BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United States Government ought to provide Universal Healthcare for its Citizens

Hullo chaps. My opponent tries to introduce her own definitions in the second round, after I have. This is mighty poor form and I reject on grounds of poor sportsmanship and their utter redundancy. My opponent is correct that the value of the debate is morality. She then makes a ridiculous and unsupported leap to the contention that the criterion is "therefore" utilitarianism. In order for the "therefore" to be valid, it must follow on from what she is saying. Her prior claim is a restatement of a facet of the resolution, and does not justify why utilitarianism is a valid form criterion of morality or why I should accept it as solving the inherent is-ought problem of the resolution. I would typically be lenient on this matter and bother to respond to her arguments on a superficial level whilst requesting justification for her assertions if I had not made it explicit in my acceptance that this is the line of argument I would be taking. As I only have to demonstrate the resolution to not be affirmed my counter argument is thus; 1) There is no objective morality It logically follows that if there is no objective morality that no-one "ought" to do anything, as both our definitions have established a moral basis for the term. No reason to believe or accept an objective morality has been given. On this basis the default position should be scepticism. Or rather that, since the burden of proof is on my opponent, she must demonstrate the existence of morality before any moral claim of any body should be considered. Hence, by default, in the absence of argumentation, the resolution is unsupported. Fortunately my position only requires me to negate my opponents arguments, so even if she does demonstrate a reason to accept an objective morality, I won"t be hampered by limited opportunity to introduce significant new arguments. Thus the resolution is unsupported and my burden is fulfilled.
The United States Government ought to provide Universal Healthcare for its Citizens

Hello ladies and gentlemen. Are you all seated comfortably? No, not you inferno. No-one cares what you think. Everyone else? Splendid. We are gathered here today to bear witness to the union... Sorry, wrong notes. Its the wedding ceremony Mirza made me prepare for ViVeri, in his words, "just in-case" What I meant to say is that the burden of proof lies with the 35th Arch-Bishop Ann Gel (I'm glad to see the church appointing female Bishops to such high positions in the church). So friends, comrades, acquaintances and Imabench, as the good Bishop has not defined her terms, one can only assume that she wishes to let this humble sky pirate have this honour and define the relevant and potentially contentious terms; Should; a moral obligation. X should do Y because of the moral implications. Universal health care: a health care system which provides coverage to all of its citizens. So little hobbitses, my pious 'pponent must not only prove that this cause is worth while, but also that moral implications exist. Otherwise she would be committing the is-ought fallacy. With out further ado, let the hunger games begin! All praise be to satan, forever and ever. Amen.
America Is Better Than Every Other Country

Okay, that list and source are flawed. None of those countries guarantee you the freedom of speech, and the freedom to bear and carry a firearm. These are some of the simplest basic rights, every human should have. Okay fine, we're not as "happy". That's probably because we work so hard making the world economy go round, while those Europeans enjoy their month of paid national holidays; and month of paid vacation. Again, they live longer but not healthier. I'd rather die of good health at 75, then be bedridden till 95. SUre, cause those countries don't have to fight off North Korea, and China, and Russia, and the Gaza Strip, and ISIS, and Al Queda, and the whole Middle East, and radicals in Africa, and radical jihadists. Obesity isn't a NATIONAL problem, it's your freaking problem that you're obese, and eat horribly, don't exercise, eat too much, etc. That is your problem. Being obese is like getting your cat stuck in a tree. Troubling, yes. A national issue, no. Again, we have higher college/university costs. But the best higher education. Going to Harvard, and then Yale law school I know this first hand. But guess what, now I have more money then I know what to do with. I didn't say anything about immigrants. I did, however, say something about ILLEGAL immigrants. Your dodging the question. Give me one specific country that is superior to the US. Not a lot of countries. ONE COUNTRY.
America Is Better Than Every Other Country

Human freedom index: https://globenewswire.com... world happiness index: https://www.google.com... Life expectancy: https://www.cia.gov... Global peace index: http://visionofhumanity.org... Healthiest countries: https://www.google.com... (obesity is a national problem lol) I"ll give you that we"re in top rankings of higher education, however we have one of the most expensive university costs as well. https://www.weforum.org... best healthcare in the world: http://thepatientfactor.com... (not top 25) We don"t need factory farms, we need to eat better and eat smaller portions to lower lower the obesity epidemic. On immigrants stealing our jobs, they also pay a lot in taxes and barely receive welfare and can help our economy too : https://www.aclu.org... We have the strongest military in the world & most advanced weapons, so we do have that going for us. However, on a most aspects we are not near number one. Lots of European countries are better than US, I just got back from a month long trip traveling through 9 countries in Europe and I truly wanted to stay there. Once I pay off my student loans I"m gonna apply for my student visa and try to get my masters degree there :)
America Is Better Than Every Other Country

America is the freest country on Earth. PERIOD. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot. I don"t think happiness contributes to which country is the best. Sure, most countries that have higher life expectencies than us are in Scandinavia. But studies have shown that yes while they live longer, they don"t live healthier. We are literally the ones keeping global peace together. Ok, but we have the best higher education in the world. Ok, but we have the best healthcare in the world. I understand the maternal mortality rate, but we"re making technology to help us prevent it, and many states like California"s rate is going down. How does obesity make us less greats? That"s a personal issue, not a national one. We need factory farms to feed this many people. Sure, cause no one can get hired cause all the illegal immigrants are taking the blue collar jobs. Look, every country has problems. But America just has the least or better of the problems. Give me a country that you believe is better than America.
America Is Better Than Every Other Country

I disagree that America is better than every other country based on both my personal experiences and a collection of global human development indexes. here are just a few of the areas where USA is not even ranked in the top 10: the human freedom index, world happiness index, life expectancy and the global peace index (not even ranking top 100) to name a few. as far as developed countries are concerned we have the most expensive higher education costs and healthcare system, we are the only developed country who is seeing an increase in maternal mortality rates, we have one of the highest obesity rates, widespread use of factory farms, and one of the highest poverty rates amongst rich countries. I am not saying that the USA is a bad country by any means, there are many areas in which we are one of the best. However, collectively speaking and as far as first world countries are concerned, we are certainly not the best and have many areas in which we need to improve in order to claim we are the best. I personally feel as though being stuck in the mindset that we are #1 is one of the reasons we are not as progressive as other developed counties.
How i met your mother is better than, F.r.i.e.n.d.s

maybe friends has better statistics, but HIMYM is much more entertaining, friends is full of dumb whinny problems. Although HIMYM has the same problem once in awhile its full of fun and memorable moments with ted's journey to find his soul mate. Plus HIMYM has a better ladies man. Barney managed to almost get married,actually get married, and had sex with over 250 women through out the show. beat that joey.
How i met your mother is better than, F.r.i.e.n.d.s

I currently believe that this itself will be a hopeless debate, but I will give it a go. In 2005, How I met your mother first aired on the television and ended in 2014, while F.R.I.E.N.D.S first aired in 1994 and ended in 2004. How I met your mother managed to stay on the television for 9 years, while F.R.I.E.N.D.S lasted 10 years. With higher profit, and it due to what is now assumed to be a "classic." not only did it last longer, but the show got much more publicity. How i met your mother gained the maximum of 2.9 million viewers on the last episode and during F.R.I.E.N.D.S airing, managed to top it by thousands. F.R.I.E.N.D.S is clearly much more known and public than How I Met Your Mother, due to the majority.
Natural Selection Does Not Explain Evolution

This rustled my jimmies. Let me point out the first flaw, the premise. The theory of natural selection explains how species advance, using genetics. The individuals that can survive their environmental factors (such as obtaining food, keeping the needed body temperature, etc.) and competing factors (other organisms fighting over resources/mates) will be able to pass on their genes. Their offspring would then gain the traits that allowed their father and mother to survive to the point where they can have offspring. This is the process of natural selection, where many different individuals of a species, if they are "fit" enough to mate, their traits that made them fit is passed on, thus, their offspring would too be "fit". This occurs over thousands or even hundreds of years, and leads to species that cannot survive while competing against others to go extinct. This is natural, and it selects those that can survive. This is why it is called natural selection. As for evolution, it is the theory that SPECIES (i would bold, but i dont know/care for how) change and adapt over time. Now time does not mean in a day, or 1 generation. There was a project called Darwin Tunes that explained how this would take place using music. They have been uploaded to sound cloud, and here are some links to show the evolution of the sounds, by the selection of how satisfying they are to humans, what would vote on it. 0 generations https://soundcloud.com... 150 https://soundcloud.com... 500 https://soundcloud.com... 1000 https://soundcloud.com... 1700 https://soundcloud.com... 2750 https://soundcloud.com... 3630 https://soundcloud.com... 6000 https://soundcloud.com... and finally 8700 https://soundcloud.com... In case you have forgotten, or didn't notice, i posted these to demonstrate that evolution is not though one generation, but many. This is supported by natural selection, which explains how species can advance and change. Also i posted these because darwin tunes are really good, i wish someone would make full length songs with these.
Socialism

" it has failed multiple times", Let's look at every single industrialized country in the world. All but one, the United States has socialized medicine or universal medical care. They all have some welfare program in place, another socialist program. The list goes on so please explain to me once more how socialism has "failed multiple times." In the United States, a capitalist country, the number one cause of bankruptcy is medical costs. If the States used a socialist program... Universal health care this problem would no longer exist. As for the equality aspect, how is it fair that in the USA their is only the 1% while the other 99 are being pushed down and have no way to succeed. However if you are in a socialist state everyone makes enough to have a good standard of living, a recent study by the UN has determined that Sweeden is the happiest place to live, but it's a socialist country! How is that possible you say? It's because everyone has an equal start and equal quality care, such as medical, and home care. My wife was an American citizen and was born with epilepsy, of course she could not get help because it was a pre existing condition. We live in Canada and she has the same quality care as everyone else in Canada, so ask yourself is it fair that she gets help without having to pay for it?
Socialism

Socialism is one of the most controversial ideas of the 20th century, but unfortunately it"s a philosophical idea. There are many attributes to socialism that I believe if achieved would be good, like a more open sourced platform; however, it has failed multiple times to become successful or reach the ideal that it strives for[1], and I don't think that's entirely because of the power of the opponents. What I see is a lack of an underlying system or method to facilitate or organize the society and its goals. Socialism doesn't have the means to bring about complete equality short of everyone just simply agreeing on it. Socialism has all these ideas that can never be accomplished because there was no way to make the correct decisions and truly solve problems, but instead what so often happened was that socialism became a catalyst for an authoritarian system. I"m here to argue that instead of political philosophy that is impossible to achieve our society should start to use the methods of science to operate a socioeconomic system, and that is how we can achieve complete equality. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
People should be banned for forfeiting debates on debate.org

First of all, congrats to both of us for having a forfeit-free debate. This was my first debate and it was a lot of fun. 1. "Banning can be used in the most severe cases" This last punishment system you suggested would be problematic for the same reasons I explained previously. If members would be banned for forfeiting, let's say, 4 debates in a month, members suffering from an untimely internet loss, computer problem, family emergency, etc. could still be banned in a matter of days. There would be no special circumstances for "severe cases" under any of your proposed systems and well-intentioned debaters would be banned because of bad luck. Also, you have presented at least four different punishment systems at this point, uncovering another flaw in your premise: each method suggested is imperfect and will inevitably punish those who you admit do not deserve it. 2. "Awareness is prevention" You encourage a "very public" warning system that allows users to avoid debates with members who have marks against them. However, you do not explain how such a system would protect accidental forfeiters. Under your system, good debaters who have received warnings because of unavoidable time restraints would be marked, have difficulty finding willing debaters, and gain an unwarranted negative reputation on the site. 3. "Opponents work get washed down the drain" As I stated in Round 1, a forfeit does not mean one's research is wasted. You have won the debate using your research, you have expanded your knowledge on the subject, and you are free to debate the topic again using that same research. The quote of yours I posted in Round 1 supports this very statement. See my arguments there for elaboration. 4. "The person who forfeits [has] all the rights" This point was also addressed in Round 1. Forfeiters' statistics are lowered and their forfeits are clearly visible by selecting their losses (it took only moments for me to find and review the forfeited debates you mentioned). In addition, the social atmosphere of this site chastises those who do not debate properly. On the other hand, their opponents have increased their stats, developed their argument for a future debate, and have been spared the irritation of continuing a half-hearted debate with an uninterested opponent. -Closing- I have shown how a ban for forfeiters is not only a threat to all users but also completely unnecessary. My opponent has presented no solid case as to why his proposed system is either needed or beneficial. Pro has made no attempt to defend his original arguments, has failed to suggest a consistent punishment system, and has not even attempted to refute the reality that good users would inevitably be banned by his suggestion. For these reasons, I strongly urge a Con vote. Thanks for voting!
People should be banned for forfeiting debates on debate.org

1.Unwarranted bans Banning can be used in the most severe cases, like repeat offenders. Banning someone on their 1st offense is definitely ridiculous and that would be a bigger burden on the communities population that the forfeiting itself. I'm looking at a more gradual system where consequences are still there, but gives the debater who was unable to meet deadlines the benefit of the doubt. If we have a gradual system, where we only allow so many forfeits per week or per month it will help to deter people from forfeiting. This is just proven knowledge that when new rules are enforced it reduces the offenses. It will not cut the problem out 100% but it will make people think twice, before they easily blow off a forfeit letting all their opponents work get washed down the drain. 2.Forfeiters already face repercussions Rankings are public, i don't see anywhere in the statistics on their profile where it shows how many forfeits there were, because forfeits simply show up as a loss. That's hiding the fact at how many quitters there are. Rather than what it should be doing, which is making it very public. Awareness is prevention, and the more that are aware of the forfeitures the less likely someone would end up in a debate with them. But as it stands right now, it only shows a forfeit as a loss and in my opinion that's hiding way too much. Also, for example when i start a debate anyone can take it like you did. Even if you were a seasoned vet and were here since the beginning of debate.org I would have no way of stopping you from taking the debate, nor would i have any reason to because all your forfeits simply show up as a loss. Conclusion Afraid I'll have to disagree with your conclusion. Its protecting them, just as much as its deterring them from forfeiting. I think they would appreciate the fact, that their hard work is somewhat being protected against being flushed down the toilet because of a lazy, inconsiderate unpunctual debater. The way you make your case, is to totally ignore the fact that the person getting forfeited against should have no rights, and they should just bite their tongues and shut up. You make it seem only one sided, that the person who forfeits should have all the rights, and the other person have none. You make it seem as though the system is perfect in every way, and that implementing a new system to deter forfeiting will be the downfall of this site, you make it seem like a lot of things, but fair. I make the case that adding a new system to stop it is fair for both sides. To me that is the only way it should be done. I don't remember ever hearing about people getting paid for not showing up to work (who aren't on a yearly salary),in fact if it was a repeat offense most likely they would get fired.
People should be banned for forfeiting debates on debate.org

Thanks for the debate! First, a clarification. The title refers to banning forfeiters but Pro's arguments refer to a warning system or some punishment in general. Let's split the difference; I will argue against a punishment system of 3 warnings followed by a permanent ban for forfeiters. -Pro's Points- 1.Forfeits hurt the site's image With punishments in place, debaters who have lost interest in a debate but still support their position will have to half-heartedly continue. Such unwanted debates would lower the quality of the site's discussions and give the appearance that they are not taken seriously. A forfeited debate quickly dispatches one-sided discussions and allow readers to place judgment on the forfeiter rather than the site. 2.Forfeits are no fun Fun is subjective; I would consider researching, stating my position, and winning my first debate (as your mom did) fun. If her opponent conceded to her point, she should feel satisfied. If they lost interest, any unenthusiastic continuation would have been much less fun than accepting the win. 3.Research is wasted. If your opponent forfeits because you have the superior case, then your research did its job. If they forfeit because of time constraints or a sudden lack of interest, you still bettered your understanding of the issue, improved your ranking, and can reopen the debate another time. You stated this same point to an opponent who forfeited one of your debates: "Its no problem at all. Once you get everything sorted.. We'll start this debate again…maybe we can even copy and paste what we already put down lol..Take care man" -My Points- 1.Unwarranted bans Imagine the following scenario: A regular debater is currently involved in four debates when some unforeseen incident (computer or internet problems, a health issue, etc.) occupies them for a few days. In the course of that time, this user could receive multiple warnings and be banned. Since members are often busy with work, school, and family issues, it is likely many will receive warnings or bans from a single untimely event (or a handful of smaller events). Surely you don't want to punish users for ill-timed problems but this system would do just that. 2.Forfeiters already face repercussions A forfeited debate counts as a loss and lowers one's ranking. Because rankings and past debates are public, repeat forfeiters already reveal themselves as poor and untrustworthy debaters. No ban is necessary here. Also, this site is very communal and debaters quickly earn reputations. If forfeits are tracked, forfeiters will promptly earn a bad rep and suffer socially, even if their forfeits are unintentional. -Conclusion- A warning/ban system would most severely punish regular, well-intentioned debaters who accidentally miss deadlines. Given that there are already repercussions for forfeiting, there is no need to invent a system that will hurt those members who don't deserve it.