BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"Universal Healthcare" is just a euphemism for socialism.

To start, I'd like to say that I'm not the most ardent supporter of nationalized health care in the world, so much so that I don't declare a position in my debate.org profile, but this seems like it will be a pretty theoretical debate, so I decided to give it a shot! Whiplash, I do not think that for opposing a nationalized system of health care you're some monocle-wearing Mr. Burns-esque figure - your position is certainly logical and valid. I do wonder however, what you think of other services provided by the government. If we follow your logic, we should privatize all retirement plans, schools, and even roads. Not everyone reaps the same benefits from Social Security, not everyone sends their children to public schools, and not everyone travels on roads kept up with public funds. Do you believe all of these things should be privatized as well? If you label nationalized health care as socialism, you'll need to label those things as socialism as well. I understand that the title of this debate is hyperbolic, but there are elements of socialism in U.S. government already - implementing nationalized health care wouldn't make Lenin proud however, because it's still a very small portion of wealth being redistributed, if we want to use that term. I'll leave my argument there for now and see where it takes us - I've got some other arguments I'd like to bring up later though!
"Universal Healthcare" is just a euphemism for socialism.

It is typical for someone who opposes the various forms of socialized medicine to be cast as a hater of poor people, or someone who believes the rich should have access to a higher standard of medical care. This is not true. I lead a healthy lifestyle. I don't drink, smoke, do drugs, or have unprotected or promiscuous sex. Therefore, why should I have to pay for people who do? Why should *I* have to pay for anyone who smokes themselves into lung cancer, drinks themselves into liver failure, or sleep around until they get an STD? The answer is this - I shouldn't. The reason that universal healthcare is socialist is that it takes your money from you and redistributes it to someone else for a reason you may or may not agree with.
Batman vs albert Wesker.

A . Again u use speed Wesker has greater speed he has moved so fast that it seems he's tealproting batman can't match his speed . B. Again u say Wesker is like a human by the fact batman can bear hug him how can batman grabu something that's to fast . Facts of Wesker 1. Wesker is intellectual capable of creating a virus that searches the gentic structure and when it finds someon without the right gentic structure nessary it turns them into a monster like creature that's weakness is heat . 2. Wesker is clever it is shown he used his old partner Chris and Jill to attack the Russian faceility so that he get his data . 3 . He will do anything to further his goals he will kill murder thousands and destiny life's for his plans he will not give mercy . 4 . Wesker is easily able to lift 500-1000pounds with one had as seen in resident evil 5 when fighting Chris and Sheva through a fully loaded missile with one hand without struggling and is able to throw it Great distances with enough force to make it explode . 5. Wesker is unarmed most of the time speed and superior strength to fight . 6. Unlike Wesker batman is human which means he's able to get sick and cantac viruses and he is Able to get injured by his enemy's because humans can't take blows from an Rpg and survive unfazed try to do that with batman . 7. Wesker has the durability greater then a tank due to the fact he has taken weapons deisigned to take tanks out . 8, Wesker can heal faster then any human " in code Veronica he is burned by fire but the next tiem u see him his scars vanish as if they were never there and unlike batman he can heal his injuries without the use of medical equipment .
Batman vs albert Wesker.

Pardon my sleeping errors mainly becouse I'm blind well leafing blind but still . No we are talking about Resident evil 5 Wesker my videos clearly point that out . A. Wesker has the speed advantage speed is evreything in a fight . B . Wesker has the durability of a tank or is greater to that of a tank he's been hit by RPGs and has no affect but is stunned and perfectly fine . C. Wesker is shown in resident evil 5 punching metal and denting it in his weak from and breaking a go.e in it still while weka and at full strength he has the strength to carry a missile 1 handed and throw it not only is this a show if incredible strength but he threw it hard enough for it to explode so he can just jumps out of the smoke bombs . D . Wesker can just look at batman and break his armor and pierce right through it that's how string wekser is .
Batman vs albert Wesker.

First thing's first...please correct spelling issues. Batman has the strength of mind. He is, even in a blink of an eye, going to assess any weaknesses he can conclude about him before he starts to fight him. Batman also has many smoke bombs, steel batarangs, sonic batarangs, incapicitation pills, and other gadgets on his belt in order to help him out. He mastered more than 100 martial arts and ninjitsu.(The art of secrecy.) He could just attack Wesker and disappear, only to strike again. We are also talking about base forms, not any mutated stronger versions of forms.
Batman vs albert Wesker.

I'm sorry my opponent but your whole argument stated by my original rules which are the following 1. Both charterers don't know each other and have no prep time and no info on the enemy . 2. Basic weaponry and abilities no character has an upper hand here like batman having the serum to weaken Wesker . 3 . No running away both characters must fight until ones down . 4 . No because he's batman that's not an argument . A . Your argument where batman does reaserch on Wesker is against rule 1 which clearly states no prep time and no info in the enemy . B . U also broke rule 3 when u said batman wouldn't charge in he is clearly another wha of running anyway or retreating . So in total your arguments are not valied due to the fact there are against the rules of the debate . I must also state this unless Batman is able to take down a thank with his basic weaponry then he can't win due to the fact Wesker has been seen stuned and only stuned by RPG fire which is designed to take out a tank while Wesker has mo ability that not seen by a tank . By using the current information on Wesker I believe wekser is the evolution due to the fact he was born nature with gentic structure which makes him superior to humans in my own words he's th evolution of humanity only pushed on by the use of the proto G virus in his Body and as history has teached us evolution is always make things better .
Batman vs albert Wesker.

Batman has inhuman qualities too. He has inhuman endurance(Bane broke his back and he recovered faster than any normal human being.). He has inhuman intelligence. If he saw Albert he wouldn't just rush in, he would do research on Albert first. He has dodged assault rifle bullets in game adaptations of him.(This is relevant for Albert was originally a video-game character.) Batman has also kicked full-grown trees in half. I have a scan but my phone won't allow me to paste it.
Batman vs albert Wesker.

Well I will use all the facts I have to help my reasons 1 . . https://m.youtube.com... A . In the video u see Wesker blocking bullets with his speed which looks like he's teleporting which gives Wesker the speed advantage in this fight to fastener the naked eye to see . B . If u look at Wesker he seems to be able to have great strength due to the fact he punched Jill in the stomach and gave out a sound burgs which is clearly seen which is seen in a huge amount of impact . 2 . . https://m.youtube.com... A . If u look at Wesker when he punches spencer his hand goes right through his chest which takes a lot of effort due to his bones and organ being there which is another great feat of strength . B . You also get info on Wesker if u listen to spencer speech . 3. . https://m.youtube.com... A . The glasses throwing when Wesker throws the glasses it shows how much strength he sued to make sure it went straight even though it. Wasn't much strength still strength . B . More feats on his speed and still doing bullets . C. . Being able to dodge bullets at point blank range another feat of speed . D . Able to take on two armed combatants in an Armed and semi armed fight without being shot once . 4. . https://m.youtube.com... A . In this video u see Wesker after being weakened with a serum to take away his inhuman abilities he's been weaken but not completely human still shows speed beyond anything human and jumping abilities higher then any known human . B . U see Wesker being stabbed in the arm by a knife the cut I sent deep but still shows how he neglected it and shook it off wintou showing an ounce of pain . C . After being injected by 2 serum he is still capable of great jumps and able to crush metal with 2 doses of his injection and heal rapidly because if u see once he's in the roof and is shot in the hand and blood comes out proving he has healing abilities . D . Near the Ned he's shot in the head and still quiet alive . There pure facts from the game and video to prove it Know Wesker is armed with a 9 millimeter Samaria edge which he had from his days at S. T. A. R. S which stands for special tactic and rescue squad but he prefers to use his hands in combat mainly due to the fact he's superior to all humans . Weaknesses well Wesker has only 2 as I know of 1 . Serum . The serum is a special virus that is able to keep the virus in wekser stable , but stated by the debate rushes I stated batman has no ability to gain the serum thus making this weakness not useable in this debate . 2 . Argence . Wesker thinks he's better then everyone he thinks himself as a god and has the power to show it unless he will rather see his victim die slowly if and only if he has a quarrel with him and have stopped him from making a his plan succeed . While they don't know each other Wesker won't show that weakness to batman making Wesker Without one batman will have to use everything he normally has in this fight .
Batman vs albert Wesker.

I kindly must say I am getting annoyed by the reason and explanation of batman fans who say he can beat anyone he's put up against . I have decried to test that theory and put him up against my favorite superhuman villain Wesker . The rules are simple to this debate . 1. Both charterers don't know each other and have no prep time and no info on the enemy . 2. Basic weaponry and abilities no character has an upper hand here like batman having the serum to weaken Wesker . 3 . No running away both characters must fight until ones down . 4 . No because he's batman that's not an argument If u follow thirst rules I will have a good debate and may my opponent has the best of his abilities . Report this Argument
slang debate

Yo, back up -- You really wanna catch a fade? You ain't my ace boon coon, foo. You'z a bobo bobble head coming at me with a bootsie @ss attack. You ain't cute; you'z a bopper with a bootydoo. Ya damn right I'm the L word. I'm a blazin' @ss twat bandit. Don't act like you didn't see my picture and save it for your spank bank, slut monkey. Plus, I've been getting blown all day and I'm still better than you'll ever be. Ball up, nucca, don't boss up. This sh1t is dead, yo, I'm Swayze.
slang debate

Haaa this Gyal is a waste talking bout hoodrat? dont understand your nex ting america lingo, listen you mingin butterfaced toerag your talking bare Kak, you talk bout my age but ive got more skill dan someone twice your age. Haaaa are you dizzy blud? you must be having a bubble about calling me a jezzie, Dis be yo sista, foo! U need to do suttin bout that complexion your tryna flex out.. ive seen better Looking mofos Livin in da streets Biatch. Are you high on crack? Coz suttins got you hyping up your keyboard to me like dis. You Next FRASSED UP FROGLICKIN DIRTY GET AROUND SKET, The l werd? where did dat name come from.. isit just dat your a disturbed carpetmuncher or you get nuff kicks out of it. Anyway check dis tho, ive been wasting bare time steaming up your shizz, So before you come and give me alot of joke with ur so called murks, go and take dem trainers out and stop running your mouth! Im gonna jam!
slang debate

Yo, lemme axe you suttin, hoodrat: Why you frontin, ugloid? I'd call you a butterface but even that would be a stretch. You're nothing but a bimho, two-bagger by far whose only entertainment value on DDO would be to video tape yourself doing an @ss to @ss with DATCMOTO, your favorite butt pirate. Nobody cares about your bitchassness, lot lizard. Are you even old enough to be on this site? Or are you just a prostitot? I'm out, anyway. This is box locking my plans, so why don't you go entertain yourself with some bukakke and we'll get back to this in a minute. I'd be surprised if this debate wasn't amazon ranked anyway, wanksta.
slang debate

what a load from you L word, you come chatting bare makka on my debate n" shizz Like i give a toss, Allow you though, tryna cuss me off you need to take a chill pill ya" got no swagger na not like mine. You think Your cusses are cold but all you do i s talk complexed shizz SO JAM from my debates! You just some next gyaldem from america Thinking u can chat more slang dan me. So hush your gums Before i murk u out differently Im outta here WASTEGYAL!
slang debate

We meet again, strumpet. Stop being such a drip with your boring and pointless debates. I don't mean to be the one responsible for the cow bosh here, but you're barking mad if you think anyone cares about this. You might as well just shut your gaping gob. I mean, don't scrike about it - I didn't really expect anything more than arse about tit from a muppet like you. Clearly you're no one I'd like to aussie kiss, even if you are a titselinabumsquirt. Anyroad, Bob's your uncle, folks! Sod off, you great git. You're a bloody tosser :)
Gay marriage should not be legalised or encouraged to society

Some countries allow polygamy. Some parts of Utah want to allow polygamy. Perhaps you could call those countries where it is allowed uncivilized, but you might have a hard time convincing them all of that. Perhaps same sex couples and the children they raise are experiencing harder lives thus far in society. This does not signify to me that it is a trend that will continue for all time. It can be argued that it is still early on time wise before you can make that judgment. Further back in history if there was a biracial couple and they had children, you could point at statistics that show them having a harder time adjusting compared to other kids. I feel rather certain that time has changed much since then, it seems likely to me that it will change for gay marriage as well. There are other forms of sexual intercourse other than for reproduction. Common sense kind of depends on how common the sense is a the time. Once it was common sense My way of thinking is that morality comes about from society and what they all say is morality. It seems likely that if you went back every fifty years in America and took some of the baseline people living there back to our current day, that many of them would find the current America morality to match their own. I don't think I've quite heard yet from you what you find immoral about same sex marriage.
Gay marriage should not be legalised or encouraged to society

Look, Gay and lesbians should be treated equally after all, they're humans like us, but legalizing it shouldn't be allowed. A civilized society doesn't encourage immorality and gay marriage is generally immoral, but many people are too blind to see that unfortunately.. Marriage between a man and a woman doesn't mean that women are treated more as property, that was thousands of years ago, yes it's an issue that is still happening today, but it depends on their relationship, you can't just assume that ALL heterosexual couples don't treat eachother equally, and even gay couples may not treat eachother equally aswell even if they are the same gender. People need to know the effect it has on younger and further generations; it just seems that people don't even care about them; they're not thinking about the future and what impact it could have.
Gay marriage should not be legalised or encouraged to society

Arguments for gat marriage being legalized and encouraged in those who wish to follow such a path. No religion, culture, state, or any society can lay a claim to marriage. If people truly felt such outrage and certainty on the correctness of their version of marriage. Then they could hardly allow ANY other form of marriage other than theirs. No ceremony, deity, or rights of other marriages would be acceptable. But that is not reality.(In all places) If one were to force a (example)Catholic priest to marry a couple in the bonds of his religion against his will, this could not be encouraged. However this is not the case, rather religions and people change over time along with the values of their society some people now feel it is acceptable to their religion or customs or that it should be accepting of others not of their customs. One cannot claim that because the couple are unable to physically have children together that they cannot be married. There are straight couples who whether do to accident or condition are unable to have children, yet no one would doubt there marriage. There are as well couples who choose to never have children. If one looks to past history, it seems hard to argue that marriage has the same exact form that is still holy and correct to the sensibilities of a modern person. You cannot argue that marriage has the exact form it did thousands of years ago, when woman were treated more as property of their husband (Albeit one that should be treated with respect), still property and without rights. People today have a right to long lasting commitments made with other people, that offers them security, acceptance, or like minded love with another person. Values change over time. The values of homosexuality and marriage and how people view them seems to be changing again as it has changed in previous time in other forms. Going to stop here so I don't talk too much. Tried to make my own arguments without leaning on yours yet. Do that next round.
Gay marriage should not be legalised or encouraged to society

Gay marriage should not be legalised or encouraged society. I'm going to post my arguments from the previous debate because my previous debate didn't go very well. Marriage is a privilege, not a right. And if you don't wanna look at it in a religious point of view, that's how mother nature is; marriage can only be made between a man and a woman, and all these people are doing is disrupting the nature with their sick mentalities. If you're saying that a " civilized society does not discriminate on grounds of race, religion, sex or sexuality and denial of marriage rights is clear discrimination", then what about polygamy? Why does the society allow gay marriage but not polygamy or poloygyny? A civilized society doesn't encourage immoral values. It does bring harm to the society and it will. Do you think it's fair for the younger generations, who will neither have a mother nor a father? Girls who are raised apart from their fathers will more likely be involved with early sexual activity. Children without a mother are deprived of their security and unique advice. That's why two parents from different genders is very important. A 2012 study was made in Texas, found that children who have been raised in a same sex relationship faced more difficulties in life, such as sexual abuse and unemployment later in life. It could even lead to a child being bullied and humiliated in school. Evidence also suggests that children who are raised by homosexuals are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders. They even showed a gay couple on a kids' program, how disturbing is that? Now that gay marriage has been legalized in some countries like America and Australia, it advances the homosexuality agenda and unfairly paints opponents as bigots. How are further generations going to know the difference between friendship and love if they're just gonna keep looking at gay couples everywhere. And because of it's legalization, the number of gays and lesbians will increase and the traditional way of marriage will be destroyed. Like common sense its wrong anyways, you can't have sex with the same gender; your genitals don't work like that. And even if you adopt children, as I mentioned before it'll be unfair for the child.
Right-to-Carry

I would like to congratulate my opponent for successfully copying and pasting his first two arguments directly off two different web sites, he didn't even bother to give those sites credit for this information, so I will do it for him, the first argument came from; http://www.azccw.com..., the second argument came from;http://www.gundealersonline.com..., I strongly encourage my opponent to come up with his own argument for a change. Anyway, here is the deal, lower crime rates are not necessarily caused by concealed weapons laws. Even if it did lower crime rates, it would just be slightly lowering violent crimes caused by guns in the first place! If it is actually lowering the crime rate it is because of one reason, fear, is it really freedom to be walking around in constant fear of what nut job around you is packing heat? Vigilante justice is the wrong way to go!
Right-to-Carry

If you believe that being able to carry a weapon makes us safer, consider this statistic; Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill in self-defense. [ Kellermann and Reay, N.E. Journal of Medicine] It is also noteworthy to take a look at this chart that clearly shows that the escalation in weapons causes more deaths, not fewer Gun ownership Homicide Gun homicide Suicide Gun suicide rate per 100k rate per lm rate per lm rate per I m rate per lm USA 85,000 9.3 6.40 12.0 7.1 Switzerland 43,000 1.5 1.40 20.4 5.8 New Zealand 29,000 2.6 0.49 14.5 2.5 Canada 24,000 2.2 0.67 12.8 3. Australia 19,000 1.8 0.36 11.6 2.5 Britain 3,000 1.3 0.14 8.6 0.4 Japan 400 1.2 0.06 19.3 0.14 France (23,000) 4.9 2.32 20.0 4.9 -Thank you
Prostitution should be legal

First off you mention children. I don't want children to have anything to do with this I'm talking about consenting adults. First if a girl wants to trade sex for money why should she be allowed to if she wishes and other adults are willing to purchase it. It's currently a black market which makes prostitution more dangerous with kidnappings, rapes, murders and people don't want to get tested for STDS in fear of people discovering what they are doing. Making this a white market activity would make it much safer in all these aspects. Again there would need to be regulations. Only people 18 and over should be able to engage in prostitution. But if it's between consenting adults I don't see the problem. Plus with regulations there would be no more pimps and if they decide to quit they isn't any life endangering consequences. Shout out to Tminusfour20 for pointing that out in the comments. Thank you that didn't occur to me.
Prostitution should be legal

Prostitution is a victimless crime. Prostitution creates a setting whereby crimes against men, women, and children become a commercial enterprise.... It is an assault when he/she forces a prostitute to engage in sadomasochistic sex scenes. When a pimp compels a prostitute to submit to sexual demands as a condition of employment, it is exploitation, sexual harassment, or rape -- acts that are based on the prostitute's compliance rather than her consent. The fact that a pimp or customer gives money to a prostitute for submitting to these acts does not alter the fact that child sexual abuse, rape, and/or battery occurs; it merely redefines these crimes as prostitution