BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Native Americans should not still recieve benefits such as scholarships (off reserveration)

Let's look forward to a nice, respectful debate.It seems your entire argument is that Native American people are so privileged against all other races, at least where college (and taxes?) are concerned. This isn't true. There are scholarships for at least two other minorities, African Americans and Hispanic people. There exists many scholarship opportunities for many underrepresented groups, including, interestingly enough, Canadians [1]."Is that really the message that we want to pass down through the generations. That there still isn't racial equality." Unfortunately, there isn't racial equality. There wasn't racial equality during the civil rights movement, yet those marching didn't seem too worried about portraying the truth to the following generations. You see, we are acknowledging a problem, an actual legitimate problem and making strides to fix these problems. "In 2012, the median income of AI/AN (alone) households was $35,310, compared to $51,371 for the entire nation.""In 2012, 29.1% of AI/ANs (alone) lived in poverty - the highest rate of any race group - compared to 15.9% for the entire nation." [2 will be the source for both of these tidbits.]"I'm talking about urban Native Americans who have grown up away from their tribal lands and who have become fully accustomed to white society." I think the very fact you called it white society, (whatever happened to not promoting racial difference?) is exactly the reason why there are scholarships set up for minorities. "But I do not support the government funding those who are fully independent but have Native blood, along with tax exemption..." Yeah, could you give some examples were Native Indians/Alaska Natives are given tax exemptions off of reservations? Federally recognized tribes are given some of these opportunities is because of treaties between the U.S. and the individual tribes (as taxes vary between the different reservations). "All Indians are subject to federal income taxes. As sovereign entities, tribal governments have the power to levy taxes on reservation lands. Some tribes do and some don't. As a result, Indians and non-Indians may or may not pay sales taxes on goods and services purchased on the reservation depending on the tribe. However, whenever a member of an Indian tribe conducts business off the reservation, that person, like everyone else, pays both state and local taxes. State income taxes are not paid on reservation or trust lands. [3]"Sources: [1] https://www.scholarships.com...[2] http://www.niea.org...;[3] http://www.narf.org...;
Native Americans should not still recieve benefits such as scholarships (off reserveration)

This is a friendly argument, I have nothing against Native Americans living either on or off reservation. I have respect for those who need help and support for the government and anything said in this debate will not be against those who are financially challenged and need a little help to succeed. But I do not support the government funding those who are fully independent but have Native blood, along with tax exemption I find these things extremely unfair and give them an unequal opportunity to those who are not funded. I also do not believe that a Native American with a lower grade (not by much) should qualify more than a person of any other skin to college, many universities do that in order to keep their population diverse which is understandable but it is not fair. Is that really the message that we want to pass down through the generations. That there still isn't racial equality. Native Americans get benefits whilst applying to colleges the amount of funding they get for education is crazy. I understand many of them are challenged and have been through a lot, but those aren't the ones who i'm talking about. I'm talking about urban Native Americans who have grown up away from their tribal lands and who have become fully accustomed to white society. Why should they have the jump when it comes to applying for a university?
Obama is murdering and terrorizing men women and children in Afghanistan

Bush had to get congressional approval for troop surge in Iraq or it was considered unconstitutional. Obama got no congressional approval for additional troops or funding. He didn't even consult congress he just did it. "Opposition to Bush's plan is also widespread amongst Democrats and more than a few Republicans. Days before Bush announced his intentions, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) sent him a letter expressing their opposition to any increase in troops in Iraq. Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) then turned that opposition into action, introducing legislation saying no additional troops could be sent and no additional dollars spent on an escalation in Iraq "unless and until" Congress approves the plan. Kennedy argued that the original resolution permitting President Bush to use military force in Iraq has expired because it only authorized military force to remove Saddam Hussein from power for his (alleged) possession of weapons of mass destruction." Afghanistan has no weapons of mass destruction they are not a threat to The US. There is no terror threat. Muslims are peace loving people. There are only a few terrorists and it does not require nor does it justify invading a country and killing innocent men women and children. Us conceeds "mostly civilians killed" http://www.nwotruth.com... Every single civilian loss of life under the bush Administration was blamed directly on Bush not the US military. The opposition was against the policy but were for the troops. Now that Obama is president it is the military that is at fault and Obama's policy has nothing to do with it. Well no double stand thank you. It is Obama's policy in afghanistan that got those people killed and he is responsible. The US military is only following his orders just like the US military followed Bushes orders. If Bush is responsible, Obama is responsible. This is a unjust war, it does not have congressional approval or approval from the UN. Obama is a murderer.
Obama is murdering and terrorizing men women and children in Afghanistan

Though it hurts me to defend a Democrat, the article my opponent cites is dated January 24, 2009. Obama was sworn into office on the 20th. This gives very little time for Obama to have any serious impact on the war in Afghanistan. Furthermore, the top Cabinet official that would have had any impact on these orders is Defense Secretary Robert Gates- he was chosen by George W. Bush. Now, the resolution states "Obama is murdering and terrorizing men, women, and children in Afghanistan". It would be silly to affirm that Obama is in Afghanistan taking part in any raids, and it would be just as silly to imply that he commands every squad or platoon action- this is reserved for commanders on the ground, and carried out by troops. When there are murders and they are investigated, confirmed, and evidence is brought forth about American involvement, those who carried out the acts are normally prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. http://www.usatoday.com... http://news.bbc.co.uk... http://usmilitary.about.com... My opponent claims that these civilians were "minding their own business", and that "on the authority of Obamas leadership" 22 people "were ruthlessly slaughtered by the Obama administration and the US military". Indeed a number of people were killed, but reports vary even from the Afghans themselves. One man says 22 civilians, another says 21, another says 11 and 4 militants, and yet another says 10 civilians. Every incident that can be investigated should be, but this is not to say the administration itself is guilty of cold blooded murder. Obama inherited two wars- the one in Afghanistan was more poorly handled than the one in Iraq, and Afghanistan should have always been our main focus. To imply that Obama or his administration is guilty of murder for attempting to effectively carry out a war he did not instigate is inaccurate at best. http://www.wsws.org...
Obama is murdering and terrorizing men women and children in Afghanistan

Last week under Obamas leadership 22 men women and children were murdered by the US military. http://www.rferl.org... With this said we are losing the war in Afghanistan and should pull out immediately to prevent the loss of anymore innocent life. Using the collateral damage argument does not work anymore. It wasn't good enough for George Bush so it can't be used by Obama. It is plain and simple murder. They were minding their own business and on the authority of Obamas leadership these 22 people were ruthlessly slaughtered by the Obama administration and the US military.
College athletes should not be paid.

College athletes should not be paid for many reasons. A. We would be putting too much of a value on sports rather than academics. Why should we pay athletes for paying sports that don't help better the society? We have students that are researching the big problems in the world, and getting degrees that could help them alter the course of human history. What kind of message would it send to children in high school and below if we pay college athletes? Many kids would reason that because you could get paid to do a sport in college, that it is more important than learning things that could better our society. The athletes are there to get an education, and educated people are what is making the world a better place. B. Many other students bring money into the school. Would we pay them too? One of my teachers once talked about the fact that she brought in around $2,000 a semester by writing for the school newspaper. Would we also pay every single person that brought money into the school? How is it fair if the athletes get some of the money that they bring in, but all the academics out there wouldn't? C. What about other sports? a. How is it fair that one sports' athletes, (most likely mens' basketball and football,) get more money than all of the other sports? Sports are all equal. b. What would be done about the fact that female athletes would inevitably receive less money? Does title IX apply? (1) D. What about high school sports? Where would this all end? If a high school football player brings money in to his school, is he then ALSO entitled to a cut of the money? E. They are already being paid in scholarship money. The average college athlete starts of their life after college with an average of $27,000 less student loan debt. (2) Because that's (more than, because of interest) $27,000 that they wont have to pay that non-college athletes will have to pay. F. Most colleges do not have the money to pay for their athletes. Currently, 90% of athletic departments lose money. Lose. Money. That means they can't even cover their own costs with their revenue. This is a problem because if they can't pay for their own programs, how can they be expected to pay their athletes? (1) http://www.titleix.info... (2) http://kystokes.wordpress.com...
1a. Abortion

Abortion may be an issue of some contention, but that should not allow one to take a worse position for what amount to very poor reasons. 1) Abortions are a necessity. 2) Medical decisions are sacrosanct. 3) Forced birthing is far worse than any abortions. 4) Carrying a pregnancy to term is dangerous. 5) Abortions are often medically necessitated. 1) Women get abortions if not legally then illegally. There was a time in this country when women would come into the emergency room with a prolapsed uterus and end up dying of an infection because she got an abortion from a shady-poorly trained individual with a coathanger. In the Dominican Republic where the Catholic church has a significant amount of clout if a women comes into the emergency room with uterus problems she is handcuffed to her bed and becomes a crime scene and often faces decades of incarceration because she didn't want to give birth to the child conceived via a violent rape. 2) It is not the place of the government or anybody else to force medical decisions on people. Human beings must be first and foremost when it comes to what does and doesn't happen with their bodies. If you opt for surgery, it isn't my place to second guess your decision. You have medical sovereignty over your body. 3) The typical ideological and philosophical underpinnings behind the abortion debate are the same as those behind opposition to birth control and any amount of reproductive freedom of women. And though it may sound noble to suggest that a small cluster of cells has unalienable rights, even though I flake off more cells that that in a typical day, let's keep our eye on what is actually occurring. These people want forced births. It is their belief that women need to have lots of babies and that that is their duty and their desires amount to absolutely nothing. 4) Carrying a pregnancy to term may be dangerous, not simply in the cases of ectopic pregnancy where doing so would certainly kill the mother, but even a healthy pregnancy is a very dangerous undertaking and should not be taken lightly. An abortion does carry a small amount of risk but far less than other options. And these pros and cons of risk must weighed by the individual who will be undertaking these risks. 5) Ectopic pregnancy, tubal pregnancy, as well as a wide variety of other issues often medically necessitates an abortion. Not all pregnancies could be carried to term in all cases because either the pregnancy would cause the death of the mother or the fetus would not be viable. --- The counter-arguments typically argue that a cluster of cells without so much as a nerve differentiated yet is as worthy in terms of rights as a woman whose medical decisions, life, and reproductive freedom would be tossed out the window to appease a few religious nuts. We should, as a society, try to minimize the number of abortions by giving women more opportunities and more lines of support both economical and psychological, however we do not take the path of forced births and back-alley hanger abortions because we want fewer abortions to occur. In a just society we need control over our medical decisions and reproductive freedom.
Universal Healthcare be provided to all American citizens

Don't be so quick to assume that the only basis for my argument is what I said in round 1. Remember there are four rounds to this one. So I am going to state a few more points and feel free to retort them. I can provide credentials upon request. "Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc. There's an entitlement mentality in this country that believes the government should give us a number of benefits such as "free" health care. But the government must pay for this somehow. What good would it do to wipe out a few hundred dollars of monthly health insurance premiums if our taxes go up by that much or more? If we have to cut AIDS research or education spending, is it worth it? Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness. Government workers have fewer incentives to do well. They have a set hourly schedule, cost-of-living raises, and few promotion opportunities. Compare this to private sector workers who can receive large raises, earn promotions, and work overtime. Government workers have iron-clad job security; private sector workers must always worry about keeping their jobs, and private businesses must always worry about cutting costs enough to survive. Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility. At first glance, it would appear universal health care would increase flexibility. After all, if government paid for everything under one plan, you could in theory go to any doctor. However, some controls are going to have to be put in to keep costs from exploding. For example, would "elective" surgeries such as breast implants, wart removal, hair restoration, and lasik eye surgery be covered? Then you may say, that's easy, make patients pay for elective surgery. Although some procedures are obviously not needed, who decides what is elective and what is required? What about a breast reduction for back problems? What about a hysterectomy for fibroid problems? What about a nose job to fix a septum problem caused in an accident? Whenever you have government control of something, you have one item added to the equation that will most definitely screw things up--politics. Suddenly, every medical procedure and situation is going to come down to a political battle. The compromises that result will put in controls that limit patient options. The universal system in Canada forces patients to wait over 6 months for a routine pap smear. Canada residents will often go to the U.S. or offer additional money to get their health care needs taken care of.
Universal Healthcare be provided to all American citizens

Seeing as how we have 4 rounds in this debate, I'm going to state my case in a simplistic manner, and I'll go back later to elaborate on any points that cause confusion. There are a lot of problems with the healthcare system that the United States currently has. Insurance companies make money off of not providing care, and 31 cents of every dollar that goes into healthcare goes into the maintenance of these corporations, rather than to the actual healthcare. These problems are cleaarly directly related to the free-market economy's control over healthcare; these are multi-billion dollar corporations operating in the free-market economy, and they are clearly where the problems in healthcare are coming from. In short, the free market is to blame for a good deal of the healthcare woes of the American system, so the only logical alternative is to take the system out of the hands of the free market, and into the hands of the government, where it can be strictly regulated to reduce problems. As I understand it, most of my opponent's claim is based upon the current inefficiency of government-run programs in the United States. I would certainly not argue with the fact that many of the government programs we have in the United States right now are overly bureaucratic and slow-moving. But this has no bearing on what a government-run healthcare system would be like. To say that the fact that some government institutions today are inefficient means that government-run healthcare would be inefficient, is like saying that because it rains on some days one can assume that it will rain tomorrow. This is clearly a logical fallacy.
Universal Healthcare be provided to all American citizens

Quick, try to think of one government office that runs efficiently. The Department of Transportation? Social Security Administration? Department of Education? There isn't a single government department that squeezes efficiency out of every dollar the way a private sector can. We've all heard stories of the government's waste of millions of dollars on frivilous concerns such as the million dollar cow flatulence study or the Pentagon's 14 billion dollar Bradley design project that resulted in a vehicle which when hit by a mortar produced a gas that killed every man inside. Think about the Department of Motor Vehicles. This isn't rocket science-- they have to keep track of licenses and basic database information for residents. However, the costs that support the department are enormous, and when was the last time you went to the DMV and didn't have to stand in a long line only to find out that ur problem couldn't be solved? If the government can't efficiently run a service this simple, how is it going to efficiently provide healthcare for all US citizens? (information taken from balancedpolitics.com)
Universal Healthcare be provided to all American citizens

My opponent's account has been deleted, likely due to her plagiarism. She has thus not been able to post a final argument. I will use this final round to reiterate on the case I have made for universal, government-run healthcare. This will be a brief overview; you can find the more detailed reasoning behind these claims within my previous statements. -The free market's control of healthcare is responsible for most of the current healthcare woes in America. -The fact that the government has some programs that run inefficiently does not in any way mean that universal healthcare would be inefficient; this is a logical fallacy. -Universal healthcare would not necessarily require a tax increase, because there are plenty of ways government spending can be reduced in other areas. -Even if it did require a tax increase, a progressive tax is a much better way to pay for the system for the vast majority of Americans than the current system of premiums, co-pays, and deductibles. -The government would run healthcare as a public non-profit, like the education system; this is much more cost-effective than the current system, under which 31 cents of each dollar spent goes to corporate profit and executive salaries. -The rationing of care intrinsically necessary in any healthcare system would be decided based upon the necessity of the procedure, rather than the patient's ability to pay. -Doctor flexibility would be managed by concrete, set government standards, rather than the current system of insurance conglomerates that are not subject to such set standards. -Costs would be spread to all Americans, just like with other social programs like the education system and Social Security. I feel I have sufficiently deconstructed my opponent's points, and extended my attacks into showing the overwhelming justification for universal, government run healthcare. Thank you.
Universal Healthcare be provided to all American citizens

The three points of your last argument seem to be the primary problems most people have with the idea of government-run healthcare, so I'm glad you brought them up. 1)On the claim that government-run healthcare would require a tax increase: This is not necessarily true. We're spending billions and billions of dollars unnecessarily on things such as the Iraq war, and as you said yourself in your first statement, there are a number of frivolous government expenditures that could easily be cut back. If we were to cut back on such unnecessary expenses, it could *easily* cover the cost of a government health care system. And even if it *did* require a tax increase, which I admit is possible, that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, because it would mean replacing the cost of insurance payments and out-of-pocket medical expenses with a progressive tax plan, which would be much better for the vast majority of Americans. 2)On the claim that the free market handles healthcare more cost-effectively than the government would: Right now, almost a third of all healthcare spending in the United States goes straight into corporate profit and executive salaries for health insurance companies. In a non-profit, government-run system, there would be none of this to pay for. In other words, a third of the total cost of healthcare in the United States right now would be completely eliminated through the transition to a government-run healthcare system, thus making the system a full third cheaper, and beating the free market at its own game. 3)On the claim that government-run healthcare would require rationing of care: ANY healthcare system requires rationing of care. Under the current free-market system, everyone who cannot afford health insurance or out-of-pocket medical expenses, or who the health insurance companies can effectively deny care for, are *completely* excluded from *all* healthcare. Under a government-run system, the necessary rationing of healthcare would happen on the basis of the necessity of the procedure, rather than on the basis of the patient's ability to pay - this is a MUCH better system.