BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Implementing Universal Health Care is a Bad Idea

So... all you have to say is that the two examples I gave are bad, and that because my funding is present, and accessible in every form of bureaucracy you are right? Moving on, I did not mean that the agency had to be the Red Cross, or the WHO, those were just examples of groups I believe could do it, honestly, I don't see why this wouldn't work if the governments of the world could unite, and find a group to do the work.
Implementing Universal Health Care is a Bad Idea

The Red Cross is a private charity...if you want to provide UHC through private charity then be my guest. What i take issue with is forcing other people to pay for that system through taxes. The WHO is little more then a bureaucratic entity at this point. To turn it into an organization capable of providing health care to more then 5 billion people would be impossible. There is always wasted spending in bureaucratic institutions. Corruption and wasted spending are a given, and any organization funded by government is bound to suffer from the same problems. So again...who is paying for this?
Implementing Universal Health Care is a Bad Idea

I agree that UHC will not work for individual countries, but the topic is Universal, so, I do believe that UHC, could be done, and could be successful, there is much wasted spending in governments, if this spending was used to pay one, global organization, such as the Red Cross, or WHO to open hospitals, which could be used for free, it could very easily be succesfull, without raising taxes, there could still be other hospitals for people who want special care, but the UHC would be available still.
Implementing Universal Health Care is a Bad Idea

Our current health care system is messed up, but UHC is not the solution. A universal health care system would destroy the incentives of patients and doctors to try and lower prices. A UHC system would cause unnecessary corruption, and bureaucracy at the taxpayer's expense. A UHC system greatly reduces a patient's ability to choose their doctor. There is no evidence to suggest that UHC lowers medical prices, and most European nations with these systems merely transfer the costs to taxpayers. Our Current system is NOT what i would advocate (since it has many of the same problems of UHC).
extra recces should be banned

It was fun! As for whether or not she plagiarized in round one, I invite the voters to click on the link I provided and decide for themselves. Again, the resolution is "extra recess should be banned". I am Pro. This means I agree with the premise of banning extra recess. So, when my opponent argues for banning extra recess, she's agreeing with me. That's paramount to a concession. My argument is simple: I think we should ban extra recess because it's unsafe. Kids would be safer if they stayed inside. If they have extra recess, they take unnecessary risks by going outside. They could be struck by lightning, or engulfed in a swarm of locusts!
extra recces should be banned

Legal liability is another justification for cutting recess times. Children could fall while jumping rope or get hit with a baseball. Some administrators are skittish about making themselves vulnerable to any legal action. " As schools cut back on expenses because of budget cuts, paraprofessionals are often cut from the staff and supervision at recess becomes a problem. Volunteers are difficult to find for a recess duty. " Strangers can access a playground easily at some schools and sexual predators could be a concern. " Bullying can also thrive in an unstructured environment. Bullying usually takes place outside of the classroom in hallways, locker rooms, playgrounds, buses, and bathrooms. Less recess time allows for less bullying time.
That Stem Cell Research should be legal.

Thanks for accepting, I'm looking forward to this debate. You said that, "not all stem cell research deals with embryonic stem cells. " So why do they use E=embryonic stem cells at all then? If you can use adult stem cells, then why do they use embryos at all? If you can just use adult stem cells, then you shouldn't need any embryos at all. You also said that "destroying an embryo is not committing murder. " because "human beings don't have rights until they're born. " First, abortion is only legal up to a certain point, 24 weeks if I'm not mistaken, so they get their rights before birth. That aside though, even if they don't have rights until birth, killing something before it has a chance to say no can't be considered a good thing. You can't say 'it's alright to kill someone because they aren't born yet. ' Ironically, one of these embryos you killed could have been the one who would figure out how to use adult stem cells. So if people are deciding to use fetuses that are aborted anyways for SCR, the abortion rate will rise. They will want more embryonic stem cells, and they will find ways to get people to have abortions and give the stem cells to them. In your first source, from which you had us gather that stem cell research has yielded promising results. However, in your first source, "Research with embryonic stem cells may lead to new, more effective treatments for serious human ailments". I would like to direct your attention to the fact that it says may. there is no PROOF, undeniable, beyond a shadow of a doubt proof. So embryos are being killed (whether it is human or not, murder or no, it is still being killed) for something that MAY help, but we can't guarantee it. If all you had to do was place a stem cell in an affected area to make it work, then why aren't they doing it now? You said that HEC's can become any type of cell, but what about adult stem cells? If a stem cell is just a blank cell, then why is an adult stem cell any different from an embryonic stem cell? Again with the helping cure diseases, that has not yet been proved, nor do we know for sure that it will in fact help. For all we know, they only work where they were naturally put. You said that the blastocyst had has no human features. However, in a few months, you can be charged with murder for killing it. So we all know that it will be a human anyways, even if it isn't now, therefore , it is still a human life, albeit not one protected by law. Just because it isn't protected by law doesn't make it inhuman. African-American people were not protected by law, yet they are still human. I'm only going to throw out one point, so here it is. We could be growing organs, and one step later, growing people (cloning) from this research. How do we keep this knowledge from being abused? Once we have this stuff down, what will happen with the knowledge? we may end up using it for the wrong reasons. What happens if we start using this in warfare like with our knowledge of chemicals? This could have effects that last as long as humanity, because it is messing with how the body works. So playing God may not be the best idea.
That Stem Cell Research should be legal.

The title is self-explanatory, I'm con, so whoever takes this is going to support stem cell research (SCR), I'll throw my first two points out there and let Pro have at it. Point 1:In order to harvest embryonic stem cells, you have to destroy an embryo, which is a human life, which makes it murder. Murder is spelled out as illegal in America, yet if you are murdering for science, apparently that is okay. Where is the logic there? Point 2:Supposedly, SCR can cure dozens of diseases and medical problems. Yet where is the proof? There has been no example of success from SCR in curing things; as a matter of fact, "Mice treated for Parkinson's with embryonic stem cells have died from brain tumors in as much as 20% of cases. " (. http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org...) So how are we to expect that it will fare any better for people? We can't.
The only way to permanently end war is the annihilation of all forms of explicit government.

"People left to their own devices will not systematically exterminate an enemy." I do not believe this is true. People, if left to their own devices, would do whatever they wanted. A state of violent anarchy would come into play. If we leave people alone to believe what they want to believe, then someone will always want to attain power. In a perfect world, and only a utopian society, can people not wage War. How would we go about destroying all explicit forms of government? One government or a group of governments would not destroy all other governments and then give up all their power and say, "Well, War cannot be waged now, so we are all retiring." As I said before, someone else is always going to want power. And if all governments are destroyed, then another government is going to be formed. Don't get me wrong, I would love for this to happen. I would love for no War and everybody just accepts things the way they are, but I simply do not think it is possible. We rely on the government too much. They supply most of our education, they supply us with food and shelter. They supply us with security, they challenge us sometimes to think outside the box. They provide many of the things that we need. But as the nature of man is, out of 7 billion people, we can't say not one of them wants to not attain power.
The only way to permanently end war is the annihilation of all forms of explicit government.

Other than extinction, we cannot avoid war so long as we allow governments to continue to exist. Government is the only institution thats needs and is capable of waging war. The people never war. Rioting is the closest thing to war people directly engage in, with lynch mobs and individual fighting being lesser forms. People left to their own devices will not systematically exterminate an enemy. For that you need a bureaucracy to first define the enemy and then over see it's annihilation. Intermediary steps require the sale of an idea. "If enemy continues existence you may not." Government sells us the idea that other government is responsible for our suffering. War is a means to an end. People are content with the end typically. If given a choice most any person if not goaded by government and fed loaded questions will opt for peaceful solutions for perfectly rational self serving reasons. War's primary function is waste so that replacement resources can be loaned to us at interest. War in our era is not even about conquest of one government over another, effectively there is only one government. and it's only conquest is the continue exploitation of our resources.
The only way to permanently end war is the annihilation of all forms of explicit government.

War is not annihilation. It can be. But we are in a War now, and even though it looks like we are out to get our enemies, we have more resourceful things in mind. "In the absence of a need for central infrastructure no government can exist." Okay, then let me put it this way. Who is not going to need a government? Who will run the hospitals? Who will run education? I'm not going to be taught by some farmer when I go to University, about life. I want to be taught by someone who has the ability set out and trained first of all by the government, because they have the best ability to qualify these people. "demonstration of war being a part of human nature, merely that it's a part of national nature" No, it is human nature. We want to gain power. It was said in one of the comments better that as men we are "inherently evil". As I have said before, even though could give up their governments, there will always be someone to take the position back. I know my arguments are not as complicated or are more infrastructured as yours are; but I tried to take down the topic you set out. "The only way to permanently end war is the annihilation of all forms of explicit government. " To end War you must cause War is what you are saying. I personally think we would "all die out" before that happened.
The only way to permanently end war is the annihilation of all forms of explicit government.

"No, America is a powerful nation, yet we attack other nations and pick sides and help fight almost immediately, physically." I( don't see what this has to do with anything but I'll answer it anyway. We haven't been to war since WW2, during which we annihilated nazi germany as a country, that was the point. Our other conflicts were not wars because we did not attempt to annihilate anyone or anything other than vague opposition to our interests and arbitrary representations. This is not circular, it is part of the definition of war. Anything else is a fight. It's like the difference between shooting someone in the head and punching them. War is shooting them in the head. We did not annihilate Vietnam, we did not annihilate north Korea, we did not annihilate Iraq, or Afghanistan and so on. In any case what America has done is irrelevant, I'm talking about all governments, and all war. "And what will we put in place, and what governments will do this? No government, even if told by it's whole people, would not do this." You're not understanding what I'm saying. In the absence of a need for central infrastructure no government can exist. Governments already aid this process because they have no choice. As they seek to solve the problems of hunger shift shelter and power needs in the face of growing scarcity of resou4rces they develop and provide the technologies that will obviate their own existence. If they fail to engage in these researches they face massive die offs of their population, which often result in revolt. Government, in the long term is doomed from either direction unless it established a permanent cyclic illusion of progress as per 1984, which while theoretically stable would be doomed to stagnation and eventual death. "Because men are power…" This is not a demonstration of war being a part of human nature, merely that it's a part of national nature, and that actually supports my point. War is a function of nations and nations are governments. Nations are not people, they are merely composed of people, and can therefore have radically different properties, much like the properties of a blood/skin/nerve etc cell and a full human. Or the behavior of an ant compared to the behavior of an ant colony. "Fighting and killing is War." No, it isn't. Granted war is composed of fighting and killing, but it is not defined by it. For one just imagine a single person fighting and killing another, is this war? For two, imagine economic attempts at annihilation, such as the cold war between the united states and the USSR, which only ended when one was annihilated. Granted the people and land that make up the USSR remained but the target of the war did not, namely the organizational structure known collectively as the USSR. For three a simpler set of examples of how war requires annihilation as its goal can be found in our war on various abstract concepts. The war on drug abuse, the war on poverty, and the war on terror, etc.
The only way to permanently end war is the annihilation of all forms of explicit government.

"Power over an enemy is far more enjoyable than the annihilation of that enemy. War is about conceptual annihilation." No, America is a powerful nation, yet we attack other nations and pick sides and help fight almost immediately, physically. Destroying an enemy is far more enjoyable. Which is why we would disagree here, and this argument between us proves my point. You think one way, I think another way. If you think gloating your power to an enemy is much more enjoyable and I was that enemy, I am going to attack you. Your people would probably attack back, and if you would not attack, you are sacrificing their freedom to prove a point, which they would impeach you. "Remove the infrastructure demand which requires the existence of government in the first place." And what will we put in place, and what governments will do this? No government, even if told by it's whole people, would not do this. "war is in human nature, and I would ask you to demonstrate this" Because men are power seeking and we constantly seek to improve ourselves. That is why we have cities and governments now when we only had towns and small forms of government back then. War has happened all through out history. Anglo-Saxon, Visigoths, British Empire, China, Japan, Korea, Russia, every nation has had War. It might not be necessary but we do have it. "Fighting is, and killing is, but war requires a government." Fighting and killing is War.
The only way to permanently end war is the annihilation of all forms of explicit government.

"I do not believe this is true. People, if left to their own devices, would do whatever they wanted." Heh, yea ok, so then I don't think they would want to systematically exterminate an enemy. Defeat is enough. "If we leave people alone to believe what they want to believe, then someone will always want to attain power." Yes, exactly, power, as an end, not death of an enemy. Power over an enemy is far more enjoyable than the annihilation of that enemy. War is about conceptual annihilation. "How would we go about destroying all explicit forms of government?" Simple. (but not easy) Remove the infrastructure demand which requires the existence of government in the first place. Government exists for the same reasons that factories and cities exist, because they are logistically required. In time technologies will develop that will obviate government. (That's a debate in an of itself I'm sure.) "I would love for no War and everybody just accepts things the way they are.." Not to go Buddhist on you but we have no choice. Things are as they are, our only ‘option' is to lie to each other about it. But regardless of how closed our eyes are, the world is still there. Unless of course you are into Solipsism, at which point the debate ends because I do not exist. :P But I know what you mean. you're saying war is in human nature, and I would ask you to demonstrate this. Because I disagree. Fighting is, and killing is, but war requires a government. That would be the point of the debate. My head hurts and this is my third debate reply today, I could have done better. :P
Huge Lego Buildings ( with brick sized Legos)

Once again, you failed to provide how this system will work, are we going to be replacing houses or only building new ones this system and please define its "appeal" in Florida I see now where that is residents want this idea. On top of that, you are simply contradicting your points at every possible turn. Lets suggest we limit it down to Florida, okay if I accept, now all your impacts are diminished easily, by less scope so in turn not much environmental change. Next, if we drill a hole through the bricks to run wiring and plumbing, okay if I accept, now you have just ruined the integrity of every brick, rendering it useless for future construction. Next, you suggest plastic then some form of an alloy for a mold, it is prime to understand that metals are not only heavy, but also expensive, in turn making it unattractive to buyers. Also, for the voters it is important to understand that the Roman Colosseum's did not have to deal with plumbing and electricity, just a solid stone bricks. The time periods are crucial to understand rendering the whole point of his is completely and utterly anachronistic. In conclusion, though it is an interesting the concept, realistically speaking it is completely injudicious idea. The bad outweighs the good by far, and we should not have Lego houses.
Huge Lego Buildings ( with brick sized Legos)

To rebuttal against your argument I will first state that I suggest, the best place to use this material is in Florida because of the mass appeal and the environmental problems. The problems you stated with the wires and the plumbing is easily fixed when you just drill a hole through the block itself. And if you are thinking that this is a thick block of plastic, remember that through manufacturing and producing the Lego material it is easy to cut through for the purpose of plumbing and Electricals use. As I am on the topic of manufacturing, the product would be able to add other elements that aren't good conductors of thermal energy. In other words if you mix the Lego with another item to make it have a higher melting point that fixes the problem fully. Next is the topic of finding the foundation to the Lego house structure such as for environmental and weather uses. The Lego House will be made into the ground and have main base attached to it so the whole structure doesn't fall apart. For my next argument the whole structure will be able to be taken apart and put back together for the use of different types of house structures. This is not a random, alieanic idea because people in Rome have somewhat tried this idea with the colluseams and Vatican. They used pieces of strong parts of the huge colluseams and put them to use in the Vatican itself. My idea is not that different from this since all I'm doing is having a house of easier to remove pieces which can be taken apart again to build a new home. In conclusion WE SHOULD HAVE LEGO HOUSES......
Huge Lego Buildings ( with brick sized Legos)

To start off, in round 2 I would appreciate if you could describe how this system would work more (ex. If one has a "regular" house currently will they have to take it down in order to account for the lego structure. ) Next, I would like to supply refutations then go into my own points. My first refutation is for your point that they will be resistant to natural disasters such as hurricanes or floods. There is a common reason that legos are made of plastics, not only is it cheap however the main reason is that plastic is so smooth they can connect to each other. Since wood, stone, concrete, etc all have so many imperfections, it would be unlikely for it to even stay in place if any disaster occurs. Next is your point of reusing items, however the amount of lumber used for building a new house in place of an old one is minute compared to the amount of new houses created one "new" land which will still cause more Legos. Next, I would like get into my three points which are Lego bricks offer poor insulation, they are difficult to create, and it would be difficult to wire/plumb. For my first point, this simply goes along with the idea that you will freeze in the winter and burn in the summer. Since Legos are solid brick there is no way to install insulation, a vent, or even a cooling/heating system making it an unattractive living space. For my second point, it would be extremely hard to create. For regular Legos made of plastic it is much easier since plastic has a low melting point however wood and stone do not melt. This means every single brick would have to be made by hand, thus making the process expensive and once again unattractive. For my final point, it makes it able to difficult to plumb and wire. Since once again these bricks would be solid, there is no way to run electricity and plumbing through them, simple as that.
Huge Lego Buildings ( with brick sized Legos)

Yes, lego buildings are possible to make if the legos are the size of bricks. If you think about it when you make buildings with these types of legos you dont need to demolish buildings, even if you do demolish the building you are able to use the same pieces again to make a new house. This virtually illiminates the problem of pollution from factories that constitantly need brick or wood suplies. This means that the we only need a few years of actually making legos and then we won't need any more. Legos also connect to each other very well since there pieces have holes too connect from bottom up. This would be great for places that receive weather problems becouse this type of house would be able to resist quite well. I also know that your thinking of how legos are flammible, but when you have this type of material we are able to make pieces flame proof and water proof depending on the place. The best place too use this is in florida since they have many floods and hurricanes and not mention how well of a amusement park this would be. We already started to make buildings out of small legos why not try with a bigger and more reasonable material keeping the idea.