BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Medical Healthcare Professionals are Paid Too Much.

Doctors are in the best position to change the administration's scheduling or treatment practices because they have the means, the stature, and the voice to change administrative policy. Moreover, they are ultimately responsible for the quality of work that is the outcome. A patient is a doctor's patient not a practice's patient. It reasonable to assume that doctors are not expressing this voice because they are benefiting from it. They are paid regardless of the health of the patient, but in direct correlation with the amount of care issued, i.e. tests, drugs, procedures. Just because hospitals get more money than the physician for certain care does not mean the physician's kickback isn't significant. Furthermore, doctors are held to the professional standard of care in medical malpractice. This means that a doctor is negligent if the care they issued fell below the standards set forth by other doctors in their field or in their community. If the standard practice is to issue test 1 and test 2 for disease A, then failure to issue test 1 and test 2 resulting in harm is negligence. In other words, doctors set their own standard. To say this liability standard is too high is to say doctors are setting their own bar beyond their own reach. Still, the cost of not reaching this bar (being sued for negligence) is not paid by the doctor it is passed on to the consumer-patient (by charging more for their work because of the cost of malpractice insurance). What is unconscionable is that doctors are not only issuing test 1 and 2, but also 3, 4, and 5 because the hospital tells them to and because they get extra money for it. Sure, there truly are some great doctors that fall outside this argument, but their existence does not tip the scales when weighed against the overwhelming evidence of the poor health of Americans. Until the overall health of Americans improves, doctors as a whole are being paid for a job not well done.
Medical Healthcare Professionals are Paid Too Much.

It is not doctors who are scheduling the patients, but their practice or hospital administration. This is the way that these companies build revenue. It is not valid to make the generalization that all American doctors are not doing the quality work that is expected. There are certainly a percentage of physicians who don't meet the expectations of their patients, but there are also a large percentage of doctors who go above and beyond to deliver the best care possible. Because of the nature of their work, physicians are held to a high standard of liability and therefore have no choice but to order as many tests as they see fit and more, otherwise the patient could sue for negligence. Focusing on prevention would improve the state of American healthcare, but it is up to Americans to stay up to date with doctors visits and be proactive. It is also important to note that hospitals charge more for the procedure than the actual physician (http://stanleyfeldmdmace.typepad.com...), so maybe it is hospital administration we should be focusing on as the money pit.
Medical Healthcare Professionals are Paid Too Much.

This is an issue about Doctor's salaries contributing to the poor health of Americans overall. American doctors are simply not doing the quality of work that Americans expect from people who makes six or even seven figure salaries. The overall health of the American people pales in comparison to other western, developed nations because American doctors are incentivized to emphasize quantity over quality. Granted, this incentive is mainly the product of insurance policy, yet the doctors are precisely the people responsible for letting this policy continue. Afterall, they are the ones who took the oath of "do no harm." Ordering more tests than necessary, squeezing in more patients, and prescribing more drugs is better for business, but doctors did not take an oath of loyalty to the insurance companies. They took an oath to "do no harm" to you and me. This practice method is certainly doing immense harm. The focus of American doctors should be prevention, and only after a focus shift towards prevention do doctors truly deserve the pay they receive currently. Doctors should be paid according to the work they do, but they are not doing the quality of work that is expected of six or seven figures.
Medical Healthcare Professionals are Paid Too Much.

While healthcare in the United States is becoming increasingly expensive and unaffordable, many are quick to attribute the six-figure salaries earned by healthcare professionals. These professionals have dedicated their life to helping others and their daily tasks are both daunting and grueling. These professionals have attended school for 7 to 12 years and made many priceless sacrifices. The jobs that these professionals do not have a price tag. The people who feel these salaries are too inflated are not aware of the responsibility placed on people working in healthcare. The number of patients these professionals see is immense and the costs of their services far outspend the salaries these professionals are paid. Lowering salaries could bring in less competent staff, therefore decreasing patient satisfaction levels. These are the people that bring revenue to the hospital. It is essential that they are paid accordingly for the work they do.
golden goose slide the

Based on many reviews, The Nike Flyknit Trainer casual shoes" heel keeps on slipping. One buyer stated that he needed to use really good socks to prevent this from happening. Many felt that since the shoes have a low tongue design, The laces are not secure enough to keep the feet in. According to several who reviewed the Nike Flyknit trainer sneakers, The shoes can cause blisters on the feet. Some felt that the shoes did not have enough cushioning in the soles. One user said the Flywire in the shoes tends to snap. A few thought the shoes were slightly narrow.
Keeping The Federal Reserve

The idea that you must balance employment vis-a-vis inflation is erroneous. This misconception comes from John Maynard Keynes' general theory of employment interest and money. This theory does not account, for example, for the stagflation of the 70s, in which you saw skyrocketing inflation alongside extreme unemployment. Indeed it is not the mandate of the Federal Reserve to fight inflation - their hollow words to the contrary notwithstanding - but rather it is their mandate to create inflation. If they wanted to stop inflation all they would have to do is stop printing money, via the purchase of government bonds. The main problem with central banks is the result of their manipulations of interest rates. This creates malinvestment, typically in the form of overinvestment in capital goods industries. On the market interest rates are determined by consumer time preference. When central banks artificially decrease interest rates this sends a signal to entrepreneurs that consumers preferences have changed; time preferences have lengthened and consumers demand more goods in the future and fewer goods now. Resources are diverted from consumption goods industries to capital goods industries. Unfortunately this does actually serve the needs of consumers. Ultimately the market realizes it's error and self corrects. The bubble bursts, and there is a bust. It is precisely thus that the recession is actually the healthy stage of the boom bust cycle, as malinvestments are liquidated and resources are redirected back to consumption goods industries. If central banks weren't tinkering with interest rates in the first place there would have been no boom and bust - simply steady prosperity. Instead of a central bank monopolizing the money supply, what we should have is a system of free banking and competing currencies. A market in currencies would allow consumers to choose between different monies instead of being forced to accept the government monopoly standard. Most likely gold would win out.
Keeping The Federal Reserve

I'd like to start with my stance which validates the need for a central bank system (or the Federal Reserve, in particular). The Federal Reserve is a central bank, or a system of banking which acts as a regulatory arm of monetary policy. The Federal Reserve, currently chaired by Ben Bernanke, has stated the mission statement of the central bank of the United States on the website of the Federal Reserve. - Conducting the nation's monetary policy by influencing money and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of full employment and stable prices. - Supervising and regulating banks and other important financial institutions to ensure the safety and soundness of the nation's banking and financial system and to protect the credit rights of consumers. - Maintaining the stability of the financial system and containing systemic risk that may arise in financial markets. - Providing certain financial services to the U. S. government, U. S. financial institutions, and foreign official institutions, and playing a major role in operating and overseeing the nation's payments systems. I, therefore, maintain that the Federal Reserve's role in monetary policy is beneficial in that it is regulatory over surrounding banks to ensure safe practices, balances employment and inflation together, and adds revenues collected from interests accrued on government bonds into the US Treasury Dept. I trust my opponent to have a prompt response and a valid argument.
MTN Dew Causes Autism

I did supply proof. You have been fooled by Bush and Trump. This is proof enough. Wake up America! They are fooling you. This is fact! I beg you to listen to me. The Kotch bothers fund the NWO and are keeping it afloat. MTN Dew is the root cause of autism. It is used in vaccines. They inject trace amounts into Doritos too to hammer in the last nail. Please I invite you to prove me wrong. I've been to MTN Dew and I know what they do. You haven't so you don't.
MTN Dew Causes Autism

Ah, the Dunning-Kreuger effect! I know that one (I happen to have a minor background in psychology), enough to know that you've misinterpreted it some. But that's for later! The first thing I'd like to address is that the Dunning-Kruger effect isn't even *mentioned* in the "source" you provided. "Okay", I thought, "maybe you're referring to the main part of the article, the thing about the airport." I'll cut to the chase; your "source", if it even deserves the title, is worthless. You cited a conspiracy theory website -- it actually has the word "Conspiracy" in the URL! I daresay very nearly everyone reading this debate can agree that this is in no way a credible source - quite the opposite. My point of requesting a source for your claims still stands; until you do such, all of your claims are unsubstantiated and not to be taken seriously. Now, I must commend you for bringing some some credible piece of academia - the Dunning-Kruger effect - but I'm afraid you've misinterpreted it. The Dunning-Kruger effect (which I'm going to shorten to the "DK effect" for the sake of simplicity) concerns *skills*, not learned facts. The DK effect concerns what happens when someone who is incompetent at a certain skill tries to evaluate their own competence [1]. In layman's terms, the incompetent individual cannot evaluate their own incompetence because they don't have the competence to do so. As a side effect, they also lack the ability to recognize their inability to self-evaluate. [1]. I say again - the DK effect has absolutely nothing to do with learned facts, only skills. I'd also like to point out that you've gotten away just a little bit from the debate topic! You're supposed to be arguing that mountain dew causes autism, not any of the supposed subplots behind it. Put bluntly, you've gotten carried away with your conspiracy theories, something that I, as your debate opponent, really needn't tell you. So, just to summarize what's going on here: * You are claiming that mountain dew causes autism. You have completely failed to provide any evidence for this. Even if the link you provided is somehow valid, it has no bearing on your argument that mountain dew causes autism. * You have spouted off an unbelievable amount of irrelevant conspiracy theories, so much that I think you've broken the record for conspiracy theory : word ratio. Congratulations. * Your arguments, if they can be called that, have so far failed to prove the main point -- why you think that mountain dew causes autism -- and furthermore consist almost entirely of fantastically hilarious non-sequiturs. You have one more chance to prove yourself. Again, I implore you to provide some hardcore, SCIENTIFIC & CREDIBLE evidence for your main claim the mountain dew causes autism. Otherwise, you practically forfeit the debate. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... - explains the Dunning-Kruger effect. Easy to read, credible source. Retrieved on 9/25/2015 (since Wikipedia articles change over time).
MTN Dew Causes Autism

Ok I do have proof on the Internet for one of my points: http://www.exploringlifesmysteries.com... What is happening to the general public is the Dunning-Kreuger effect. This means that the general public does not believe these conspiracies because they are too misinformed to realize that they are wrong. PepsiCo is evil and is plotting to help the New World order take over the world after WWIII.
MTN Dew Causes Autism

At this point it's fairly clear that you're either dangerously crazy or just not taking this seriously (not that I thought you were at the beginning). I prefer the latter option, personally, but I'm not one to eliminate options. That having been said, I feel the best and most appropriate way to respond to your argument is a slightly altered quote from the movie "Billy Madison" (1995): What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone reading this debate is now dumber for having read it. I award you no concessions, and may the voters have mercy on your soul. On a more serious note though, I invite you to provide substantial evidence (no, personal anecdotes won't do, let's see some written words - provide a credible source in the form of a link, please!) for even ONE of your absolutely insane points. Until then, any unsubstantiated argument is null and void. i ask the voters to consider this when placing their votes.
MTN Dew Causes Autism

Let me rephrase, the FDA and Pepsico are both pawns of Bush. Thinking otherwise is precisely what they want you to believe. It's not your fault though. They use the moon to fool the general public. The smart people of society know that the moon is fake. That is a very well proven fact. They use the Autism Beam on the Drath Star to shoot at a tank of synthetic watermelone. Yes the Drath Star is real. They borrowed it for Star Wars and called it the death star. Synthetic watermelone was This ingredient is used to ignite nuclear bombs. Anyway, this creates the basis for MTN dew. Then the Bushism chromosome is added. They then inject gaseous chlorine instead of the standard carbonation. This helps make the average lifespan of the average person much shorter. That's why in prehistoric times people lived 100s of years but now we don't. I know this process is fact because i know someone who used to work for Pepsico that told me how this works. Pepsico was invented by the Bin Laden regime before they merged with Bush and Obama to make the New World Order. They currently hide under Denver International Airport. I know they are there becasue a whistleblower said so. This is fact. WAKE UP AMERICA!
MTN Dew Causes Autism

Perhaps the FDA is just a pawn of Bush and they are lying about the ingredients. Many scientific laws ar known as theories because there are things we still don't know. One of the things that has been kept from the general public is how the Bushenism Chromosome can infact invade our DNA and possibly make us autistic. Most of the time it doesn't, but it is the cause of all autism. This is how the New World Order plans to take over eventually. They first poison our society with MTN Dew. MTN does not stand for "mountain" but actually stands for the plan known as "Many To None". This is the New World Order directive in which they take out the many people in society that do not normally fall for their deception and make them believe the lies. They will then rise out of their secret underground city they supposedly have under Denr International Airport and take over. This will all be thanks to MTN Dew causing smart people to go autistic.
MTN Dew Causes Autism

This has been proven time and again as fact! MTN Dew uses extra chromosomes as their secret ingredient. The chomies were the same ones used to create George W. Bush. This is fact! The proof: http://antimatrix.org... Kids everyday are poisoning themselves with this Bushenizing potion. THis is clearly a plot to overthrow the world engineered by the New World Order and Adolf J osama. This brew of autism infects millions of kids. Autism is not apparent in all of the victims, but it is there and it will destroy out society. Stop consuming this satanic product of dirty corporations at this instant! wake up America!
Fights to the death in an arena should be legal

I need more blood because MMA is not enough, football is a joke, and baseball obviously isn't a sport. Sports are not violent enough. People need entertainment, and the current sports do not provide the proper kind of entertainment this country needs. Uncle Sam is a bloodthirsty warrior! He needs swords and morning stars slicing and crushing skulls. I want to see a bear fight a convict! I need to see this, this country needs it. It's going to be the only thing that will get us out of this recession. Opponent, since we cannot debate this in the Colosseum like real men, to the death, then debate.org will have to do. Instead of me crushing your skull with a war hammer, I will have to destroy any proposition that you bring against me.
Republicans

I think you mean the freedom from extra taxation benefits wealthier Americans, but lower tax rates benefit everyone who earns a paycheck given everyone keeps a larger percentage of what they actually earn. To your point about wealthier Americans not being able to handle their money, I think their successful accrual of income and management of wealth suggests they are able to "handle it." I see a link to a news article, but no particular argument addressing the substance of the article. The middle class is not comprised of individuals who make minimal wage nor was the minimum wage designed to assure middle class status, it was created to prevent Americans from slipping into poverty. It is a form of a safety net, one that the GOP supports in its present form with moderate increases that do not disrupt small businesses from sustaining profitability.
The Double Jeopardy Rules should be terminated.

Unfortunately, I must assume that my opponent agrees with me because she has not responded in a timely manner. Needless to say, I will continue the debate as best as I can. However, before I continue, I would like the statement in my first argument, "I hope my judges will acknowledge that this is an extremely difficult debate to argue as con, so I hope you judge who had the better argument." To be voided, as I had not realized the difficulty of being pro. -I will simply use my last argument as a conclusion of the main points stated above. >>The prosecution must make as strong of a case as possible.<< Basically, with the double jeopardy rule, the prosecution only has one chance to prove the defendant guilty. Without the rule, the police would not be as thorough, nor would the prosecutors present a decent case because they know that if they fail, they can simply try again once new evidence is collected. >>An individual usually does not have proper resources to clear him, while the state does<< This means that the state has an unfair advantage over the defendant. Without the double jeopardy rule, the court could continue calling an individual back to court as soon as the police find more evidence. This creates an immensely difficult situation for the defendant, as he can never "win" in the end. >>The innocent are left weary without the rule protecting them.<< If an innocent person had his/her case acquitted, he/she would have to live the rest of his/her life wondering if they will be called back and convicted. >>In extreme cases, such as murder, it is difficult to find an unbiased jury.<< If "George" was innocent, and was charged for killing "Bill" and his original trial had been acquitted, it would be all over the news. Now, if "George" got called back because the prosecution found more evidence, it would be increasingly difficult to find a jury that hadn't seen the story, and wasn't biased. [Sorry if the names offended anyone, I was just trying to come up with two names and those pooped up first.] Additionally, amendment five affirms the constitutionality of the double jeopardy rule, and proves that the government had placed the double jeopardy rule with a lot of thought, and it should not be terminated unless more good comes than harm. -Thus you should vote con!!!!!! Thank you!! I would quickly like to end my debate by stating this: If you are biased and feel that the double jeopardy rule should be terminated, please vote on who provided the better argument, Thanks!!! Thank you very much favored 101 for accepting my debate. Sincerely, -Julius Caesar
The Double Jeopardy Rules should be terminated.

However, I was exceptionally dissatisfied that you failed to disprove any of points, nor did you supply a valid reason for why amendment 5 makes the double jeopardy rule unconstitutional. You simply copy and pasted amendment five off of . http://www.law.cornell.edu..., and that your true argument was 4 sentences long, not including the definition of amendment 5. This being said, I will try my best to provide an ample argument explaining why amendment 5 does NOT make the double jeopardy rule unconstitutional. So, here we go: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger;" How is this making the double jeopardy rule unconstitutional? The double jeopardy rule, as I will restate it in my own words, means that a person can NOT face a court twice for the same crime. Here you are simply saying that no person can be held for a capital crime unless upon the accusation of a grand jury. So, obviously that statement does not disprove anything about how the double jeopardy rule is unconstitutional, or rather, the double jeopardy rule agrees with everything in the statement and heeds no contradiction. "nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;" Uh… Doesn't this PROVE the existence of the double jeopardy rule? You clearly copy and pasted this amendment without reading it. You are saying that no subjects can be placed twice for the same offense, so doesn't that match my definitions? Technically, you aided in my argument. :o "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. " This doesn't relate to the rule at all. "This being stated, Double Jeopardy violates the United States constitution. " You just proved that it came from amendment 5, so wouldn't that make it constitutional? Please make your next argument disprove mine. With kind regards, Julius Caesar