BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Public Option is the best way to reform the American Health Care System

Thank you for starting this debate. Good Luck! I negate. Definitions: I disagree with your health definitions, because we are debating on the U.S healthcare system as a whole, not just health. Public option: a government-run health insurance program available to two groups—those who lack employer-provided health insurance, and employees of small businesses. best way: the best option. Both benefiting the government, economy, and citizens. reform: make changes in (something, typically a social, political, or economic institution or practice) in order to improve it. American Health Care System: Improving U.S private insurance companies. Clarification: Public option is the best way to improve U.S private insurance companies. Pro, please post arguments in R2. I'll post arguments in R2, too. Thank you.
Public Option is the best way to reform the American Health Care System

Health, as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is "the condition of being sound in body, mind or spirit especially freedom from physical disease or pain (Merriam & Webster)." The Declaration of Independence reads, "…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (Hancock, John)." Therefore, in order for Americans to exercise these rights, one has to have health as well. So it is a necessity that the national government reform the health insurance system, by providing a competitive public option of health insurance so that Americans can have access to medical care and in turn, their health. Sources: Merriam, & Webster. Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, 2009. Web. 9 Nov. 2009 <http://www.merriam-webster.com...;. Hancock, John The Declaration of Independence. The Charters of Freedom, 4 July 1776. Web. 10 Nov. 2009 <http://www.archives.gov...;.
Color Guard Should Be Considered A Sport

Some people say that Cheer-leading should not be considered a sport but that is not the concept that I am trying to make. Color Guard should be considered a sport because you use all the muscles and more in order to be in color guard. I find it very upsetting when people just say that all color guard is a ACTIVITY that you spin flags and throw things up (no pun intended). The 1st Round- Stating our statements 2nd Round- Backing up our statements 3rd Round- Coming up with a conclusion Nothing to snazzy or hard. Voters and visitors to this argument comment anything that may help either side or just post your feelings also (BTW I am never going to take anything personally and I hope you don't either) :)
Evolution is Simply a Theory and Should not be Taught in Schools

What this debate has come down too is Evolution vs Religion however they are one of the same. Evolution is just the study of gods creatures and how they have evolved over time. My opponent keeps mentioning her bottle water analogy so i would like to spin it in a different direction as my partner stated in the first round is that the bottle is full but we don't know how long the water has been running. Now that's exactly why evolution is being studied. We have the proof our in the case the water but we don't have the how and the why which is the how long did it take the water to fill. Yet in the end result the bottle is still full and now we have to study how it got this way in the first place. It was evolution when Eve and the rest of women would half to suffer the pain of child birth. Evolution can be as simple as a baby to a man. Evolution is more than just Darwin's theory. Everything changes overtime. It evolves to adapt to its environment its part of life, So just because we don't know how long it took the bottle to fill we know that the bottle is still full. So I hope that you still stand in firm negation of the resolve.
Evolution is Simply a Theory and Should not be Taught in Schools

By using a metaphor of a water bottle, I have made a clear example that we can in no way be sure of what happened during a time when the human race didn't exist. We can only make mere speculations. Evolution includes both the origin of life itself and the development and maturation of life. I shall respond to your comment with a series of questions: Where did life originate? If the law of biogenesis states that life can only be made from life, where did life begin? How did the DNA code originate? The human body is an extremely complex life form. How did a big bang create such complicated life? How did multi-cellular life originate? How did cells adapted to individual survival learn to cooperate and specialize to create complex plants and animals? How could mutations create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things? How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? Why is natural selection taught as evolution when it simply explains the survival of the fittest and not the arrival of the fittest? Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing? The problem was noted by Darwin and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science? You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes? If you can't teach religion in science classes, why is evolution taught? See: http://creation.com... http://creation.com... http://creation.com... http://creation.com...
Evolution is Simply a Theory and Should not be Taught in Schools

Evolution is more than mere theory as my opponent has stated their is actual factual proof supporting negation ile my opponent is stuck using metaphors about water bottles. Now lets put a ripple in her bottle of nonsense. When looking evolution we are looking at the development of an organism overtime. Which can be as simple as the evolution of man from the Netherlanders to modern day man. When looking at evolution we see key animals who evolved over a period of time such as elephants who are slow evolving to where they no longer have tusks so poachers no longer target them for their ivory tusks. Another example of evolution is giraffes National Geographic have found the remains of several short necked giraffes. Scientist have come to the conclusion that sense giraffes main food source is the acacia tree which is a very tall tree. Giraffes have slowly increased in neck length to reach theses leaves. So in reality students should learn how animals have changed over time because it was part of science as well as history http://sci.waikato.ac.nz... https://www.gci.org... http://a-z-animals.com... Here is factual evidence proving my case and i hope you stand as do I in firm negation that evolution is just a theory and students shouldnt be taught in shools.
Evolution is Simply a Theory and Should not be Taught in Schools

Imagine I had a water bottle. I fill the water bottle up half way from the faucet and then turn the water down so it is simply dripping into the cup. You walk in the room. I ask you how long you think that cup has been under the faucet, and you measure how much water each drip drops into the cup, then you calculate how long that speed of dripping would take to fill the cup to where it is. What you don't know is that I used the faucet first at a high speed and then turned it down to a drip. Why don't you know that? You weren't there. Your theory is perfectly acceptable, and so would the theory of someone who said that I filled up the bottle quickly before slowing the flow to a drip. My point is, the theory of evolution is just that: a theory. And no matter how much you try to prove it by calculations and science, no one is alive that was there during the creation and development of the Earth, and therefore, it will never be stone cold fact. Therefore, the teaching of evolution in schools is the teaching of a religion. if the teaching of creationism, or intelligent design, cannot be taught in schools, the theory of evolution shouldn't be either. You cannot have one taught without teaching the other, or you are simply hypocritic.
VIDEO DEBATE: Gay Marriage Should be Legalised

Note to judges: First, I humbly request you to drop any preconcieved notions and bias you might have on this subject and vote solely on the arguments presented IN this debate.And also my opposition has failed to provide actual links to his R3 arguments in the debate. Thus, I'm at a position wherein, I can't verify the credibility of the potrayed information. In this round I have assumed the arguments to be true and have given rebuttals for the same but judges are not required to do so and have the ultimate discretion to decide on whether if the references provided are to be accounted as actual sources.http://www.youtube.com...I advocate for a CON ballot :)Sources3: http://en.wikipedia.org... (Civil union) 1: http://www.dailymail.co.uk...2: http://www.aamft.org...
VIDEO DEBATE: Gay Marriage Should be Legalised

FINAL ROUND!! :DWhoa you have a really heavy accent! It was a bit hard to hear what you were saying but I think I got most of your arguments.http://www.youtube.com...It might still be processing if you view it too early on.[1] Jeffrey M. Jones, "Same-Sex Marriage Support Solidifies Above 50% in U.S.," Gallup.com[2] Freedom to Marry, "Marriage 101," www.freedomtomarry.org [3] Shankar Vedantam, "Bans of Same-Sex Marriage Can Take a Psychological Toll," NPR.org[4] Nate Silver, "Divorce Rates Higher in States with Gay Marriage Bans," www.fivethirtyeight.com[5] Kathryn Perry, "The Cost of Gay Marraige - In Dollars and Cents," Christian Science Monitor[6] Vaughn Walker, JD, Opinion, Perry v. Schwarzenneger (343 KB) s://www.procon.org...; alt="" width="13" height="13" />, www.uscourts.gov, Aug. 4, 2010[7] Nanette Gartrell, MD, and Henny Bos, PhD, "US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Psychological Adjustment of 17-Year-Old Adolescents," Pediatrics, July 7, 2010Good debate. Vote me!
Should the United States have stricter immigration laws.

In my opinion, I don't think immigrants are the reason many Americans losing jobs, but another factor (I don't expect Pro to rebute this, its jusy my opinion._Money concentration: It has been repeatedly stated in recent years that the income inequality in the United States is the biggest it has been in a long time, the wealthy are getting wealthier and the poor are getting poorer. Corporations are more rapidly and aggressively buying up and swallowing small businesses, smashing struggling startups, and using their economic might to restrict new contenders from gaining a foothold in various industries through patents and so on. Companies are becoming greedy for profit, and are offering jobs at a very low price. When this happens, immigrants are the first ones to go, because they are more willing to work at lower prices. This isn't nessescariliy the immigrants fault, but the large corporations who need a labor force for cheap. Now to address your opinion, I do partially agree that people who enter this country should be required to speak English. However, I support taking another approach, such as providing them tuitions to learn the language so they can enter here without hardship in the future.Like I said before, what we must to do to prevent illegal immigrants is investing in stronger border patrol and keeping future aliens from entering. There are some illegals who have been living in this country for a long time, and have contributed alot to the economy. I think just making immigration tougher wil just discourage immigrants from coming at all here.And thank you for this debate.
Should the United States have stricter immigration laws.

To start the 3rd round I will apologize for my error in losing topic in the second round. Opponents argument You said that the current unemploment in the U.S is 5.5% and that it is expected to lower but I don't see how considering a lot of our jobs are being sent overseas and a lot of the jobs here are being taken by immigrants who will work cheaper than most Americans. Issues with legal and illegal immigration I believe that immigration laws should be stricter on legal and illegal immigrants. I think the law should be stricter on both legals and illegals immigrants. I think the law should be stricter on legal immigrants is because many come to this country without even knowing our language, I understand that the U.S does not have an official language but English is the most spoken in the U.S today. This is important because how can we cooperate with each other is neither of us can understand each other. But that is the only major concern I have with legal immigrants but illegal immigrants are a different story. When the first thing someone does when they enter our country is break a major law and not get punished accordingly then there first impression is that we have weak enforcement of our laws and they are more likely to break laws. Another problem is when children enter the country they expect people to feel sorry for them and then they want Americans to spend tax money on flying in illegal immigrant when it would be the same price if not cheaper to fly the children back to there home country. My final issue with illegal immigration is that when they come here they don't pay taxes but they use things that cost government money like schools and library's. Ways the U.S could improve on our immigration laws. A few ways to improve our laws on legal immigration is that we should require that they know basic English before getting there citizenship. But I do have a lot of respect for people who take the legal route to entering our country and I hope we can teach each other many things. A few ways the U.S could improve on its illegal immigration is that if you come into this illegally no matter your age you should go on trial for deportation and if you don't get deported and you want to use our schools and other government paid things then you should at least pay some taxes and not expect other people to pay them for you. I have been honered to debate you, and you have definitely challenged my views on immigration. May the best man win.
Should the United States have stricter immigration laws.

I will address Pro's argument first. What America needs to fight illegal immigration is stronger patrol. There is no point having tougher laws if nobody will enforce it. I believe we can tackle this problem, if we build higher security fences, or walls. to prevent people from entering the U. S in an easier way. My original argument was the American economy's strength lies in the power of immigrants. Even with our already tight restrictions on immigration, I hardly think making it tougher will benefit us at all. The unemployment rate for the U. S is 5.5%, which is lower than countries such as Canada and the U. K. With the American economy continuing to gain strength, the unemployment rate is destined to drop ever further. In this case Americans can have jobs, and we can also offer jobs to immigrants. This way our economy will flourish, and it is a win/win situation for both sides. . http://data.bls.gov...
Anime studies should be offered in American high schools

I'm grateful for the opportunity of writing an essay about anime, one of my favorite topics. As a debate, there really was not much debate. I gave Con some hints on how to respond, but he instead forfeited R3.My contentions stand:1. Anime provides mature themes well suited to high school audiences.2. Anime provides modern themes not present in classic literature.3. By offering religious insights from Shinto and Buddhism, religious philosophy can be examined without obsessing over political correctness that accompanies Western religion.4. Anime offers an opportunity to study a culture that is markedly different from Western cultures, yet it works in the context of a modern technological society.I presented specific examples to support each claim. I need not prove that all anime is worth studying, only that there is enough worthwhile to make a substantial elective course. I did that.I argued that there was room in the high school curriculum for an anime elective by replacing some of classic literature or by replacing weaker courses in ethnic or cultural studies. Con did nt provide a counter argument.Con argued that the violence in anime had a negative impact. I replied that the simple action-only anime need not be studied any more than a literature course had to study uninteresting genres of literature. Moreover, the case that media violence leads to cultural violence is flawed. Japan is a peaceful culture despite media violence, and scientific studies showed that media violence has no permanent effect. Con's supporting evidence was only two blogger opinions.My contentions being sustained and Con's objections answered, the resolution is affirmed.
Anime studies should be offered in American high schools

Bad influence Anime has shown a highly bad effect on the world today. Although some anime are enjoyable to watch some are are rather exploited. Some anime like Naruto, Bleach, Inuyasha, Blood+, Gundam, Dragon Ball Z, Zach Bell, and Death Note are anime that promote violent acts. Such as killing, blood swords, fighting, ambush attacks act. Most teens and preteens watch these shows, overtime there brains act in a certain way to kill and imitate what the see. This seems to make no sense but is a true fact. Which was fist a crossover, slowly began to change the Americans marketed their television to children. These shows with more adult content appeared, and in some cases emulated the Japanese format.http://www.narutobase.net...http://www.timmyfan.com...
Resolved: The USFG should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the US.

It seems that my opponent has forfeited his final constructive. It really is unfortunate because there is nothing that I can do to extend much argumentation in any way. It essentially takes a 4 round debate to a 3 round debate. The thing that makes "forfeits" the most unfortunate is that it doesn't always take its full affect. For example, if someone in a real round were to just say "I'll skip this speech" they would assuredly get voted down. But forfeits on debate.org are so common right now that it hardly takes any affect. I know that there is a different "type" of atmosphere, but still. This round provides nothing. It's unfortunate to say the least. It's not like I can draw arguments against myself. But nonetheless, I would like to flow through all of my arguments and would like to point out that no more arguments can be provided in "rebuttals"… Thanks!... and vote PRO! P.S.- I'm not "mad" at "Pluto", just at forfeits. We all have our legitimate excuses for a forfeit here and there; I just decided to make a rant out of this one :)
saying less means more then saying a lot of things someoe else said that you agree with

I'm not entirely sure how workers and tyrants are examples of less being more. That concept of less (quantity) of an objecti being more is simply impossible. Another fundamentally impossible concept that my opponent introduces is the concept of something being a 97% fact. Fact is not a statistic. A fact is either a 100% true statement, or it is not a fact. There are no partial singular truths. I am also unsure what my opponent is referring to by subscribers. It is unfortunate that not much was accomplished in this debate, but I remind potential voters that while arumentation and sources may not be easily applicable to this debate, that spelling and grammar still apply. Thanks, Pro.
saying less means more then saying a lot of things someoe else said that you agree with

here we go, a oneah, a tooah, a three! You say" 1. Less does not actually mean more. The expression may be used that less words cause more good (or something to that effect), but that involves two entities (words, good) and an abstract concept like goodness. As far as tangible objects are concerned, less cannot be more." Think seeds, less is more in the hands of a worker, more is a lot less in the mouth of a tyrant. Number 2, my favorite duty (doody?) ," 2. I'm not entirely sure what the contention with factoids is, but I wish to clarify that the only thing that bloviators should spout are provable facts and not simply opinions of their idols." A fact proven by a capitalist, university sort, with huge dollars in the bank is only a fact sometimes, even if it a 97% fact. What that means is every time a "scholar" and their "peers" convince a politician to believe what they say, 3% or more of the populace gets lied to. The more scientific facts or politicos sell themselves to, the more people get screwed. A provable fact is one that has been proven with your own eyes and ears, not someone elses that you admire. I will agree that communism has been very beneficial to the subscribers, and who else?
saying less means more then saying a lot of things someoe else said that you agree with

Thanks for what I'm sure will be an enlightening debate. I may have missed the point that my opponent was trying to make, but I will attempt to make a few important clarifications. 1. Less does not actually mean more. The expression may be used that less words cause more good (or something to that effect), but that involves two entities (words, good) and an abstract concept like goodness. As far as tangible objects are concerned, less cannot be more.2. I'm not entirely sure what the contention with factoids is, but I wish to clarify that the only thing that bloviators should spout are provable facts and not simply opinions of their idols. 3. Communism is not a negative attribute of an individual, it is a political ideology. However, it appears from my opponent's tone that he is referring to Communists in a derogatory manner, which I nonetheless doubt bears any significance to his case.
football is better than fashion

Pro has the BoP to show that football is infact better then fashion. Football is not a necessity. A necessity is : The condition or quality of being necessary. https://dictionary.search.yahoo.com... Fashion consist of "clothing". Clothing is a necessity. You must wear clothes while in public, our you could get arrested. Football is not "better" to all people, for some people don't understand it. Mostly everyone knows what fashion is, because they wear clothing.