BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Healthcare should be considered a right to all of a country's citizens

When most people think of healthcare, they think of it as a human right. After all, is it really that different from things like free speech, for example? I think that it is. Many people see healthcare as a human right because almost everyone has known someone who has been helped/saved by a doctor. But, once you look at what healthcare is at its core, you can start to see that it is essentially no different from any other business. At its core, healthcare is just like any other service. I will be using a mechanic as my example. What does a healthcare provider do? A healthcare provider performs a service for someone in exchange for money. A mechanic does the same thing. At this point, most people would say that while someone doesn't NEED a mechanic, someone does NEED healthcare. I am not saying that people don't need healthcare. It is extremely important to be healthy. However, what I am saying is that we technically DON'T need healthcare to survive. And the argument for "what if someone's life is at risk" applies to both the doctor and the mechanic. Maybe someone was going to be driving on a busy highway, and their engine was having problems. Wouldn't they be in danger if their car wasn't fixed? Therefore, is a mechanic's services a right? Again, I think the reason that people see healthcare as a right is because of how many people it saves. But the point I am trying to make is that no matter how many lives a service saves, it is still a service, and therefore not a right. Think about all the rights in the constitution. Freedom of Speech, the Right to Bear Arms, and the Right to Privacy are well-known ones. What do all of these have in common? They all are not services. Again, a service is still a service no matter how many lives it saves. The other point that I want to make is that when countries make healthcare a right, and therefore fund it, the quality and availability of that healthcare significantly declines. According to the LA Times, a recent study was conducted on the quality of healthcare in various developed countries. The UK "ranked worst for five-year survival rates in cervical, breast and colon cancers. It was also worst for 30-day mortality rates after admission to a hospital for either hemorrhagic or ischemic stroke. On only one clinical measure was it best: the avoidance of amputation of the foot in diabetic gangrene." [1]. It's simple economics. In America, if a doctor is of high quality, he will get paid more/get more patients. This means that doctors all try and do better than the competition, leading to higher quality healthcare for all. If a doctor is of low quality, he will receive less patients, and therefore have to do better. In the UK or Canada, because healthcare is paid for by the government, there is no incentive to do better. Overall, my main points are: -Healthcare is a service, and therefore cannot be a right. -In countries where healthcare is considered a right, the quality and availability of said healthcare is significantly less than countries that have it privatized.
Hamlet's tragic flaw was not his inability to act

Hey yo, This is rap battle, we can't do poets and sh***, come on Your opponents are dead, I'll cut your head Oh my god! somebody just got out the bread! How come your wearing a bra or a pantie? that's true, hamlet's reacting by his tragedy This Mother****** can't say Polonius and Osric you can say that same s*** like Notorious Vagina and Dick I'm a greatest poetry of the year even the cashier You steal my baseball base, that's a mother****** error have you write stories before, rap before, smoke before You destroy my relationship with my girl, your a f***** h*** If you don't do that sh**, just say oh well That means priceless 29, goes to hell! Show me your genitals, Show me your genitals Watch out, there's the atheist gay having sex with your a**hole! What you gonna do? What you gonna do? East Side 16 Mile Police Department might arrest you
Hamlet's tragic flaw was not his inability to act

My opponent has ignored my argument, despite the fact that I have shown that Hamlet had good reason not to act. He had no reasonable evidence that the Ghost's story was true. When he did he decided to kill Claudius; if it hadn't been for his tragic flaw of moral pride he would have succeeded. But alas, this is a tragedy. I ask my opponent if Hamlet's true tragic flaw was indeed his inability to act then how come he kills Polonius so quickly? He did not hesitate to kill him. Hamlet had been looking for evidence to support the Ghost's theory and when he got it from the play within a play, he decided to act. But, as I explained before, Hamlet then decides to become God and send Claudius to hell. Continuing with his new found Godliness, he punishes his mother ignoring the advice of his ghost father. I strongly urge the voters to vote pro. My opponent has not responded to my arguments in any way and I have given good counterarguments to his claims.
Hamlet's tragic flaw was not his inability to act

Well, Though at times Hazlitt delighted in actors' interpretations of Shakespearean characters, and he thought some of Shakespeare's plays eminently suited for the stage, he opens the chapter on Hamlet by proclaiming, "We do not like to see our author's plays acted, and least of all, Hamlet". Here, more than anywhere else, he sides with Charles Lamb in believing Shakespeare's plays to suffer in stage presentation. Neither John Kemble nor his favourite actor Edmund Kean played the role of Hamlet to his satisfaction. "Mr. Kean's Hamlet is as much too splenetic and rash as Mr. Kemble's is too deliberate and formal." This, he felt, is a play to be read, and he noted that by his time it had already been so often read as to have become part of the common culture. "This is that Hamlet the Dane, whom we read of in our youth". One might say, he observes, that Hamlet is just a character in a play: "Hamlet is a name; his speeches and sayings but the idle coinage of the poet's brain." Yet Shakespeare gives those sayings a reality in the mind of the reader, making them "as real as our own thoughts." Of all Shakespeare's plays, this one is "the most remarkable for the ingenuity, originality, and unstudied developement of character", writes Hazlitt. He thought of Hamlet more often than any of Shakespeare's other plays because "it abounds most in striking reflections on human life, and because the distresses of Hamlet are transferred, by the turn of his mind, to the general account of humanity." "The character of Hamlet [...] is not a character marked by strength of will or even of passion, but by refinement of thought and sentiment", writes Hazlitt, and he sides with Schlegel and Coleridge in thinking that Hamlet "seems incapable of deliberate action". "His ruling passion is to think, not to act". Although the focus in this essay is largely on the character of Prince Hamlet, Hazlitt also comments on the movement of the dramatic action. Shakespeare lends all the characters and settings an air of verisimilitude, so that the reader might consider "the whole play [to be] an exact transcription of what might be supposed to have taken place at the court of Denmark, at the remote period of time fixed upon, before the modern refinements in morals and manners were heard of. [...] the characters think and speak and act just as they might do, if left entirely to themselves. There is no set purpose, no straining at a point."
Hamlet's tragic flaw was not his inability to act

check this out William Shakespeare is the greatest playwright of the English language, wrote a total of 37 plays in his lifetime, all of which can be categorized under tragedy, comedy, or history. The Tragedy of Hamlet, Shakespeare"s most popular and greatest tragedy, displays his genius as a playwright, as literary critics and academic commentators have found an unusual number of themes and literary techniques present in Hamlet. Hamlet concerns the murder of the king of Denmark and the murdered king"s son"s quest for revenge. Its main character, Hamlet, possesses a tragic flaw which obstructs his desire for revenge and ultimately brings about his death. This tragic flaw makes him a tragic hero, a character who is destroyed because of a major weakness, as his death at the end could possibly have been avoided were it not for his tragic flaw. Hamlet"s flaw of irresolution, the uncertainty on how to act or proceed, is shown when Hamlet sees a play and the passion the actors had, after Hamlet"s third soliloquy, in Hamlet"s fourth soliloquy, and in Hamlet"s indecisive pursuit in avenging his father"s death. What do you think?
Hamlet's tragic flaw was not his inability to act

For my first debate on this site, I wish to debate that Hamlet's tragic flaw was in fact not his inability to act. I will be the pro side, so I will be arguing that his tragic flaw is something else which I will be stating later. The definition of tragedy and all the terms that come from the tragedy will be the Aristotelian definition. I'll define them simply quickly here: Tragedy: an imitation of an action that is admirable, complete (composed of an introduction, a middle part and an ending), and possesses magnitude; in language made pleasurable, each of its species separated in different parts; performed by actors, not through narration; effecting through pity and fear the purification of such emotions. Tragic Hero: a character who is more virtuous than the typical civilian but has a tragic flaw which causes his downfall. (Example Creon's fatal flaw is hubris) Tragic Mistake: When the tragic flaw comes out and the character makes a poor decision (Creon not listening to Antigone's, Haemon's or Teirisias's advice and attacking them using logical fallacies.) -Aristotle. Poetics. -http://en.wikipedia.org......(Aristotle) I intend to make this first round only for acceptance of the Debate. Second round will be opening statements, the third round will be counterarguments and rebuttals, and the 4th and final round will be closing statements.
Abortion

As my opponent has forfeited this round and provided no argument for me to rebut, there is nothing for me to say here other than to reiterate my previous arguments. 1. Would you punish a woman for being raped and deciding not to take on an unnecessary burden? Would you force her to feed another mouth against her will? 2. If the baby is deformed, would you rather that it lived and felt immense pain and hardship? 3. Would you reduce a mother to poorness instead of allowing her to maintain a reasonable living standard? Again, to reiterate my previous statement: Childbirth should be a choice, not a legal necessity.
Abortion

Alright, first some rebuttals. 1. At what point does a fetus become 'alive'? At conception? When it loses it's gills? At what point do you decide, 'Hm, this small ball of cells which vaguely resembles a human is a life'? 2. Again, at what point does it become murder? Technically, you could argue that use of a condom is murder, as you're killing millions upon millions of sperm cells. Again, at what point do these cells become a human life? 1. Rape 2. Medical issues 3. Other reasons for abortion 1. I am aware that you think that 1% of abortions being due to rape destroys this argument, but that is not the case. The fact is that it still occurs, and these people, should they be unable to abort, would have to live with a burden which they did not ask for. Your use of the words 'father or mother made some really bad choices' implies that it is the mother's fault that they were raped. Which is absurd. 2. If the baby is deformed, and should it be born would live a painful and / or impractical life (EG disabled from neck down, maformed lungs, etc), would you still insist that they must keep this child? Even when aborting would save the child quite literally a world of pain and hardship? And what of the mother's wellbeing? What if due to medical reasons, having this child would cause the mother to die in childbirth? Who's rights are prioritized? The mother or child? 3. And what if, for financial reasons, they are unable to support a child? Would you rather that they get reduced to abject poverty and keep this child, but ultimately cant give this child any chance at life? Or would you rather the child never has to experience the poverty and instead the parent(s) remain able to support themself(ves)? Childbirth should be a choice. Not a legal necessity.
Abortion

ArgumentsI: A fetus is aliveII: Murder. Argument I: A Fetus is Alive. My first argument is that a fetus is alive. Around 1% of abortions are due to rape so that completely destroys the rape argument since that represents such a small group. But again in the cases of rape is it the babies fault that the father or mother made some really bad choices? Again who is paying the consequence for the actions? Also 58% of abortions are to women that are in their 20's. My wife had our first kid at age 20 ironically and here we are 4 years later and we haven't been financially destroyed at all and it didn't prevent her from going to school outside of 1 semester so we are walking proof that going to school is very possible. So in the end people really abort their kids because they just don't want them. But they obviously enjoyed the part about making them. So how is this right that in our society we allow people to avoid getting burned when they play with fire. In no other circumstance in life is this allowed. What is even crazier is the baby is the one that pays for the mistake. Clearly this baby born at 22 weeks is alive and well. So these late term abortions are actually killing babies who can go on to live healthy lives as shown in the article. It's a technical point I know but still it goes to prove that a hard cut off doesn't really exist. On a side note it is very sick and disturbing that Planned Parenthood is selling baby parts. Mister may stand against this and say I don't agree with that but it is after all a fruit of abortions. If you are pro abortions than you must accept the fruit that comes with it. It amazes me how many illegal things are done at planned parenthood those doctors should lose their license. But that is what happens when we support abortions and encourage young women to follow through on them. Argument II: MurderNothing much to say here. Because a fetus is a human being, and we are killing it, this is murder. Murder makes people in jail, or death, so in this situation also, the mothers have to go to jail. Thank you for doing this with me.
That the CIA should rig elections in post Arab-Spring countries to ensure the moderates win

As an Australs debater myself I'm sure this will be an interesting discourse. It's also always good to find somebody else from this half of the planet on this site. I'm going to define "rig elections" as meaning "to conduct an election fraudulently so as to produce an advantageous result" (in this case for moderates). CIA should not be seen in a restrictive sense, and should include all other relevant intelligence agencies and bodies. "The moderates" should not refer to any individual party or candidate, but to all political groups and individuals who do not fall under a group I call "the extremists". "Extremists" shall be defined as anyone unwilling to compromise in the policy the government sets forth, if that is the will of the people. For instance, those who advocate Sharia law and will accept nothing less are extremists. Similarly, if there was a candidate who advocated complete anarchy and would be unwilling to work and negotiate with anybody else constructively, they would be classed as extremists. Since my opponent has instigated the debate, to avoid me having an extra round, I'll allow my opponent to go first. My model should be fairly apparent from the definitions I have provided.
Levelized mario games better than Competitive mario games

Rules of the game: Levelized games are games that are usually singleplayer, Having platforming challenges as normal (ex: super mario bros. 3, New super luigi U). Competitive mario games are that of usually multiplayer, Can have major parts of the game without anything to do with platforming (ex: Mario kart ds, Super mario party). I am trying to prove why levelized games are better than competitive on the next round. Your job is to prove why competitive games are better. Reasons must be stated with a game that can prove it, And an other type game without it. 12InchBeef and SickInTheHeadz cannot debate on this unless directed. other things are not limited. Good luck!
drugs should be legalized

My rationale for insisting on this is as follows: The resolution, as currently written, could be fairly interpreted either in a way that is unfairly favorable to pro or a way that is unfairly favorable to con. By way of example, one could insist that the resolution means, "there exist some drugs that are not yet legal for consumption that should become legal for consumption," which would be trivial for Pro to demonstrate, given that there exist many pharmaceutical compounds that have not yet been approved but that would have useful therapeutic effects. One could also insist that the resolution means, "every compound that can be classified as a drug should be legal for consumption," which is a resolution that is very favorable to Con. One could also take a middle-of-the-road approach, which is what I believe was intended, and say that the resolution means, "the substances that are currently used as recreational drugs should be legalized, with some conditions, for human use. " I invite Pro to clarify the resolution according to the guidelines I have provided, and to begin his argument. I look forward to our debate.
student should have tablet or laptop,for class,not textbooks

Your argument is slightly repetitive, which forces me to be also. The benefit loss ratio tips heavily in the direction of loss, as students can abuse steal, or break their devices. Devices also cost a fortune, and schools are not just made of money. The average school has 700 students, and buying 700 tablets for each, even with education discounts from the supplier are provided. Additionally, I provided stats already for plagiarism and cheating rates, along with facts from the Department of Education. Technology facilitates this kind of misconduct, and despite all the benefits tablets may pose, in the ling run, they will end up being a problem. And I"m sorry, If it takes you "hours" to find a word in a damn dictionary, I think you might consider going back to the drawing board on your life. Furthermore, technology is NOT A RELIABLE RESOURCE, as it is more susceptible to fraud and error. And if you think textbooks are fragile, what does that make a tablet or device? Now for some new material. Its not a one time cost for tablets. What do you think it costs for support for such devices? The average repair cost for a nook or kindle is 100$. Listening to how you spoke of multitasking, I assume you mean a higher quality device, which is even more expensive. This repair process is even time consuming. What if a student needs a tablet they broke, but cant access it because it is getting repaired? Another way technology poses itself as a liability. Leading on the health side of things, users of electronic devices are 10x more likely to have fibromyalgia and skull muscle disorders. Some of these disorders include shortsightedness (which is a muscle disorder) and neck problems. It can also screw with your sleep cycles as well. Screens cause the brain to release cortisol, a hormone the increases conductivity between neurons. This results in active thought rather than sleep, and sleep deprivation is a massive problem among young adolescents. So you decide, the voters, whether tablets are worth it or not ;D.
student should have tablet or laptop,for class,not textbooks

It would improve a student's life significantly the everyday weight will be removed, you dont need artifitial light to see students also spend hours on searching for definitions and words witch will only take seconds with the notepad also it can hold thousands of 'pages'withou the need to chop down 1 tree when you use the notebook there is also no need to buy pens and pencils glue or booksalot of students suffer from back injurys thanks to the heavy bags they need to cary all the time alot more can be mentioned but this is the top phew,Every year, students in school develop back problems due to carrying the overbearing weight of school textbooks in their book bags. The heavy, lagging weight of a backpack often causes long-term health issues and back pain for students. Aside from notebooks and binders, students also have to carry pencils, pens, and spare paper. The average high school student"s backpack weights between ten and twenty-five pounds, while the average laptop weights between three and eight pounds. A study directed by Brandon Macias of UCSD"s Department of Orthopedic Surgery decided that students often carry backpack loads of twenty-two percent of their body weight when it is only recommended to carry fifteen at most. While laptops are still expensive, ranging from 250-700 dollars each, the price of a single laptop compared to the cost of multiple textbooks is considerably less on the school district"s wallet.1) They are WAY to HEAVY. (Second graders shouldn't have back problems and scoliosis.) 2) They CONSTANTLY need to be UPDATED. (Electronic textbooks can be updated easier and can reach the students almost instantly.) 3) Textbooks are made of TREES. (Just think of how many trees could be saved by using tablets or laptops.) And there are kids with back and arm pain from carrying to many books to their next class for 2 classes later only because their locker is not by them but if you have a laptop that is all you need only because you can make seperate folders for each class and the teacher can email you the assignment and you can type in the answers then print it or email it back to them.People can type better on tablets, handwriting would not matter. Better prepared for life. Textbooks can get worn out. Can't lose homework. Pads take up less space. Saves paper and Ink cartridges. No pencil sharpening. 1000's of apps. Dictionary on board. It would be a lot less space taking than desktop computers.