BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We need a universal health care system. Here's one idea.

I have yet to see anyone adequately defend a universal health care system. I propose that we NEED not just a system where everyone is covered, but a single-payer system where the government provides basic coverage for everyone while keeping private ownership of hospitals and doctors' offices. Such a system would weed out administrative overhead, as well as provide adequate leverage to keep drug and device costs down. The private, for-profit system is a perfect example of a market failure which requires government intervention, and is unsustainable in its current form. Therefore, I propose this: We adopt a single-payer national health insurance plan that covers all tax-paying adults up to $20,000 per year. This coverage would be contingent on filing a tax return and would cover all but elective, cosmetic surgery. People could combine their $20,000 coverage when they get married, providing $40,000 of coverage for their family. As of last year, 97% of everyone who sought health care spent just over $21,000 or less, so the $20,000 would cover about 96% of everyone's needs, leaving room for private catastrophic plans. This would function much like life insurance. You don't know when you'll need it, but you most likely will and will be very thankful when you do need it. Medicare and Medicaid will provide catastrophic coverage for the old and poor, and businesses will provide group catastrophic coverage. Since Medicare and Medicaid would have to provide a much smaller set of benefits, resources would be taken from these programs to help fund the national health insurance plan. After that, a plan similar to California's would be used where hospitals and doctors would be taxed to provide further funds for the program. In addition, a sales tax on the advertising, administration and lobbying expenditures of drug and device manufacturers would also be used to fund the program. Should any money be needed beyond that, a tax will be imposed starting at the top tax bracket and working down should more funds be needed. This seems like a good start. I look forward to anyone taking up this debate.
We need a universal health care system. Here's one idea.

Thank you all who are voting and actually have read this far, almost there 1. As I pointed out above, while yes those programs can solve for a small portion of the health problems but they cant complete it even with more funding. Its just not possible, its too large of a spectrum. And the problem with a system directly run by a cabinet member is the same reasons I listed above with the size of the issue. 2. You can say you have the figures down pat but the problem is your system is flawed. Things always cost more than people expect its the problem with inflation. The part you are missing in my arguments is the fact that in 10 years we wont have an affordable system because prices will rise from the reasons listed above. 3. The reason why I say we cant have private practices with the universal system is because there is no competition or reason to choose one over the other which will destroy the health care system. 4. This ties in to the above argument, and to add on because peoples will choose one place over the other because there is no differences in service. That would cause the overpopulation in one area to buy more and this would cause the inflation. 5. http://www.huppi.com... Check out this site then for comparative stats. But on top of that your stats are flawed because no where does it say what they are comparing unless you click the links in which case they tell you what they voted on, but the US has the best in several categories. And to your source, yeah i couldn't pull it up on my computer..sorry. 6. Yes but the reasons stated in my first few arguments and even this one that still go ignored is the rates you impose will rise. And eventually will overwhelm the 25 percent now. That is the inevitable part to the all. 7. All you keep saying is that under my plan...under my plan that.... this wouldn't last, this is the argument ive been trying to get across. It may be a quick fix plan but the problems i keep talking about arise. Places like India and Canada do have universal health care and the problem is it is not efficient, if you need surgery it will take forever to happen. 8. Yeah i didn't concede anything i just tied it into the argument above, just one of the side effects. 9. Thats a growing problem in this world it isnt a right, calling everything a right is collapsing our economy. Considering unions a right even to having a tv a right is absurd. Free health care is not a right, the right to life is they are not the same thing. 10. Yeah I already mentioned this but at face value its basically worthless, but click the links and it actually goes in my favor. Vote Negative for the reasons above and if you actually read through these flows you should vote for the negative impacts i kept bringing up throughout the round and pretty much were never answered Thank you for the round Mindjob
Abortion is not morally wrong until the fetus can survive outside the mother's body

I agree with almost everything my opponent said. I do, however, disagree with two fairly large points he made.Humans have intrinsic valueI believe that value is given based on the characteristics of individuals themselves, not through the species they belong to. The species is irrelevant when determining rights, as membership of the group is not exclusive to those possessing the traits that give value. If a member of another species acted the same way as a human, with the same characteristics and only differing in the sense that it can't reproduce with a human, would you grant it value? If not, aren't you in effect granting rights based on who the animal in question can reproduce with and nothing else? If you would, would you say that humans don't have intrinsic value because they are human but because they have the traits that give them value? The parents have an obligation to the child.I disagree on the basis that I do not believe that individuals have any inherent obligations to anyone else. Obligations that are not formed through a contract between two consenting individuals only serve to restrict human choice (refer to my first round). A contract can be made between the parents, but the way my opponent phrased it makes me think that he's arguing that a contract is made between the parents and the child through the act of sex. Please correct me if I'm wrong.The main flaw that I can see with this argument is that a contract cannot be made with something not in existence or something unable to give consent. You cannot enter into a contract with a rock, nor can you enter into a contract with a magical fairy. I'll concede that when choosing to have sex, you are consenting to the future possibility to have a child. However, you are also accepting the possibility of having that child removed. If you are driving and get hit, it would be absurd to say that because you consented to the possibility of getting hit that you cannot go to the hospital or have your car fixed. When choosing to perform an action, you are consenting to the possibility of all the individual potential things that could happen happening, not just one particular chain of events.
Abortion is not morally wrong until the fetus can survive outside the mother's body

I agree to Bossyburrito's rules, terms, and first definition. *internet high fives Bossyburrito* Just one quick note, the second definition, on the left side (I'm assuming) should read as "viability," which is defined by the definition he gave. Now, he gave the definition as "the point at which it is not virtually guaranteed (i.e. with 99% probability) that the fetus will die outside the mother's body." However, the point of viability being at about 22 to 24 weeks, the child simply has a "better than average" chance of surviving outside the mother's body, with chances increasing as the pregnancy continues. So it would probably help if Bossyburrito was more specific about how viable the unborn must be before it should be considered wrong to kill him/her.
Abortion is not morally wrong until the fetus can survive outside the mother's body

Resolution: Abortion is not morally wrong until the fetus can survive outside the mother's body. Rules: (1) Debater must have typing experience and internet access. (2) Place your arguments and sources inside the debate (3) Structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion. (4) No semantics, trolling, or lawyering. Rounds: (1) Acceptance + Internet High Five (2) Main Argument (3) Rebuttal to opponent's main argument (4) Response to rebuttal + closing arguments + voting issues (one paragraph) Definitions Abortion: Terminating a pregnancy through the death and removal of the fetus. Ability to survive outside the mother's body: Being able to live after being removed from the mother; the point at which it is not virtually guaranteed (i.e with ~99 % probability) that the fetus will die outside the mother's body. {Opening round format taken with permission from Wallstreetatheist}
Banning guns would do nothing

Japan also ranks among the least corrupt countries around the world; While US ranks among the most corrupt countries in the world. Lets look at Great Britain, they also have banned guns, but their crime rate has gone way up in just a decade. https://www.buckeyefirearms.org.... Guns were not a problem 30-100 years ago, so then you have to ask yourself, Why does gun violence continue to rise (Corruption equals violence). Examples of Corruption: 1. Hillary Clinton took donations from foreign governments and funded ISIS https://nworeport.me... 2. Corruption that occurs daily on wallstreet. Banks like Goldman Sachs profited from the economic crash (2008). Goldman Sachs made 50 billion in revenue for 2009. The greed on Wallstreet is sucking America dry. http:theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/how-goldman-sachs-made-tens-of-billions-of-dollars-from-the-economic-collapse-of-america-in-four-easy-steps 3. We have a corrupt court system. Harden criminals are often let out early because the jails are overcrowded with people that committed non violent crimes. People that are rich can often buy their way out of trouble. America has become corupt in every way possible. As the unemployment rate rises and the cost of living continues to sky rocket, people are resorting to crime (selling drugs). Banning guns would only disarm law abiding citizens, while criminals (gun cartals) would profit; Remember the alchol probition.
Banning guns would do nothing

In today's American society, nobody needs a gun to protect themselves or their loved ones. I bring my first argument to the gun laws that are present in Japan. There, common citizens aren't allowed to own firearms or even swords. This is best explained through David Kopel's article on this website: http://www.davekopel.com... There, he claims "Japan's crime rate is very low, and its gun crime rate virtually nil. Anti-gun lobbies tout Japan as the kind of nation that America could be, if only we would ban guns. Handgun Control quotes a Japanese newspaper reporter who writes: 'It strikes me as clear that there is a distinct correlation between gun control laws and the rate of violent crime. The fewer the guns, the less the violence.'" We can readily see that in Japan, where gun ownership is outlawed to any non-law enforcement personnel, crime rates are very low and the standard of living has undergone a dramatic rise, as shown on this website: https://en.wikipedia.org... On that same website, we can see that "A Japanese social scientist ranked Japan among a group of ten other industrialized nations, according to a list of variables. Data was from the mid-1970s to the late 1980s and Japan was rated better than average in terms of overall income distribution, per capita disposable income, traffic safety and crime, life expectancy and infant mortality, proportion of owner- occupied homes, work stoppages and labor unrest, worker absenteeism, and air pollution." We can look upon Japan as an example of what would happen should The United States ban firearms ownership. I humbly await your response and thank you for this opportunity to debate this highly controversial issue.
This house believes that China is overreaching

1: Greenhouse gas emissions. The fact remains uncontested that China's greenhouse gas emissions are consistent with a developing country of its size. There is no overreaching in emissions. That high levels of people remain in poverty, while undesirable, is irrelevant. 2: Isolated cases of defective products do not show widespread fraud in China. The recent salmonella-infected peanut scandal in the U.S does not mean all U.S based firms use defective products. Unless the pro can show widespread fraud, this does not indicate overreach. All of facts from China are consistent with a large, growing economy. They do not show economic overreach.
This house believes that China is overreaching

I'd like to remind my opponent that many people out of 1/6th is suffering due to poverty etc. China is currently the largest emitter in greenhouse gases, it just overtook USA last month thus it is not something which is expected but something which already happened. It's the second largest emitter of Carbon.It's well known that China was blamed for producing goods not up to the required standard. E.g. In order to bring the milkpowder produced in China upto the required specifications, firms in China used Melamine which is unhealthy to increase the protein level in milk. This shows that China's using fraud to develop. China is hiding behind the banner,Developing countries,causing more harm than developed countries, thus China is overreaching
This house believes that China is overreaching

My opponent's primary point seems to be that China has the highest emissions level in the world right now. However, this is only to be expected. It is a country that contains 1/6th of the worlds population, and is one of the fastest growing economies in the world. The United States, with 1/4th of the population of China, still manages to come in second. China is not overreaching right now. Its C02 emissions are perfectly normal for a country of its size. Its fast-developing economy ensures that it will have high C02 emissions, but attempting to impose the standards for developed countries, on one which is developing, as China is, would only prolong the period of high emissions, and make it harder to maintain progress. There is no overreac
This house believes that China is overreaching

Eventhough China is a developing country, we see that it is overreaching the reason as to why we say so is that because China is hiding behind the mere banner of developing countries and not bearing the same obligations as developed nations. For example statistics reveal that China is the biggest green house emissioner in the world currently, which proves that China is overreaching. Also we see that China is emerging as a world power through unstacble unacceptable policies. therefore i strongly believe that China iis overreaching.
gods

/Users/tomlang/Desktop/GO AHEAD, DRINK THE KOOL-AID!.rtf/Users/tomlang/Desktop/COLONEL COLT IS A GOOD FRIEND IN A FIGHT.rtf/Users/tomlang/Desktop/PLAY GOD.rtf Dear gods, Those who know, don't say Those who say, don't know Enough said? Sincerely, Lao Tse
A Totalatarian State is more effective than a Democratic State

Though there are much more advantages of a totalitarian state, we still have some negativity of it , on which a democratic state outshines... 1.There is a little or no freedom of choice, and often some economic decisions leads to disastrous effects.Stalin's decision of Five Year Plan undoubtedly made Union free of depression, but it led thousand of people to starvation. Similar is now going with North Korea. 2.This system demands obedience. No arguments, No disagreement. Instead , in a democratic system, it gives full opportunity to the society to keep their arguments and obstruct wherever they feel it is going wrong. 3.This system is a form of dictatorship which spreads war, hatred, aggression and many ,more. 2nd World War was a result of this kind of dictatorship only. In a democratic system, even the PM doesn't take decisions alone, instead with the seek of other council members too. I think this all shows that democracy is the right way to rule. Totalitarian leads to disasters(somewhere, not fully)
A Totalatarian State is more effective than a Democratic State

I have no arguements to add i will just add rebuttals because adding new arguements in the final round would be unethicalRebuttals-Stability of democracy: My opponent hasnt explained why this is more effective than a totaltarian state. She has not provided any sources for this and thus should be ignored. Not only that but my opponenet hasnt even listed an example of a totaltarian society collapsing due to the oppression of the people. This point has no impact-Knowledge of the Voter: My opponent hasnt listed any sources or proof that voters are not ignorant of their situation while i have. This point has no impact either-Oppression: My opponent hasnt necessarily shown why this is not effective but has shown instead why it is "morally wrong". My opponent hasnt rebutted any of my claims while i have rebutted hers.
A Totalatarian State is more effective than a Democratic State

While democracy on a large scale does not lend itself to quick change and mobility, it does ensure a greater likelihood of popular support. This in itself tends to lead to a more content society, unlikely to revolt against the government. Thus the stability of Democracy is its most important attribute. My opponent argued that the different parties( My opponent could not point some special party ) put porks in the passing of a bill. Well, it's not exactly true. The presence of different and no. of parties give a broad choice to the citizens. And the citizens of the country are well aware of their countries progress. So, they know who is the better person for their country. Democracy also allows people to voice their arguments if they feel anything going wrong. People could peacefully raise their voice and put up their arguments before the govt. So, this could not be questioned that the people are ignorant and could choose some wrong person for the country. Every vote cast in a democratic country has equal weight and it is not the case with totalitarianism. The freedom of citizens is totally secured in democracy whereas the freedom of citizens is not secured in the case of totalitarianism. On the other hand totalitarian form of government imposes restriction of speech, mass surveillance and use of other limiting powers on the citizens.On the contrary democracy does not impose restriction of speech on the citizens. On the other hand it does not curb the power and the decision making right of the individual citizen. In democracy citizens have great share in state decision making whereas in totalitarianism the single person with whom the power lies alone is bestowed with the power of state decision speaking.
A Totalatarian State is more effective than a Democratic State

Rebuttals-My opponents first arguement is that facilites can only be set up efficently by a Democratic State. Not only is this wrong but the opposite. In many democratic systems people lie and try to get what they want. If a facility was to be ordered then people in congress would try to add pork barrel projects to the bill in order to get what they want. Not only is this wrong and a waste of money the whole bill could be abandoned because of disagreement of the parties. In a totaltarian state this would never be an issue with a totaltarian state. They could just sign the bill and the facility would be up -My opponent makes the claim that since the government is for the people it should be made up by the people. While this is with good will my opponent fails to understand that most of the time most of the people, sometimes even the majority, are ignorant and dont know whats best for the country. A ruler, or set of rulers, would be able to efficently govern with advisors if they dont already know the inner workings of the governmentNow onto the arguement1. Efficency of RulingIn a democratic society we see disturbances and disagreements all the time. Its part of democracy right? Unfortunatley somtimes these disagreements can be hurtful to citizens. An example is disagreement over spending on body armour. The republican party might want more funding on body armour but democrats might want less spending. Meanwhile those troops in foreign countries dont have ANY armour. This could mean more casualties and deaths. Another example is funding issues. Somewhat recently the 2 parties had a disagreement over the budget. This almost led to Homeland Defense to being defunded. Think about it the security agency tasked with keeping our citizens safe almost defunded thanks to disagreement. This issues will always pop up with democracy2. EconomyMy opponent hasnt rebutted on why totaltarian governments are so economically effective. The 3 totaltarian governments in world war 2 were economic superpowers. In fact if Germany didnt invade Russia the combined power of all 3 of those governments would have surely won World War 2. Unemployment was down in all of these countries and their economies were booming. If the Soviet Union didnt turn into a communist nation they would also still have a thriving economyI will talk about more points in the next round.Sources:http://www.auburn.edu...https://en.wikipedia.org...
A Totalatarian State is more effective than a Democratic State

I think Totalitarian system makes people fall under a dictatorship through which a country's progress could come to an average speed, because people could work effectively only if they have all the proper facilities. And all the facilities are provided by government only, so it's very important to have an effective government. Since government works for the welfare of its people, the people have a right to choose their official, who make decision on their behalf. In this way, the citizens have a second hand control on the government, which I think is beneficial for most of the countries. These elected officials work and make decisions based on what people want and is best in interest of the people. This also help people to get their work done more easily and in correct way. This system makes a very fair and effective way to govern.
A Totalatarian State is more effective than a Democratic State

I am challenge samaya to this debateThe resolution: A Totalatarian State is more effective than a Democratic StateI will be arguing for the stance of a moderate Totalatarian state where people still elect leaders but it is only one party. This party controls everything but has some exceptions to its power such as rights of the individuals. It is somewhat constrained by things like the U.S constitution. However it can bypass things such as a senate and a house.My opponent will argue for a Democratic State. She has not made up her mind on which one and will need to do so since i was specific on my ideal State.Rules:1.FF is an automatic loss2.Round 1 is acceptance only3.Semantics to misconstrue intro to your advantage is not allowedHappy to debate