BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gov. funded health care

"UK has just enough health care." We seem to agree... "What standard do you use, if any, to project the success of government health care? Is Canada's a poorly run system too?" No. Canada's is a well-run system. Wealthy people can pay lots of money to get faster private treatment, but at the base there is a system for everybody to use, so that anybody can get basic health care. "Canada does not have a strong military. Its per capita spending on defense is less than what California spends on its state police. Canada's contribution to past UN actions has been puny. The war on terror is important. By the way, you apparently don't understand the meaning of "preemptive conflict." Preemptive means we initiate action to prevent a possible future action against us. The USS Cole attack, various embassy attacks, the first World Trade Center bombing (1993), the last WTC bombing on 911, all provided a suitable bases for going to war (with UN and congressional authorization). That's not an example of preemptive conflict, unless you've been in a coma for the last 15 years." Canada's military is strong enough to protect Canada - they are not, like us, interested in being the world's police force. In terms of preemptive war, I was talking about the war in Iraq, not the one in Afghanistan which I support strongly. "People in this country don't deserve free health care. The fat people, the cigarette smokers, the illegal immigrants who don't pay into the system, the lazy and the poor who don't pay into the system, the homosexuals and intravenous drug users who account for 90-percent of the AIDS patients... Screw them all." This is the best you can do? Insulting the groups you don't like (not surprised at the homosexual dig, you being a Huckabee supporter and all) while not providing any points that would support not having a government health system. This sums up the anti-health care approach: since data proves us wrong, let's insult everyone and anyone who gets in our path. As for AIDS cases, only 46.6% are from homosexuals. The rest are from good, upstanding straight people like yourself. As for smokers, your Republican party has a history of being against a raise of the cigarette tax. As for fat people, your Republican party is against raising health care rates on the obese. And when you start calling the millions who work two jobs, desperately trying to raise a family, lazy, you have lost all touch with the hard realities of corporate-run America. Also, nobody other than Kucinich (who is probably the only person to take himself seriously) is proposing true socialized medicine. They are talking about subsidizing private insurance plans for the poor. This is not a socialized system, as the government would not run hospitals, etc. This is subsidized health care for those who need it most. Telling people without health care to go screw themselves (as you quite literally do) does not solve the massive crisis of healthcare in the US. We all have a moral imperative to provide universal health care in the USA.
Gov. funded health care

"UK - booming economy, Nationalized Health Service. Germany - booming economy, Nationalized health system." You're kidding? How long does it take to get bypass surgery or cancer treatment in the UK provided you're not over the government mandated age to qualify? Oh, that right. I forgot. They come here. UK has just enough health care. "This is not an example of government health care done well. It is an example of government health care done poorly. Just as I could rattle off any number of conservative implementations done poorly." That's a weak comeback. If you're going to rationalize that way, then what standard do you use, if any, to project the success of government health care? Is Canada's a poorly run system too? "Canada does, in fact, have a strong military for self-defense. It is not interested in preemptive conflict like the US, therefore it has better things to spend its trillions on." Canada does not have a strong military. Its per capita spending on defense is less than what California spends on its state police. Canada's contribution to past UN actions has been puny. The war on terror is important. By the way, you apparently don't understand the meaning of "preemptive conflict." Preemptive means we initiate action to prevent a possible future action against us. The USS Cole attack, various embassy attacks, the first World Trade Center bombing (1993), the last WTC bombing on 911, all provided a suitable bases for going to war (with UN and congressional authorization). That's not an example of preemptive conflict, unless you've been in a coma for the last 15 years. But that's getting off point. Let me just say that as a military veteran, in my opinion, the government run health care sucks. People in this country don't deserve free health care. The fat people, the cigarette smokers, the illegal immigrants who don't pay into the system, the lazy and the poor who don't pay into the system, the homosexuals and intravenous drug users who account for 90-percent of the AIDS patients... Screw them all. I take care of myself and don't partake in risky behavior, and I am not going to willingly share my paycheck with those people...
Gov. funded health care

"Don't dismiss my position as a non-argument. You haven't offered any cost-benefit data for your socialized health care. More importantly, you haven't shown me an example (UK or Canada?) where this scheme has worked." UK - booming economy, Nationalized Health Service. Germany - booming economy, Nationalized health system. "I always tell free health care advocates to look recently at the veterans hospital disaster two years ago where wounded soldiers were subjected to substandard conditions and shoddy medical treatment. That's government health care for you." This is not an example of government health care done well. It is an example of government health care done poorly. Just as I could rattle off any number of conservative implementations done poorly. "CCanada can offer free pills and anal exams because they spend next to nothing on their own defense because they know the US will protect them. Socialized Canada and the UK piggyback off the United States." Canada does, in fact, have a strong military for self-defense. It is not interested in preemptive conflict like the US, therefore it has better things to spend its trillions on.
Gov. funded health care

Don't dismiss my position as a non-argument. You haven't offered any cost-benefit data for your socialized health care. More importantly, you haven't shown me an example (UK or Canada?) where this scheme has worked. I always tell free health care advocates to look recently at the veterans hospital disaster two years ago where wounded soldiers were subjected to substandard conditions and shoddy medical treatment. That's government health care for you. Would you like to guess how many Canadians (just to name one country) visit the Cleveland Clinic for bypass surgery or cancer treatment because they can't get their "free" health care in a timely fashion in their own countries? CCanada can offer free pills and anal exams because they spend next to nothing on their own defense because they know the US will protect them. Socialized Canada and the UK piggyback off the United States.
Gov. funded health care

"No industrialized nation in the world spends more of its GDP per capita on health care than we do. If socialized medicine is so expensive, than why does the rest of the world spend less?" One reason no other industralized nation spends more than we do is because most other nations subsidize their health care, reducing indiviual cost. Health care in socialized nations, like Canada and UK, ration services, which also reduce per capita individual expense. Most of the rest of the world spends less, true, but they also get less.
Abortion is morally permissible within 1st trimester

Abortion is morally permissible within the 1st trimester, and should not require the pretext of a rape, incest, or medical complication to validate it as such. While it should require the consent of both 'parents' (in my opinion), we will not discuss this point in addition. This debate will center only on the morality of abortion within the period between conception and the 1st trimester. This time period allows for an unknowingly pregnant mother time to notice the pregnancy through lack of a menstrual cycle for a month or two, and take abortive measures.
Abortion is morally permissible within 1st trimester

I did not intend to let this debate revolve around one's religious convictions, but you basis for your 'I believe' statements are both noticeably influenced by such, and equally justified/source with such as well. This tends to by typical & predictable with most who accept a creationist position in life. I won't debate if every human CAN be invaluable, because thats another argument all together and subject to the definition of 'value', as well as the quality of being 'special'. Was Hitler special? Did he have value if God let him live? How about the miscarried baby, or the child develops a painful cancer at 3 and dies; what was God's position on their value and giving them the choice of life? Where was their chance? Can only God or nature make this choice? Special does not translate to value, as most people like to think. We cannot use potential 'value' to argue against / for abortion. It is irreverent because a fetus may become Jesus or the Antichrist, Hitler or Gandhi. 'Chance' is one argument, but here is where we change gears, because in order to be able to understand the reasoning of abortion, you have to abandon the 'reasoning' (or lake thereof) of religion. The Christian religion does not allow for abortion. It however allows for murders, both innocent or not, in the name or command of the lord, but not unwarranted. It also allows for slavery and class separation. All these things we think of as 'bad', correct? So Christians, and most religious people, take a cafeteria-style approach when it comes to doing/interpreting what is right & wrong, which is why there are so many flavors (denominations) of the church. However, we realize that there IS this style of picking and choosing, because we further realize that actual and literal interpretation of religion is flawed, hypocritical, and counter intuitive. Why, usually, they ascribe to the 'new' testament. Therefore we REASON to be able to think/choose for ourselves what is right/wrong in our society, which then develops into rules and a government and laws to tell us what is allowed and what is right and wrong by a reasoning majority. We identify and recognize freedoms & human rights of choice, thought, and speech. Then we take it upon ourselves to create laws and codes for what to do in tough situations that religion does not address; domestic violence, economic warfare, global warming, and abortion (not the biblical fetal homicide as I referenced earlier). Humans take away life everyday with every hamburger purchased, and furthermore with every tax-funded murder on the battlefield. However, the fetus is not anything or anyone yet. It does not breath, it does not speak, it cannot reason, just like a raw sperm or egg. However, a mother can reason, and can determine if her and/or the potential baby would be better off not progressing with it's creation unprepared/able/wanted. You equate marriage with relationship incorrectly. They can be & often are independent. not enuf chars :(
Abortion is morally permissible within 1st trimester

Well, the truth is we have gotten way off topic and you contradicted yourself by saying we BOTH shouldn't let religion sway what we believe--especially about abortion--so I won't and I will purposefully just focus on your arguments defending abortion, even if my faith is part of the conversation. (You can debate me about the Bible and God another time, if you'd like.) I believe that every human CAN be invaluable, if they aren't already, and yes my "religion" sways this argument because I believe God created us all, loves and cares for EACH of us no matter what, and none of us are better or worse in His eyes. It all comes down to a person's faith and if they accepted Jesus as their Savior. So, a person can go from being awful (in the sight of the society and people around him) to a decently nice person and the past won't matter any more. Nevertheless every person is special, am I wrong? When women perform abortion it takes away the CHANCE of what-could-be a human, let alone the very life. This is the very thing I've been trying to explain--despite the forfeit which I was out of town for--and I wish you would understand and have some heart for these people we are denying life to. My definition of life: anything that prospers by itself, prospers with others (or will) and is living. Population is not an excuse to deny life to a human being, the reason that if the human is given a chance and has the right influence he will do well in society. We don't know whether he would hurt or prosper in life unless we LET him ("him" being the baby). A person's a person (or factually will be a person). It's really simple, just know that the fetus will be a person and it needs too have a chance at living outside the womb because the mother chose in the first place to have that kid! When a mother says she is unprepared for the baby that probably means she is single and/or the biological father doesn't have a say on whether the fetus lives, is that not right? That is why a strong marriage is so important to have BEFORE performing sex because when the reproduction happens the kid should have a strong home to live in, too. It won't only be a ready mom, but both parents will be committed to raising a child. Our society accepts divorces, though, so it's no wonder it also accepts abortion.
Abortion is morally permissible within 1st trimester

My opponent was not able to provide a timely response, so I will 'attempt' to keep my elaboration into my reasoning short, while still allowing for further clarification of my position and investigation into theirs. When you state your favorite quote that 'a person is a person, no matter how small" , how small do you go? Down to a zygote upon fertilization, or do you include the gamete pre-fertilization? They are both technically considered cells, the basic unit of life, so is it only when the egg is penetrated that a life begins, or is the typically 'wasted' sperm/egg life also? Or perhaps not that early, and perhaps when the heart beat begins as early as 6 to 8 weeks. The questions are rhetorical and don't expect an answer, but the point I make is that the definition of life and it's parameters are relative and subject to individual interpretation when we both assign life's 'living' parameters such as cells and bodily phenomena, and assign human life a higher priority/value than animals (another argument). If we assign each and everyone's life infinite and equal value in conjunction with this definition of life as early as a cell, we are then unable to pull the plug on a brain dead baby/teen/adult, we cannot go to war (offensive or defensive), we cannot make a decision when it comes to medically having to choose the baby OR the mother in a one-will-surly-die scenario. IF, however, you can make a decision to take a life to save a life, then you consciously must nullify one's preconceived notions of infinite & equal value of life, whereupon you can now enter into hedonists calculus to have the value and quality of life measured in the arena of abortion. I will end this point and address one more. You mentioned marriage as a required precursor to sex and/or reproduction, but why? Is it the spiritual bondage that is necessary to prepare/allow the event, or does it serve solely as a mutual/legal condition of readiness, because in either respect is should not because it statistically (modernly) has not served as such either effectively or practically. Taking a look at divorce statics, nationally or globally, serve to show that marriage has little significance in spiritual terms of fulfilling a 'holy matrimony' upon which 'till death' do they part, or to evoke a readiness state for child rearing as divorce rates are at least up to 45% in America on average. Do we then say that none of these children were in fact ready/allowed to be born during a marriage destined to fail, because the numbers would be astronomical considering the divorce rates. I will rest on these two points, allow my opponent to respond, and address my final & closing statements in round 5. Just a few: https://www.census.gov... http://www.divorcestatistics.org... https://en.wikipedia.org...
Abortion is morally permissible within 1st trimester

You stated that you are Christian via you public profile; Mennonite to be exact (which raises even more question for me, but no matter). I do not wish to let any creed or religion be the basis for one's thinking, let alone my own, but I can clearly see that you are perfectly thinking in line of that of your faith. No matter, we'll transition off of assuming your religious affiliation to derive your reasoning, after I address your questions. My sources of these bible versus are, the bible. You can/may use any version you prefer, but the story is the same. And after reading further and beyond in Hosea and Numbers (Moses was the author/subject btw), the story does little to negate the fact that they condoned and were commanded and subsequently then command the murder/fetal homicide of a people 'hated' by them or their 'jealous' god (as God himself puts it). So if the religious defense of abortion is that it is murder, and murder is 'bad', why is there so very much of it done by, for, and in the Lord's name? But you are right, using these or various other Bible versus to justify or condemn abortion or murder is futile, because it is based on how the reader wished to interpret it. Lastly for religion, you wanted to know how God is unfair. A book can be (and has been) written on it, but I'll answer with a question: What apparently happens to people who never know or are not baptized ? You say abortion is "NOT FAIR", yet your own god flooded the world, droned Sodom and Gomorrah, killed the first borns of Egyptians, etc. That's about as unfair as US nuking Japan civilians,, twice. My point is done here, so no need to debate that off topic. Apologies on my question regarding your 'second' sentence, that should have read 'third' sentence, and I hope you know see what I was trying to say. No matter the statistics? They are vitally important, to this and MANY other issues/phenomena, and consistently show, as such, how in the dark people are about reality vs perception. Im not sure how many people you've talked to about their abortion, but I'm sure it wasn't over 860,000. So now the meat and potatoes; you feel that every individual is infinitesimally important, invaluable, and subsequently; equal. But how can this be so? Is this religiously influenced, because the bible does not proclaim so, it actually proclaims the opposite. And are we referring only to human life, and no other species on the planet? I ask because you state very confidently that 'over population' is 'NOT a problem', but how do you know this? Are you comparing our unprecedented numbers, environment, and problems to somewhere else? Population is growing exponentially, and the problem isn't running out of physical room more than it is the side effects; unemployment, economy crisis, global warming, boarder wars, epi/pandemics, resource/fuel disputes, un-education, generation, etc. So, population, murder, & religion aside, what makes abortion 'bad'? Is it ending a life? Define life to u
Abortion is morally permissible within 1st trimester

Where did I display that I am Christian? Anyways yes, I am, but you don't have to let that influence the way you debate me (for example now you're quoting Bible verses). But as such, I will rebut way you present those verses and will try my best to keep calm! I'll start with this: what is your source for these Bible verses? Because if you had read the chapters that were in Hosea and Numbers, you would get a better understanding for why these quotes were said/written. I will not write every single word leading up to the verses you put so that everyone can see the situation the authors of Hosea and Numbers were in (so you all get better knowledge of why they don't have to do with abortion whatsoever), but I hope you will at least try to understand the situation so I can debate you to a further extent. Because of the ignorance here, those Bible verses have been a waste of time and are irrelevant to the topic: "abortion is permissible within 1st trimester." Please do explain how GOD, of all matters, has been unfair, in any way you can; I will debate you on that issue here and now if you choose. But this, again, doesn't go along with abortion's issue thus might not be a good time to discuss God's moralities/fairness. You don't have to interpret my second sentence, saying "this will be interesting." It just will...or not... My opponent "Additionally, I am not sure how/why you would associate abortion with these 'extenuating circumstances'..." Well, no matter the statistics, many people I have talked to who try to justify abortion say "it's because of rape or incest.' I thought you would use it to justify abortion, too, until you said otherwise. I associate these factors with abortion because of people who want to say abortion is alright, but in a different way than you. So, instead of going on about that, I'll focus on why I think abortion (in general) is wrong EVEN within the 1st trimester. ABORTION IS NOT FAIR: This is my favorite saying to tell anyone on Abortion: 'A person's a person, no matter how small.' http://abcnews.go.com... Just because a woman had SEX OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE or was fooling around with the serious (with sex) doesn't mean she should kill the life inside of her and pretend it's no big deal. Because it IS a big deal. Ever heard of the Butterfly Effect? Everybody has a contribution to the world's progress, and over-population is NOT a problem. Imagine if they thought the world was over-populating when people like Einstein were born. What I'm trying to say is, everybody's life matters. Humanity should be protected, not murdered. It is unfair for mankind to be killed because of the mother's irresponsibility. The mother was messing around: now look what you've done! I'm not saying mothers shouldn't have kids. But they should be committed, and married, first. Next round I'll rebut your so-called 'cases resulting in need for abortion.' Conclusion: I don't agree that abortion is permissible at all.