easy for them, but that is at a professional level. In a level that is non professional like you and I, many women are better than us. So you saying this in this format makes you a bit of a sexist, and respecting both genders equally is the right thing to do.
Boys are more athletic than girls

I believe that men are more capable at sports for four reasons: 1. In all running categories men are faster and get better scores in the Olympics (for example in the mile the men's best score is 3:48.45, women's is 4:17.14) 2. Men are stronger and can lift more weight (Paul Anderson, a man, lifted 6,270 pounds, 2844.02 kg) 3. Men are tougher (there are no women in the NFL, they are allowed to but none are good enough) 4. Men just are more athletic overall and can beat women in any sport 1. Men have faster running and swimming times: Men's records running -100 meter: 9.58 seconds -200 meter: 19.19 -400 meter: 43.18 -800 meter: 1:40.91 Women's records running -100 meter: 10:49 -200 meter: 21.34 -400 meter: 47.60 -800 meter: 1:53.28 Men's swimming records 50m freestyle: 20.91 100m freestyle: 46.91 200m freestyle: 1.42.00 400m freestyle: 3.40.07 Women's records swimming 50m freestyle: 23.73 100m freestyle: 52.07 200m freestyle: 1:52.98 400m freestyle: 3:58:37 (I won't list all of them but you can look at these links) As you can see men have better times in every event. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. My second point is that men are stronger and they are able to lift more weight. The world record is also held by a man in weight lifting. (Paul Anderson, a man, lifted 6,270 pounds, 2844.02 kg) In the 2012 Olympics, there wasn't even a heavy lifting event for women. The most weight that men lifted was the 105kg heavy lifting event, and for the women it was in the 75kg. There isn't even an event for women's heavyweight. http://www.olympic.org... 3. Men are tougher. Like I said there are no women in the NFL. Women are allowed to, but none are in it. Secondly in women's lacrosse the girls are not allowed to hit each other and have to guard each other like basketball. 4. My last point is that men are better at most sports. As said before all of the world records held by men in running and swimming are faster than the women's. Most women can't dunk in the WNBA, whereas in the NBA most men can dunk. Women play softball which is an easier version of baseball. There is a smaller field making it easier to hit a home run. Plus the bases are closer together making it easier to run to. http://americanprofile.com...
why do we listen to music

My opponent argues that listening to music with curse words is not right, but presents no reasoning for this. Since he presents no premise, he does not have a valid argument. According to a study provided in "Journal of Personality and Sociology (Vol. 84, No. 6), most people's music preferences fall into four categories: http://www.apa.org... . Reflective and complex, intense and rebellious, upbeat and conventional, and energetic and rhytmatic. These terms outline ones personality. Thus, people listen to music based on their respective personalities. So with that said, I submit that my opponent is equating personal preference with right and wrong. Obviously, there is no right and wrong when it comes to personal preference . . . although to use "politically correct" reasoning, as long as there is no harm in listening to any genre of music, there is no problem. Keep in mind that it is my opponent's job to back up his claims. So far, he hasn't done so. That alone is enough reason to vote for my case. Thank you.
The constitution should be interpreted based on what it would mean if it was written today.

"My definition stands because I have a source, and he does not. "Dear friend, the little (1) after the definition signifies that the source consulted resides at the end of the round, which it certainly does. The exact definition is somewhat irrelevant, because regardless it is well known how the Constitution is utilized, even if technically a constitution is more abstract. The Electoral CollegeGiven the rarity of actually response to challenges, my opponent admirably rises to mine, citing an example of the discrepancy in the Constitution, namely the broken behemoth of a voting system in the United States. While this is a good example, my opponent does not explain how "interpreting the Constitution based on what it would mean if it was written today" would solve the problem. Most polemical passages or amendments can be fixed by alterations or additions to the Constitution, rather than this bizzare idea of a re-interpretation. In this debate, my adversary posseses the right concept, but the wrong proposition. Perhaps there are changes or deletions worth making to the Constitution, but that involves actual adjustment. The idea that we should decide what the Founder's would have meant had they lived today, I'm sorry to say, is quite farcical. My opponent goes as far as to say "the amendments are here to stay"! Good to hear. So Pro would have the wording of the founders kept, but simply change their meaning. I will let the readers judge this point. Made to be Interpreted? The other claim of Pro's worth rebutting is arguing that since the Constituion is rather vague, it is meant to be liberally analyzed. Well, whenever a court of any kind hears a case that holds Constitutional jurisdiction, the judge or jury must consider the words as the founder's intended,not how they would interpret it had they written it. This seems a common sense measure, given that if any politician or legal potentate had authority on the meaning of the Constitution, the results would no doubt be disastrous. At best, one could argue that the Constitution was meant to contain a small portion of wiggle room. But free-interpretation? I think not. In conclusion, the difference between changing something and re-interpreting it is a massive distinction, and in this case, not only was the Constitution not meant to be hurled around by sinister powers, but allowing this to happen holds unconscionable circumstances.
The constitution should be interpreted based on what it would mean if it was written today.

To begin, I will jump straight into rebuttals, seeing as to how you already know my argument. Aright, now I will begin by defining "constitution", and citing a source. Constitution:"the system of beliefs and laws by which a country, state, or organization is governed" http://www.merriam-webster.com... My definition stands because I have a source, and he does not. For all I know, he could have just made up this definition because it suited his argument perfectly. therfore, that entire argument is irrelevant because the definition does not uphold your argument. "But the Constituion holds true. Free speech will not be restricted, and in this way, the Constitution is eternal. Because ultimately the Constituon will adapt, due to it being not a series of laws, but a series of rules laws must be based on." Clearly you misunderstand. I am not looking to change the bill of rights. Or, and amendments for that matter. I am talking about the things that constitution says about the branches of government. Amendments are only changed by other amendments. Issues like the Electoral college need to be fixed. Have you done extensive research on the electoral college? If not, check out the link below. http://www.fairvote.org... The electoral college is in the constitution. It ensures that we do not have a fair vote. Of course, it was ingenious at the time! Since all people couldn't get there responses to D.C. in time, this was used. However, as times changed, we now CAN get all our votes to D.C.. Therefor, the electoral college must be removed as times change, effectively changing the constitution as times change. "So, I must ask. Which of the 27 amendments in our noble consitution would my opponent see "re-interpreted"? Which article no longer holds true in the modern world? Free speech? Trial by jury? No restriction on voting rights? I challenge my opponent to raise a single grievance with an amendment that can be resolved simply by recontextualizing the writing. The Constitution simply need not change." In this selection, you just took my argument out of context. Like I said earlier, the amendments are here to stay! They provide us liberties which are guaranteed to us simply because we are American. next, "However, were there ever to be a legitimate complaint against a section of the document, there are processes which which it could be solved. For example, by very heavy majority, it is technically possible to have amendments eliminated, added, or altered by popular vote or congress." The fact that you said "technically" surprised me. You make it sound like it's never been done, when in fact, it has been done 17 times. Things will always be up for interpretation. Which is probably why the majority of the constitution was so vague- it was made to be interpreted! Thanks, I am finished.