azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

Then they are worthless, are they not?Arguably.As I've said many times, survival and progress; continuance and advancement. Negative characteristics like that should be rooted out. Sounds harsh, doesn't it? Yet it is true.I'm interested in how you would "root them out" and what you would do with those who were "rooted out".Anyway, because a small portion contradicts the majority is a reason good enough to make the system according to what they are like? No.At present, the majority of humans believe and engage in rational self interest. This system has allowed the world to prosper to the degree that since capitalism was introduced, common people can live better than the wealthiest of 20 years before. The only way for your system to work is to mandate that a person labor for some arbitrary minimum, according to what some central authority deems is appropriate, and that he be able to take an arbitrary allotment of resources, according to what that authority deems are his needs. Additionally, you have removed the communication system upon which such a large production system would rely (the price system) to calculate the needs of those being supplied. This is the post-socialist communism that Marx wrote would inevitably replace socialism. It removes the real incentives to produce, in favor of some fantasy mental control of the populous through mandatory "honorable service to the whole". It is, put simply, slavery in another guise.What is the rationale for switching to your system?We already have a system where those who are truly worthless to society, may be rooted out, by the voluntary cooperation of others, without those who cooperate even knowing one another. Where the incentive to produce wealth for society's use is great, because to do so will bring more wealth to himself, according to the degree to which he is willing to labor. It is called free market capitalism.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

No, everything has a price, because resources are finite, and the price system is the most efficient method for society to decide the most efficient use of those scarce resources.( http://mises.org/daily/2401 ).>>"The only worth every resource has is how it contributes to humanity's progress, and that's all there is to resources.".-Who decides what form that "progress" should take?-Who decides who should produce the resources (means) to bring about that end?.>>"If people actually began using their raisins...it is negative to human progress.".Gratuitous assertion, no supporting argument. Also Argument from intimidation..>>"You really shouldn't be talking about what is immoral ... that would also explain why you have such stupid opinions.".These paragraphs have no supporting arguments. They use (exclusively) two completely rhetorical devices, with no actual substance: Ad hominem ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem ) and Argument from intimidation ( http://www.andrsib.com/rand/intimidation.htm  )
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Free Health Care

No, everything has a price, because resources are finite, and the price system is the most efficient method for society to decide the most efficient use of those scarce resources.Sure everything has a price presently. Sure it all works great on paper... but the present system is not effective at all; on paper it is one thing but in reality it is something entirely different. The most efficient way is without having a price on anything, since you clearly lack the will and desire, and probably the capacity, to think on that level I'm not gonna explain it all again, after all, the point is to use your own mind, objectively and rationally, not simply say this and that without first thinking things through.The most efficient use for resource is using them if needed, not putting a price to them someone has to pay first to begin using them. The fact is, if they are needed then they are needed and should be immediately available - this is the most efficient way; no hindering factors put in place by the rules of the system itself.Who decides what form that "progress" should take?The only form that matters is derived with survival and advancement of us all in mind, not based on something as idiotic as money. Right now almost everyone only thinks about money, it's basically what they live for - money.-Who decides who should produce the resources (means) to bring about that end?Seriously, wtf are you going about?If no one produces anything, if no one works for our continuance, then, even presently, everything would fall apart. Nice to not use your own mind...Gratuitous assertion, no supporting argument. Also Argument from intimidation.And yours are?I know one for certain, you are strongly biased. You grew up in this world, with the current way of things and you cannot think outside of it, you cannot imagine something else, something bigger, something better. Like most others. Sad.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Free Health Care

i can not believe people are choosing other options besides free health care. of course health care should be free. how could you as a doctor not help a human bean in need of help? are you kidding? we should have a universal law of free health care. i don't think people realize that as soon as you are born on this earth you become part of a unit, and here we are crumbling to shit because people decide is a great idea to separate each other in groups because of race or income or whatever. it is ridiculous that after thousands of years, generation after generation we still cant freaking decide if its a good idea to help each other. let me make it simpler for you. we need to help each other, it should not be a choice.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

Wow, what a pointless rant? Thanks for you opinion.Health care can be free to those who want to voluntarily for it, not by force through your greatest and dearest friend, government. Oh wait, this already exists, they are charities.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Free Health Care

I think it's the government's job to alleviate suffering.So yes, it should be forced, unless such force would cause specific individuals to become impoverished themselves.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

Basically, government should alleviate suffering because other economic policies epically failed, which include all government triangular intervention.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Free Health Care

The only reason economic policies fail time and time again is because international government allows free market to run rampant without any regard for all the damage caused by someone gaining hundreds of billions of dollars.Ours is no different. They want to protect it, and while it's not all a bad idea to protect, it doesn't have enough inhibitors to prevent unmitigated greed. Thus, people go homeless and starve to death, and Africa remains socially unchanged while foreign companies strip away all it's resources.Is this appeal to your own form of idealism inherent of just giving up on people whom suffer? Absolutely not. People aren't suffering right now because the big bad 1st world government is a horrible, terrorizing thing. People are suffering right now because someone, somewhere, made a mistake at some point. It doesn't matter who or what did it. It's just the job of a morally sound state to prevent the suffering that was caused.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

Even if this ridiculous idea that economic policies fail due to international government, it is all more reason to abolish all forms of government including international.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Free Health Care

You must've not read what I wrote if that's where your thoughts led.It's the fault of international government because international government freely trades, for the most part. Aside from totalitarian regimes scattered randomly throughout the world, international trade is basically unmitigated.Since it's moreover unmitigated, greed is unmitigated. Since greed is unmitigated, corporatism ruins the global economy and causes suffering all across it, not just here in the United States.Meaning, the problem isn't too much control, it's the lack thereof. Abolishing all government has nothing to do with solving this.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

I think it's the government's job to alleviate suffering.Paid for by whom?Why should those people, specifically, pay and not someone else?So yes, it should be forced, unless such force would cause specific individuals to become impoverished themselves.So you are against equal rights?You are for the protection of rights, in degrees, based upon one's wealth?How is this compatible with the 14th amendment right to equal protection?
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Free Health Care

Paid for by everyone who pays taxes. So... everyone.But considering taxes are just national rent since the state owns the land, it's not really everyone paying for it. It's the state. They're just using the income they receive from their 'tenants'.Except instead of using it for themselves, in this case, they're using it to make their land more habitable for people. Then more tenants pay more rent and then they use their additional income to make more habitable for even more tenants, and so on, and so on.I'm for everyone being equal and free as long as nobody is getting harmed in the process. That's sort of the point of law, at least in the United States. To stop people from suffering in wake of everyone being so incredibly free. We kinda fought a war over this issue; you know, the Civil War? A war fought between the freedom to harm people and the order to stop people from harming others.Wealth does not always directly cause suffering in this country, but wealth is directly related to the severity of an individual's suffering. If someone is homeless, they generally did not choose to be. If someone whom is very wealthy gets severely ill, they have the wealth to get better fairly easily. Middle class families constantly suffer the stress of either trying too become wealthy or trying to not become homeless. I don't think a protection of rights should be different between the classes, but I think the mitigation of suffering should be made up to bridge the gap between people who can pay to not suffer and people whom cannot pay to not suffer.Nothing about what I said above seems to conflict with the 14th amendment. But, neither you or I are Judges, therefore neither of us can really judge the 14th amendment properly. So, I don't really care about what the amendments specifically say, since I am not on the Supreme Court. I care about what seems right and what seems wrong.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Free Health Care

I wonder where the people who are against single-payer or government-paid healthcare live? What states?Because the single largest objection seems to be to use the collective pool of money (taxes) to pay for everyone's health care. Like it violates some sacred right or some sacred ideal.Why did I ask you what state you live in? Because if you live in Alabama or Mississippi or Indiana or Iowa, for example, then you get more in federal dollars than you contribute to the federal coffers. Which means that I, who live in California--where we send more to the IRS than we get back in federal funding--am basically paying for your stop signs and freeways.That's right. Your highways are free for you because you aren't paying for them. I am. New Yorkers are. I say this not to gloat, but to show you through example how tax dollars work. AND to let you know that I don't mind paying for your stop signs. I wouldn't mind paying for your health care, either--so long as we could all have it.I would bet a fat man that everyone here who objects to single-payer like they have in Canada is a white male from a red state......
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Free Health Care

I believe that health care should be free. But to some extent obviously. First of all the poor should have free healcare or atleast the ones with minimum wage. If not then atleast a high discount rate. Taxes are such a bum and ,for me, not being used to its fullest. Through this, the taxes would be used much more properly. The government will pay the doctors through the taxes. Then the surgeries would be the extra fee that should be paid by the patient. In short, free or discounted to the poor, normal to the rich.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Free Health Care

Health-care is not free, but the point of Universal Medicare is to make it easier to swallow. I don't mind paying a few cents more so I don't get hit by a 50 000 dollar medical bill.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Free Health Care

I think that health care must be free. However, before making it free, the government have to pay attention on a system in hospitals. Because, if health care will be free, a lot of patients will come to hospitals and it will be very difficult to wait one's turn, especially if you need a help right now, but there are many people who came before you and also wait.Additionally, in my country (I do not know about others) after private clinics were opened, doctors do not pay attention to patients unless he or she pays.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Free Health Care

I wish all health care would be free. People should not have to live in fear about having to file medical bankruptcy.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

I would rather take my own fate into my hands than rely on the government. When companies compete, quality of life improves. What should be improved is health insurance, not making health care in general 'free'. Someone will always have to pay for it, after all. If not with money, then with blood, sweat, and tears.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

I think it should be pay to live, because we shouldn't only think of ourselves. I mean, doctors also have to pay for things and provide for their family's needs. If we dont pay them, then they would also not be able to support their family. People get sick all the time, if there are no doctors who want to work, because obviously, there would be no one to pay them anymore, then no one would get better anymore.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Free Health Care

Okay Cambriel, your argument is just stupid. Not only is it stupid, it does not deal with the question. The question is not whether doctors should get paid, it's who should pay the health care bills.Get a clue
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

Yeah, i also dealt with the question, and it wasn't stupid though. I gave examples why we should pay for the treatment that we get, and that's why the doctors' payment was mentioned. I backed up my argument with reasons. There are broader horizons on why we should pay. And my argument was also about who should pay the health care bills.. WHY? Because in order to pay for that treatment, then you should have a reason to do so. And thats the reason I gave why people should pay for their treatment.Now, let me tell you why your argument is also stupidFirst, people would not upvote me if they did not see my reason in my argument. Thus, I had two points now. Second, get a clue... what kind of clue do you want me to get when I clearly have something to say about my argument? Third, before calling someone stupid try to think if your argument is stupid enough.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

Health care has improved a lot. Our life styles have improved and people are living longer. The problem, however, is that people who normally would have died due to stupidity are being kept alive by government programs funded by tax payers. We have taken Darwinism out of society. As a result, the world is over populated and we now face global warming. We could ease global warming if we had less people on the planet releasing green house gasses. We could fix over population by putting Darwinism back into society and letting people die off. If you can't pay your hospital bills, then you probably don't make enough money because you probably don't have a good job because you're probably not educated enough and you're probably being subsidized with tax payer money. Stupid people would have died off in the old days thanks to natural selection (the strongest survive). If we let the weak die off, the human species as a whole would benefit and become stronger. If people cannot pay their hospital bills, they should die off so the rest of us can benefit ;)
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

The labels of the "sides" of this debate are a false dichotomy. They should be "Someone else pays for my health care" vs. " I pay for my health care". You are not "paying to live" you are merely NOT being given resources to which you have no valid claim.You are not "denying" shelter to the homeless, when you refuse to allow strangers to live in your house, you are exercising your exclusive right to use a resource which you have earned.Health care is a service, not a right. To claim the right to the service of others is to advocate slavery, even if only in small steps.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

Nothing is free, simple as that.------------------------------
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

Free-health care is one of those things that sounds good, but in reality can not work, at least no in America at the moment, for a number of reasons. We got a huge financial crisis going on right now, so it would be for the best not to add expenses to the federal budget (which for the record doesn't exist). Another problem is a more practical one. We don't have enough doctors to handle the huge increase in patients that would result from free-health care, and none of the proposed plans even mention a way to handle this. It would just be giving more work to doctors for lower pay.Another problem is the inflation of health care. Most of your hospital bill is just helping cover the expenses of other patients who could not afford it, so the bill has been increased. People seem to forget that while hospitals provide an important service, they are still businesses and need to make a profit. people need to understand that if we push the government to continue to stretch it's budget even more, it eventually won't be able to help anyone. Lets get to a more stable place economically wise before we begin discussing proposals like universal health care.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

health is important but in this world everything is money so if you want to live you have to pay
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

Socialized medicine doesn't work as great as many protractors claim in a debate versus an american. Because of the collective nature there's a disincentive to provide one's best. That's probably why those who are covered by healthcare in the US has access to the world's best
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

There is no such thing as free healthcare. Someone has to pay. The cause of a lot of healthcare problems is over taxation which drives the prices up.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

I think medical companies should stop cornholing hospitals on prices so they can stop cornholing us on prices, and I think doctors should settle for less pay. But that is definitely not going to happen.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

When you are relying on the government you can never move forward in your life. Because you are always pro government. You never experience real struggle because you're getting so much help. And with that help it's putting the American government to shame because of all the money we are investing into health care
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: Yes

The reason why health care should be free is because people wouldn't hesitate going to the hospital. By heistating, you might double your hospital bill, which is very unfortunate, but it can also be dangerous.Free health care is cheaper for everyone. Here in Denmark I don't have to worry about my daugther possibly getting braces, because if it turns out she needs them, she'll get them free.There are a lot of advantages with having free health care, but there are also some disadvanteges. For example - when the hospital are free, there is no compitition between the hospitals, because every hospital, and ever doctor is being paid the same amount of money, whether they are successful in their business or not. The lack of compitition can often lead low quality .. in this case, doctors. The hospitals might not hire ''the best'' doctors, because why should they? They might as well hire average doctors, since the best don't make their income higher or lower.I think health care should definitely be free, but I think we should have some private hospitals .. just as an option for those who can afford it.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: No

You got on my case for advocating affordable contraception and now you advocate free healthcare? Scratches head.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: Yes

Yes.I don't think contraception has anything to do with neither medicine nor medical care.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: Yes

That downvote was not from me. Upvote for your free speech. .
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: No

Youre sweet, but if penis pumps can be covered, so should contraception. After all, they both are lifestyle medications and for me, it really is a medical issue. Pregnancy would kill me, so I want my tubes tied. I mean no rudeness so please dont be offended.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: Yes

Dana, from now on - don't say ''don't be offended''I am never offended on this site, I am here to debate, not fight, and I expect the same from everyone else. Don't bother to tell me not to be rude or offended, because I promise you now, I will never be. Okay?After all, they both are lifestyle medicationsThere are a lot of things that are lifestyle medications. Just because one is free, does it automatically mean all others should too?Hormone treatment is a lifestyle medication, among tons of other stuff.Pregnancy would kill me, so I want my tubes tied.There are much easier and cheaper things to do in order to prevent pregnancy, other than getting your tubes tied. The pill, condoms .. and there is always absence, which I heard is the protection you prefer.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: Yes

Why the eff were you downvoted? I upvoted you. I am never offended on this site, I am here to debate, not fight, and I expect the same from everyone else. Don't bother to tell me not to be rude or offended, because I promise you now, I will never be. Okay? Roger that. There are a lot of things that are lifestyle medications. Just because one is free, does it automatically mean all others should too? My intention is to point out the inherent mysogyny in allowing coverege for penis pumps and Vagra, but not contraception. There are much easier and cheaper things to do in order to prevent pregnancy, other than getting your tubes tied. The pill, condoms .. and there is always absence, which I heard is the protection you prefer. A tubal ligation is the most effective means of female contraception there is available in America. I cant take the pill cuz my meds would make it less effective, the depo shot turned me into a raving bitch, I suppose condoms are effective, but I dont know how to use them.