BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Socialism is a flawed ideology

My argument today will focus on one main point. Firstly, socialism, at its core is not an ethically justifiable way to run a government - or any system. I will discuss the practicalities of socialism in the next round. Good luck. Firstly, the concept of socialism, as defined by the dictionary is not an ethical system. At its basis, socialism prioritises the majority over the minority. It is an ideology that believes that the needs of a society are far greater than the needs of the individual, and it is here that I believe it to be unethical. All decisions have consequences, both positive and negative, and when making a decision, both sides must be considered. Under socialism, these positive and negative results are considered with the volume of impact i.e whilst option B is the more moral option, Option A results in fewer people being affected and thus it is a better option. Now this may seem to be a good decision making process; the volume of people affected determines the volume of effect right? It is here I would disagree. My main disagreement is that decisions should be made purely on morals. The volume of impact on a group of people or person is not - and never can be - weighted on the number of people impacted. For example, if legislation was passed that doubled the minimum wage, businesses simply wouldn't be able to cope. These businesses include pharmaceutical companies or energy providers. None the less, the workers must now receive the minimum wage and thus energy is not generated and life saving medicines no longer produced. I appreciate the economic argument is not one full of morals, yet it effectively demonstrates socialism"s flaws. Here I would like to introduce a further argument. As soon as the freedoms of one person are interfered with for the benefit of many, any argument for socialism falls down. This is demonstrated through a trolley problem. By pulling the lever and killing the one, society has decided that value of human life is weighted on numbers. What if the one was a world renowned surgeon, responsible for delivering complex operations in third world nations, whilst the five were rapists and murderers. Is pulling the lever still a moral decision? If a decision, economic or not, is made with a socialist point of view, then I struggle to see how it can also be made with morality and ethics in mind. Thus I believe that socialism is unethical and as a result, a flawed ideology.
Potential dangers of a hypersensitive culture bred by social media and political correctness.

Well, yeah I see your point. But, you have to understand that PC culture is trying to set a generally accepted standard of what is tolerated in the media in order to consolidate and reassert certain social viewpoints. The real question is who benefits from these established viewpoints? People who say anything they want always face repercussions; for one, you seem to disapprove of them. Disapproval means collective apathy/a loss of popularity/ fallen power. I think the internet (particularly the trolls) show a great social disillusionment in all the rancorous comments they give (for pretty much anything) precisely because they want to, in some way punish and vent, those who do use their freedom of speech in a way they don't approve of and the screen proves a perfect, disassociative mask to do this through. Isn't this punishment enough?
Potential dangers of a hypersensitive culture bred by social media and political correctness.

I have recently been discussing this topic with close friends over social media and my fellow classmates. It seems people can use the idea of PC culture as an excuse to say anything they want without repercussion. Freedom of speech/freedom from consequence. The real babies are the ones who talk sh*t about others and then can't handle it when they're dished it back with extra seasoning.
End Times Prophecies in the Bible Will Come To Pass

Silly me, I thought that someone who believes humility and meekness are godly virtues would humbly learn from a mistake like this and use it to craft better debates in the future. Everyone makes mistakes. It's your reaction to those mistakes that really defines you.Pro started with a resolution that is impossible to defend, and then expected me to ignore the resolution and argue something different. If Pro wishes to debate with anyone of even average skill, he should learn from his losses rather than hiding from opponents who pose a real challenge. Pro's behavior shows a disregard for basic debate decorum and technique.At this point, Pro has all but conceded. I will await arguments or concession, should my opponent deign to give either.
End Times Prophecies in the Bible Will Come To Pass

So far, Pro has not attempted to offer evidence, but has only questioned whether I believe certain prophecies will be fulfilled. My beliefs are irrelevant to this debate. I could say that, in my opinion, none of the events Pro has listed will ever happen, and my unsupported opinion would be as strong an argument as any Pro has offered thus far.This debate is not about probability. If my opponent wanted to discuss probabilities, his resolution should have been something like, "On balance, it is likely that Biblical prophecies will be fulfilled." However, Pro's resolution emphatically states that Biblical prophecies "will come to pass." Bold resolutions require bold arguments. If Pro can not provide evidence to support his statement, he should not have made it. My opponent should learn to structure more appropriate resolutions, rather than accusing me of avoiding discussion.
End Times Prophecies in the Bible Will Come To Pass

Why don't you just wait around and see, ok? Do you really think Russia will not attack Israel? Do you really think the Battle of Armageddon will not happen? Do you really think China will not send a 200 million man army into battle to fight over Israel? Do you really think a one world dictator is not coming? If all you want to do is say I can't prove the future, and you don't want to discuss these events as foretold in the Bible, I don't care to play games with you making all kinds of crazy rules to avoid discussion.
End Times Prophecies in the Bible Will Come To Pass

Thanks, Pro. I look forward to an interesting, if brief, debate. I'll jump right in.Pro's resolution is: "End times prophecies in the Bible will come to pass." This is an assertive statement of alleged fact, and is not describing common knowledge, therefore the burden of proof lies with Pro. Pro must attempt to provide sufficient evidence to uphold his resolution, and I must attempt to show that Pro's evidence is lacking and that he has failed in upholding the resolution. I do not have to prove that prophecies won't be fulfilled. To negate the resolution, all I must do is show that Pro has not sufficiently proven that prophecies will definitely be fulfilled.Pro is making an assertion about future events. He is stating that something, namely prophecy, will happen in the future. This is not a statement of belief or opinion, but of truth and fact. Pro claims that he knows for a fact that something will happen in the future, and apparently believes that he can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.I await Pro's evidence.
End Times Prophecies in the Bible Will Come To Pass

End times prophecies such as the Battle of Armageddon, the invaions of Israel by Russia, a world dicttator, the mark of the beast in the right hand or forehead for all buying or selling transactions, .......all of these things will come to pass. Any future prophecy of the Bible is subject for this debate. My opponent is free to use any future prophecy and try to discredit it, and I will show how things are steadily progressing toward fulfillment of the prophecies of the Bible.
Waterboarding and other torture methods are justified in the time of war

In this debate, I'll try to demonstrate why waterboarding and other torture methods are never justified in the time of war. This is the case for several reasons... first of all, you speak of them being justified 'in the time of war', but when it concerns human lives, this really is too vague a justification. War, for a start, would cover everything from WWII to the War on Terror, and if this is a reason as to why it is acceptable, it would mean that torture would inevitably occur for immoral reasons, for example, prisoners of war could be tortured brutally for no reason at all, but the torturers could easily slip through the net and would probably never be charged with war crimes because they could justify it so easily with the fact that 'it's a time of war.' An example of where a similar scenario has occurred is the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam, where U.S. troops killed and tortured many innocent civilians. Now, this is a scenario in which those who conducted the crimes were charged... just imagine how much worse it would have been if similarly brutal crimes could go undiscovered. Also, many who believe in the use of torture imagine it as a last-case scenario - something that will only be used once all else has failed. For example, it would be easy to sympathize with its usage in a scenario where extracting a confession from one man - say, the known plotter of an attack, would save a thousand civilians, but this isn't normally the case. Torture occurs in backstreet basements of war-torn countries, and the chances of torture that is currently being conducted by the U.S. and other superpowers leading to absolutely nothing - only destroying the victim's life and exposing them to excruciating pain and misery - is high. Do you think that torture during war always leads to confessions or valuable information? It's interesting that recently, the CIA lied to Britain, over-exaggerating the importance of information which was gathered through torture methods to justify - and ultimately let them continue the torture of prisoners. Why, if the torture gave such brilliant results, would they have to lie in order to practice it - It clearly doesn't. And so, given that what we are talking about is something that would ordinarily be extremely inhumane, and is, as I've hopefully just proved, unproductive and therefore unnecessary, how can torture ever be justified in wartime?
Waterboarding and other torture methods are justified in the time of war

My opponent first accused me of using Soufan as an example as he 'shares a culture and religion' with those he tortures, and so this makes him more inclined to sympathise and less likely to use torture techniques upon them. This isn't true: the quote I used of his specifically stated that he felt 'torture is not wrong', his reasons for a reluctance to use it is because 'it just doesn't work.' So this disproves my opponents claim that his reluctance to torture victims is because he is of the same culture and religion. This claim also makes the assumption that all torture victims are Islamic. My opponent later said that my sources are 'liberal' and so that makes them biased and thus irrelevant. This isn't true because in my argument, I only gave facts; I obtained these facts by searching 'torture is wrong' or 'torture cannot be justified', to try and find arguments to support this to use as cases, and you may consider my sources biases, but the facts that I have used are not, simply because there is no opinion on the matter: Liberals, Conservatives, Anarchists, Socialists etc. etc., regardless of their own beliefs, they would ALL accept that 'The C.I.A.'s lawyers wrote in a November 2001 memo that it would be easier to defend against torture allegations if the tactics saved lives.' My opponent also made the point that I believe torture is wrong simply because mistakes have been made in the past, claiming that, by my logic, if I were to shoot a tree on my first day of hunting, then hunting should be banned. This was not my argument, and I was simply saying that since torture - even if it was hugely successful in saving lives, is difficult to justify as it is, so when so much points towards the fact that torture has been and will continue to be often ineffective, harming others in such a brutal way can't be justified.
Waterboarding and other torture methods are justified in the time of war

There is actually very little to attack about the argument my opponent gave, because there is very little argument. My opponent provided a list of terrorist attacks and those convicted of supporting, assisting, or organizing them. This doesn't prove or show anything. My opponent then followed this up with a passage basically saying that torture is justified in saving lives, and if what they are trying to argue is that these people wouldn't have been convicted and future attacks they planned to commit wouldn't have been prevented if it weren't for torture, then there is no factual evidence given to show that any of their confessions/convictions/valuable information given is the result of torture techniques used upon them. Also, even if it WAS the result of torture, of course there will have been cases where torture does work - if nobody had ever given information as a result of torture then it wouldn't be practiced at all. This list of cases is simply a few examples informing us (if torture was used in the first place) that torture has the capability to draw confessions and potentially save lives. All of this is irrelevant as we knew this already; this debate is about whether or not it is justified in war, not simply 'has torture ever worked?'
Waterboarding and other torture methods are justified in the time of war

My opponent first starts out with Ali Soufan and his "opinion" on the interrogation methods. My opponent also states that he might be the future of the FBI. Interesting, because Ali Soufan is of Lebanese decent and is a Muslim. His information would be ruled as bias because he shares his heritage and religion with the people being tortured. So, it would seem like he would be more subjective and not objective. My opponent cannot use Soufan, therefore his entire argument is irrelevant and subjective. The New York Times is also a very liberal organization that writes news from a liberal perspective. I can't trust my opponent's source because it would allow this newspaper to cherry-pick information. My sources that came from CIA files basically say that Khalid Sheik Mohammed admitted where Osama was and that was true. Also, my opponents sources are more liberal, so they are also more bias, so his information should be ruled as irrelevant. My opponent's argument is also on Shaker Aamer. My opponent blames waterboarding for mistakes that America made alone. There are mistakes in the system, but that does not mean the tactic should go away. By using my opponent's logic, If I shoot a tree instead of an animal on my first day of hunting, that would mean that I should give up hunting because I missed and shot a tree. We should still use a tactic and blame America for handling the tactic so poorly.
Questions debate

I will start off with the following 3 questions. 1. Is it fair that insured Americans should pay for an increase medical costs in a hospital to pay for the treatment of uninsured Americans? 2. Is it fair to say that guaranteeing universal health care may bolster entrepreneurship, and encourage job growth? 3. Is it accurate to claim that medical costs contribute to 62.1% of American bankruptcies with 78% of people that filed for bankruptcy had medical insurance?
Questions debate

This is to help me prep for a debate in a few weeks on universal healthcare. The rules are simple. There are; no sources, no trolling, and no semantics. There is also no burden of proof. Definitions are not required. All arguments will typed in question form. An example argument and response is provided below: Argument; Is it fair for the government to dictate what goes on in a woman? Response; Is it fair that an unborn baby should die because of a woman's "mistake"? The limit is 8,000 characters with no limits on how many questions each opponent can ask. No plagiarizing please. disregarding rules and forfeiting will result in a concession. R1 is acceptance only R2 opening questions R3 rebuttal questions R4 rebuttal questions R5 closing questions and final thoughts, or concession In order to win each side must outmaneuver the other side with questions until one side either concedes or states an ineffective question. Any questions before we begin?
Questions debate

I have gained valuable debate prep knowledge on healthcare which was exactly what I was hoping for. Your questions in the previous round have put me in checkmate, therefore I must concede this debate. To the readers I strongly urge a con vote. Enjoy listening to Libera Me from Hell [Courtesy of Youtube] (I apologise if it seems childish, but I love the 2 separate message the song displays) . http://www.youtube.com...
Questions debate

"Can a for-profit hospital deny care to patients without health care or cash?" a.Is a for-profit hospital making any profit without receiving any money for its services? b.Does a for-profit hospital stay in business without making any money? c.Can a for-profit, or not-for-profit, hospital stay open while losing money? d.Do I have to pay for another patient at a hospital when that person is not my responsibility? e.Doesn"t our current law guarantee life saving care, even if the person can"t pay? f.Should restaurants deny food to hungry people who can"t pay? g.Should gas stations deny gas to someone who needs to get to work, but doesn"t have any money to put gas in their car? " In the case of a monopoly care may be rationed, but wouldn't there be a lower chance of care being rationed if there were a universal health care system where privatized insurance agencies try to gain more consumers?" a.In a doctor and hospital shortage, isn"t there a great chance of care rationing since there is not enough c are to meet demand? b.Even if private insurance companies gain more customers, do they make money if a greater percentage of those customers- who would have been turned down before- cost more money in reimbursement then what they pay? c.Is the purpose of insurance to pay for an event that is not unforeseen? d.Can insurance companies create more hospitals and doctors to provide the services they are only contractually obligated to pay or co pay? e.Does insurance coverage alone guarantee health care? "In a capitalistic economy insurance companies often compete for consumers right, so wouldn't new consumers check reimbursement amounts if health care is implemented?" a.Would insurance companies compete for customers they would lose money on? b.With insurance covering more and more routine procedures, are most consumers even aware of the cost of these procedures? c.Is it capitalistic to force a company to provide a service? d.Is it capitalistic to force a person to buy something? e.Isn"t the point of capitalism to make money? " Doesn't the organization Doctors Without Borders show that doctors can still save people through donations instead of fixed salaries and selling medical services?" a.Isn"t Doctors Without Borders completely (or almost completely) staffed with volunteers? b.Can a non paid volunteer pay back medical school costs? c.Can a non paid volunteer pay back engineering or other school costs? d.Can a non paid volunteer pay back their bills to survive? e.Even greatly expanded, could this organization handle the health care needs of a country like the U.S. ? f.In most countries, doesn"t DWB focus on increasing the capabilities of local hospitals already in place?
Questions debate

Thank you for clarifying the issue of fairness (R3) Can a for-profit hospital deny care to patients without health care or cash? In the case of a monopoly care may be rationed, but wouldn't there be a lower chance of care being rationed if there were a universal health care system where privatized insurance agencies try to gain more consumers? In a capitalistic economy insurance companies often compete for consumers right, so wouldn't new consumers check reimbursement amounts if health care is implemented? Doesn't the organization Doctors Without Borders show that doctors can still save people through donations instead of fixed salaries and selling medical services?
Questions debate

"My opponent has surpassed my expectations, and I am predicting that this will be a good debate or a one-sided one depending on my responses." Thank you! This is definitely a good debate so far. "However I am a little concerned with the questions regarding fairness (Questions: R1a, R1b, R1c, and R2a) and the definition of health care as these questions could be counted as semantics. Which would then throw out this debate much to my dismay." I definitely am not focusing on the meaning of fair. I"m aiming more at what is to be considered fair, not what fair is; also, if it is important to be fair. I believe/hope all my questions made this clear. " 1. Isn't saving people the primary objective of doctors and hospitals?" R1a. Can a for-profit hospital that is out of business save anyone? R1b. Will someone decide to become a doctor when they can't afford to be? R1c. Don"t doctors and hospitals still save people even when they can't pay? R1d. Is the primary objective of any for profit institution to stay in business so they can keep providing their services/goods? R1e. If care is rationed, will less people be able to be saved? 2. Isn't the objective of an insurance company to compensate victims in exchange for a monthly or annual fee? R2a. Isn't the true role of a medical insurance company to provide compensation only for a specified loss, not a routine occurrence? R2b. If an insurance company is for-profit, and it will lose money and go out of business without caps on reimbursement amounts, is it not in the best interest of the company to set these caps? R2c. Are consumers aware of these caps when they purchase the insurance? R2d. If the cost of someone's care surpasses the reimbursement they pay for, who is responsible to pay the difference?
Questions debate

My opponent has surpassed my expectations, and I am predicting that this will be a good debate or a one-sided one depending on my responses. However I am a little concerned with the questions regarding fairness (Questions: R1a, R1b, R1c, and R2a) and the definition of health care as these questions could be counted as semantics. Which would then throw out this debate much to my dismay. While I ponder about which action I take, I will ask the following questions: 1. Isn't saving people the primary objective of doctors and hospitals? 2. Isn't the objective of an insurance company to compensate victims in exchange for a monthly or annual fee? Due to lack of time in my schedule, my questions will be brief and short