BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
US Health Care is Worthless

My opponent is arguing that the US health care system is (1) a disgrace and (2) worthless. S/he must prove both (1) and (2) for his/her argument to be true. I concede (1) that it is a disgrace. It is not, however, (2) worthless. For something to be "worthless," it has to be worth nothing, zero, zilch. The US health care system does treat some people -- maybe not enough, but some -- and there is value to that. The people who can afford doctors get to see doctors. Even some people who can't afford doctors get to see doctors under Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP. Are these programs perfect? No. Are they even decent? Doesn't matter. At least a few people are treated and that's worth something. Also, even if there are superior alternatives to the US system, it doesn't make the US system worthless. This is just like how the SuperSoaker 150 was still worth something (though not much) after the SuperSoaker 2000 came out. Your move, Bond.
US Health Care is Worthless

The healthcare system is not like a stock. A stock is a share of a company and manifests itself in a piece of paper. A healthcare system is a little more substantial than a piece of paper. It includes hospitals, personnel, etc. If we liquidated it, it'd be worth more than $5, but I'm still offering $5 just to low-ball. And if the HC system actually were worthless, then Obama would've taken my offer by now. He reads these, doesn't he? The only thing worthless in this debate is going five rounds when it was settled in the first.
US Health Care is Worthless

1- But think about stocks-they are not worth anything until someone buys the stock. 2- Since the answer is "meh", and he has no rebuttal, I only assume that he agrees with me and he has no further comment. 3- Well isn't the current system at a state where no one can seem to use it? Since prices seem to go higher, how is it possible that people could use it, especially with the current economic crisis. ***As I have said before, a stock is not worth anything UNTIL people start buying it, NOT when there are offers. Just because someone offers one million dollars for a stock, it doesn't mean that it is worth a million dollars.
The U.S. regime should be disarmed

Why should the U.S. regime be trusted with arms? The corporate media is crying about how Asad allegedly used chemical weapons on "his own people", and therefore he should be overthrown. Yet, the U.S. regime has been using chemical weapons for a long time. Members of the U.S. military, (shill or not) [Dennis Kyne] have come forward and talked about the usage of depleted uranium on civilian populations. Now should we really trust a regime that uses depleted uranium indiscriminatntly? The Korean , Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libyan, and Syrian wars were all started by the U.S. regime alone, even though other aggressors participated. And speaking of Viet Nam, the U.S. regime used many different kinds of chemical weapons there. How come no one called for a regime change then? Weapons should be used for defense, and not to advance economic interests. Doing false flag terror to start a war does not justify it. You can talk about allies if you want, but the fact remains that the U.S. regime is responsible for most of the ongoing wars right now, this includes sponsoring terrorists, and backing sectarian conflicts. One example I will use is the Sunni vs. Shiite wars. I don't need to remind anyone that more people died under 5 years of U.S. occupation than under 25 years of Sadam. The U.S. regime is more or less a continuation of previous imperialist empires, and operates in similar manners. They will find, and facilitate extremists in order to escalate wars. One example i will use is the Iraq/Iran war, where the U.S. regime backed Sadam Husein to attack Iran. Isn't it ironic how Sadam ended up? Hey, I know that John Perkins is a shill, but check out his book, and watch his movie, the confession of an economic hitman, and you can see how the U.S. regime uses aggression to dominate the economy. European regimes also do the same thing. The U.S. regime always talks about the "free market", so is using military aggression really the basis for a free market? It's the fear of American military aggression that causes many regimes across the globe to make deals with western multinational corporations. This is why the U.S. regime has 800 military bases across the globe. If you disobey their economic and market terms, they will attack you, or back some terrorists in your country, as seen in Syria today. Sadam Husein, and Momar Gadafi both wanted to trade oil in Euros, and they paid for it with their lives. Let's see how long this debate lasts before the U.S. regime censors me.
The U.S. regime should be disarmed

My oppponent is simply ranting at this point. I've put enough effort into this already and I choose not to address the same ignorant arguments that have been put forth for a third time. He has not supported his resolution, he has not addressed my counterpoints to his orignial contention, he has ignored all efforts to educate himself through reason and fact, and he had the gumption to write this gem: "Instead of looking up facts, and taking books, or internet articles as gospel, use your common sense. "You should vote Con for any number of reasons - there are quite too many to list here. I sincerely hope that this was an effort to troll an internet community and that you don't actually operate this way in the real world. Good luck out there if you do believe this drivel. TL;DR: My opponent thinks common sense > facts.
The U.S. regime should be disarmed

False flag terror- The U.S. regime, and allies accuse others of terrorism without evidence. One would assume that it is false flag unless the U.S. regime, and allies come up with some evidence. We also should look at who benefits from the false flag terror. However, we are not debating whether the U.S. regime and its allies are guilty of false flag terror. My original point is that the west using false flag terror to justify military aggression is wrong. I am sure most people would agree with that. Shills excluded. Like I said, you can talk about allies if you want or not. I don't really care. The Sunni/Shiite sectarian conflicts are fueled by the U.S. regime. The British fueled sectarian conflicts through its colonial period, and still do it today. Now Americans, British, and French do it. That's how they keep their former colonies weak, and in chaos. Not all conflicts are driven by sectarian tensions. However, the west loves to exploit them, and arm them. There's another reason for disarming the USA. It always seems like the most lunatic aggressors have U.S. made weapons on their hands. The latest example is of course the Syrian rebels, but the U.S. regime also broke known terrorists out of prison in Libya, and armed them. The disturbing part is that these terrorists, and jihadists are being armed by the U.S. regime, and killing innocent people, and doing insane things like BBQing their victims heads, and something which was caught on camera- sodomising Colonel Gadafi. More people died under US occupation of Iraq in the second Gulf War (2003-2008) than under Saddam rule (1979-2003)- This is true. Also, when Sadam used his "chemical weapons" on his victims, guess where his weapons came from? The USA. Another reason why the USA should be disarmed. You see, you arm some of the world's worst dictators, and then try to condem them afterwards. If you want to make them look bad, first you have to look at yourself. And why is Wikileaks a credible source? Because he poses as some kind of dissident? Instead of looking up facts, and taking books, or internet articles as gospel, use your common sense. The U.S. regime censors plenty. Do a search for U.S. troop abuse on Google, Yahoo, or Bing, and see if you come up with anything. This isn't because U.S. troops aren't abusing anyone, it's because the U.S. regime censors out everything.
This House Believes that Children should be Allowed to Own and use Moblie Phones.

I want to start by thanking brianjustin3709 for challenging me to this debate, and I gladly accept the challenge, as this is a topic I've yet to debate here. I agree to follow the rule of no forfeiting and the round structure. In regards to definitions, while I agree with Con's definitions for the most part, I think it would be prudent to expand on the definitions provided by my opponent for the sake of clarity. DefinitionsMobile Phones: A telephone with access to a cellular radio system so it can be used over a wide area, without a physical connection to a network. also called cellular phone. [1] Children: A young human being below the legal age of majority. [2] **Since I am American and the age of majority is 18 and my opponent is from South Korea where the age is 19, I believe we can find a common ground and agree that this term encompasses anyone under the age(s) of 18/19.**Ban: Officially or legally prohibit. [3]With that out of the way, I wish my opponent the best of luck, and look forward to having a cordial and thought-provoking debate. Sources[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[3] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
This House Believes that Children should be Allowed to Own and use Moblie Phones.

Rebuttals 1. In Pro's first round which he said that he is 18 and I was 19, actually I am 14 so I believe that 14 is a child. We are talking about until middle school you do not need phones.2. In Pro's first argument which is internet access, you can't have your phone in school either and also why do you need internet access in the streets? Because many people say that children usually do games with their phones. Also for the daily weather or finding dierections, the parents know where they are going and they probably know where like their home or school is. and also you cna use a computer not only a phone.3. In Pro's second argument he said that you need GPS. Yes, it does have extra security but your mom knows where you are going and they won't just make you go to a dangerous place.4. In Pro's third argument which was that staying in touch, this is basically all like his other arguments and I have the same rebuttals. 5. In Pro's fifth argument which was that older children need it, yes but older children who drive aren't children. I tis the same thing like a 30 year old child who needs a cell phone. Of course they need it but we are talking of young children.
Abortion for rape victims.

You're killing the wrong person. Would you kill a born person conceived by rape? Rape victims have three contraceptive options, Paragard iud, Ella pill, and Plan B One Step. The Paraguard iud is always 99% effective. I and many prolife advocates are currently working on a rape victim's right to choose adoption without her rapist's consent. I was raped twice, would abortion unrape me? Would a dead baby really help a rape victim. Adoption should be the answer, not killing a human being. There is no Biblical difference between a rape baby, and a baby conceived by consent. Killing human beings due to how they were conceived is morally and ethically problematic, and if I was pregnant by rape, I would choose adoption. Let's change laws that make it hard for rape victims to choose adoption instead of committing homicide to save someone's feelings. Side note, I would make an exeption for a 10 year old girl, because her body can't handle pregnancy and childbirth. The health of the mother only, please.
Haruhiism is a legitimate religion

With regards to points one and two, there is nothing further that needs to be said on my part, as with two, it is off topic and has no further relevance, so I will continue to answer from three and title any other Addition {number}. Point three, it could be said that in a dominant Christian country, someone at some point may have found the idea of a Muslim member of Parliament to be funny and yes, it could be said all religions are based in fiction but that doesn't have any relevance to the legitimacy of a religion. Recognition is not the same as legitimate, Palestine is not a recognised state by the UN [1] but this doesn't mean it can't be a legitimate state and besides the question wasn't "Should Haruhiism be a recognised religion" because I believe for that, it would need a decent sized following. Point four, with regard to ontology, can't the same be said for a number of Gods and such? If I am not mistaken, Jesus turned water into wine, among other miracles, although he did so knowingly, Haruhi changes things without realising it, such as making a cat talk [2], but really, these changes are no different to the miracles that Jesus preformed. Addition one, just because something does not conform to standards does not dismiss it, things change and evolve over time, to accept something that is different to the set standards allows for similar ideas of that nature to come through, so if you can believe Haruhiism is a legitimate religion, then there's nothing preventing other religions coming up that are similar in nature. Addition two, some of this I have answered already but redefining a word, while not recognised by language doesn't subtract from it's legitimacy, if people are willing to concede to a new definition, then in time, it may become recognised. Addition three, the only argument I dismissed as "cheap" is the one to claim that it is a "mock religion" because that is to say that people would only use it jokingly and not mean it. You said you don't dispute the potential values of Haruhiism, so if that's the case then what is there to prevent it from being a legitimate religion and shake the stigma of a mock religion? The only problem I am seeing put forward is that it doesn't conform to current standards but as mention previous, things change. In closing, I will say that you have raised a few decent arguments but the mostly revolve around definitions and sticking firmly to those definitions, if people are open to change and new ideas, there is nothing to prevent this from moving from a legitimate religion to a recognised religion. This is all I have to say and is my final word on this debate, it was enjoyable, so thank you for that and I hope this response came in a reasonable time as with the last. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Haruhiism is a legitimate religion

Your defining of legitimate is partly right but it has multiple definitions, such as; authentic, valid, legal [1] and in this context, it is used for the sense of valid as in, a valid religion. As for the definition of religion, I have no objections to those. Point one, you say it can't be taken seriously even from a religious standpoint, yet doesn't the definition state "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency..." and with that, the belief is that Haruhi, a superhuman individual, controls the universe [2]. Point two, you have a point in terms of history of the "big" religions, which is true but it could be assumed that Scientology would have done those things in the past as well if they existed but as it stands, they still do a lot of serious harm. This is an aside, the reason I brought it up was because it was created because it was created by L. Ron Hubbard and rumoured to have been created to make money [3], however it remains unproven, the religion is still based of science fiction. Point three, you mention the Jedi Church, something I was going to bring up at some point to prove that while origins may lay in fiction, they can still develop into a legitimate religion, the Jedi as a religion received quite a following with a British MP claiming to be the first Jedi MP [4] and as it appeared on a number of censuses around the world, it can be seen as a legitimate religion. Point four, while I accept you may be right in a sense with the rules and worship, as well as standard practice, you have to understand that Haruhiism is chaotic and that there can be no set rules or practices, the reason for this is because Haruhi celebrates all and any holiday and do different things on different days [5], so every holiday is open to celebration. And in this case, there is no order to the chaos, only the belief that Haruhi is God, to call a "mock religion" based on the fact that it doesn't conform with existing religions and standards is a cheap argument to make, the real argument would be to prove that it can't be a legitimate religion. [1] http://thesaurus.com... [2] http://anime.wikia.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.publications.parliament.uk... [5] http://animequote.tumblr.com...
Haruhiism is a legitimate religion

Haruhiism is a legitimate religion and yet many sites don't list is as one, Debate.org for example lists a wide range of religions, some which are not very common but there is an absence of Haruhiism. An easy argument would be to dismiss it as a mock religion, but that's a poor argument, if a site lists a religion as dangerous as Scientology, then surly it should list something as harmless as Haruhiism. So does anyone disagree with it being a legitimate religion?
Gays

I have noticed that you take things very literally and that I should not use any sarcasm. Therefore I will be very literal and explain everything. I will also address things slightly off topic. Being gay is not a choice. I believe it is your surroundings as you are raised that helps determine who you are sexually attracted to you. Despite how gay people feel towards the same sex, they can still decide whether to do anything about it. They can instead help increase Earth's population. As I said in the previous round, children are important for the future of mankind. It was my bad for not stating why they are (forgive me, but I will be getting a little off topic). As you and I know, people die. Now to replace the dead people, we(humans) need to conceive children. Gay couples sadly cannot contribute. Couples already use birth control and there are those who will never find mates. Homosexuality is present in the natural world and I will not and have not denied this. I do claim that homosexuality in humans is unnatural. As I said before most if not all species who participate in homosexual activities do it to help its species thrive. Here is a link (same as before) giving a list of such animals which is also where I got my information on the flour beetle. When I said I was slightly homophobic it was meant that I am homophobic. I was using sarcasm, which is why I addressed it briefly. I agree that at first I said "unnatural" and not unusual when describing homosexuality. I used the word "unusual" for the sake of not sounding repetitive. I also noticed you did not address my points for that part of my argument. This may have been because of the distraction of my incorrect wording or you felt that you did not need to respond to it, but if you don't mind, I would like you to. When I originally started the debate, I did not think anyone would respond to me assuming I was just "trolling". And so I brought up points that are hard to defend. (there are a lot of them) You have brought better rebuttals than I have and you avoided saying I am "stupid" or "retarded" and I appreciate that. You have not completely changed my views, but you definitely have shed light on them. You have overall done better and I admit to losing this debate. Thank you for your time. I have really enjoyed this.
Gays

I will be addressing most of what you said I take back my previous statement "Gay people should be shunned by society", I think the state of being gay should be disapproved because it prevents the birth of children and potentially important people to mankind. It is unnatural to be gay. We as humans are supposed to survive. We have no other purpose, but to do so. Children would help with this. What would happen if everyone was gay? Most, if not all animals that take place in homosexual activities do it for purposes other than the reason of being attracted to one another. For example "male flour beetles are believed by scientists to engage in same-sex coupling to practice mating and to rid themselves of old, less effective sperm." I do dislike the seemingly more common amount of gay people. As I said before, marriage between gays should not be called marriage, but something like legally united. Just the title must be changed and obviously I am not part of any of the churches you mentioned. I know the gays aren't a different species, I would be fine if they were though. I would like to send the gays to the leprosy colonies because it means they are farther away from me because I am slightly homophobic. Whenever a person who comes out a big deal is made. Now, you say it is because they have been mistreated throughout history and I say it is because of how unusual it is(Which may or may not be true. Everyone has a different reason). Assuming you are mostly correct, they still have been discriminated against because of religion and how it is UNNATURAL. I do not in fact hate the gays I just MOST of them very annoying, which might just be unfair on my part, but I was raised disliking the gays and I would like to thank my family and friends for that. I also do in fact feel sympathy towards the orphans adopted by the gay couples. Just because I am not an orphan doesn't mean I cannot sympathize for them. I feel pity for them because of my opinions of gay people. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Gays

Gay people should be shunned by society. It is unnatural for people of the same sex to become sexually attracted to each other. I hate these new times where openly gay people are becoming more prominent. I think gay marriage shouldn't be called "marriage" because it is not. Marriage is between man and woman not man and man or woman and woman. Not to be mean (actually I intend to), but I think the gays should lose all of their rights. I'd consider them a different species. If I had a choice, I would send them to the leprosy colonies in Hawaii. Normally, when famous people (or anyone really) come out and say they are gay it is a big deal. And you know why? Because it is UNNATURAL. This isn't even because of religion. I truly hate them. I feel bad for the orphans that have to be adopted by the gay couples, I'd rather stay an orphan. If anyone has something to say... try.
I (Im_always_right) will lose this debate

if I win this debate, by getting more votes than my opponent I lose. If I lose this debate by forfeiting (Which I wont do, forfeits make me mad and in the famous words of puck:(\_/) I don't want the bunny to die!) (o.o) (> <) Or if I make a worse arguement, or make no sense at all, I will lose, therefore I will win. Prove me wrong.
The Large Hadron Collider should be dispanded

5 minutes to post. I must be brief. My opponent appears confused about the role of PRO and CON. My opponent is currently arguing for PRO, while he is CON. I will be generous, and argue for the CON case while my opponent argues for the PRO case. Please vote based on whose arguments are better, not on who supports "their" side better since the sides are switched. Why we should NOT disband the Hadron Collider: 1. The Hadron Collider poses no threat to humanity. 2. It will give untold benefits. We may learn about the origin of the universe and more. The more we learn, the better off we will be. The Hadron Collider is a great source of knowledge, and humankind can get so much from it. My opponent has not backed up his claim about the environment. It is barely even coherent.