azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: No

I've followed your argument, and I agree with you. I think that there is a misunderstanding between you and Shoutoutloud, due to Shoutoutloud's future visions and potentials being very limited. He only focuses on the problems that can be changed immediately, where as you focus more on the future and the potential it has. Shoutoutlouds point of 7 billion higher educated people having lack of jobs fitting for them, I disagree. With less effort and resources put in simple manual labor, there are more higher thinking and problem solving brain power. There will be more jobs available for the maintenance of previously mentioned machinery and even development of more efficient products etc.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: Yes

Nobody is entitled to anything simply by virtue of existing, It is when we all ready pay for it via taxes, we have no problem getting military protection off our tax dollars, no matter how you twist it, it is morally wrong to not provide healthcare when we all ready paided for it.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: No

It is when we all ready pay for it via taxes, we have no problem getting military protection off our tax dollars, no matter how you twist it, it is morally wrong to not provide healthcare when we all ready paided for it.This would be great if we do already pay for it via taxes- but lower income groups have nearly all taxes waived, and generally receive more in direct benefits from the government than they ever pay in. Higher income groups are able to take advantage of tax shelters and legal loopholes and avoid paying more than a pittance in tax. In practice, this is the middle class paying for everybody's medical bills. And military protection, for that matter.It is morally wrong to not provide healthcare when it has been paid for, I'll agree.I do not believe it is morally responsible to provide healthcare when it has NOT been paid for, though. If a patient cannot pay for his or her health care up front, they should be required to pay it off after the fact.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: Yes

This would be great if we do already pay for it via taxes- but lower income groups have nearly all taxes waivedTrue but lower income still get the protection from the military and they didnt spend a dime, all that needs to be done is we need to shuffle around out tax dollars on things that matter, did you know that we pay from our tax dollars NASCAR, LOL yes NASCAR but yet we grip about healthcare, we also spend over 50% of our budget on military which is absurd, we spend more on military then the next ten top nations combined so there is no need, its a waste of our hard earned money.We need to shift our dollars around to maintain the health of all citizens, even the freeloaders if we fund NASCAR.Freeloaders or not all Americans should have protection from enemies and disease, that should be our right as Americans first and foremost, then the rest is up for debate but freedom, security and and health should not be negotiable no matter what.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: Yes

-_-'' .
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: No

Yes .
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: Yes

@,@'' .
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: No

No but it should be affordable. .
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: Yes

What is affordable?Affordable for you might not be affordable for someone else. And affordable for someone else might not be affordable for you.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: Yes

What is affordable?Affordable is some number that may or may not be within your grasp, but can be wiped clean off the books of a business with out the business going under. An example of affordable is an item currently sells for $500.00 and it cost the retailer $100.00. In this example: one throws in operating cost ($50.00), the price they paid for the item ($100.00) and a small profit so that the owner has some income (10-20%). Affordable is what the business needs, not what it wants to get out of it. Operating Cost $50.00What they paid for the item $100.00 Plus the owners mark up 10-20%Total affordable amount $150 x 10-20%Not affordable the $500.00 asked for.Hospitals, insurance companies, drug companies, hospital suppliers, etc. all are currently charging this kind of mark up and it is not acceptable and it's certainly not affordable.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: No

But without the markups, these products would have never been developed in the first place. For example, when developing a new drug, there are many things that could go wrong. There is no guarantee for the developers, and if it does not work out, the lose in millions, or even billions. Why after all this risk, would they sell it for the correct price? The high markup accounts for the potential loss they went through. If you risked your life to develop a new drug, but the actual ingredient costs of that new drug costs a dollar, would you only sell it for a dollar?Also with surgeries, the price must be high as their salaries must be high. Acceptance into medicine school is one of the most difficult entry, and more effort must be put into it, relative to other subjects. With the hours they put in their education, with longer time needed to graduate than any other degree, don't they deserve to receive a high payment? Many people would not choose to become doctors if their pay is as low as the common fast food worker.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: No

No thanks, I'm taxed too much as it is. .
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: Yes

Not only you everyone taxed too much !! .
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: No

Are you related to RandomDude? .
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: Yes

!!! .
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: No

no ,,, and I don't know him !! ^,^ .
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: No

Health care should not be a right because it is inconsistent with the Declaration of Independence, which guarantees the right to "pursue" happiness, not the right to happiness or free medical services. Health care should not be considered a right because the Preamble of the US Constitution states that its purpose is to "promote" the general welfare, not to provide it.Health care should not be considered a right because it is not listed in the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights lists people's rights that the government cannot infringe upon, not services or material goods that the government must ensure for the people.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: No

In short, there is no free lunch -- ever. The debacle at the VA is a perfect example of this.For those advocating "free" health care, look at the "success" of the "Affordable Care Act" -- people are having trouble finding a doctor to accept their insurance, since the government pays so far below their costs, that they can't afford to take those patients.For some in California, people have to drive 100 miles for dental care.The cost is enormous -- where does the money come from? On top of a $17 trillion dollar deficit (nearly 18 now), where will the money come from? Should we "tax the rich"? The problem with that is, "the rich" don't have enough money. If we tax everyone earning over $1,000,000 per year at 100%, it doesn't cover that year's deficit.Would it be nice for everyone to have free, quality health care? Of course; it would also be nice if everyone could live in a mansion -- but that's not going to happen.There is no free lunch.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: No

Badly worded question I believe in universal health care and a single payer system. But the question asks if it should be free. In that system it is not free because it is paid for by tax dollars that everyone (in the workforce) would contribute. So it would not be free. It would be like a health insurance plan where everyone is in the pool.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: No

No free health care I am no expert on political issues since I am a only teenager but I believe that health care should not be free for everyone. Most people out there who will read this will probably tell themselves that this kid wants some people to go without a necessity of life, they would be wrong. What I do not want is the government controlling the health care. I believe that if a person cannot afford health coverage, that he or she should search for financial aid from the community they lives in. Also, as a member of that community, one should help as much as possible and not blow that person off thinking someone else will help them. I am not a stranger to the people in my community who truly need free health care, many of my friends need it. However, the government has a hard enough time making a website for their health care plan and I, for one, do not want to put my life in their hands.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: Yes

If health care is considered a right, then government bureaucrats will be making health, life, and death decisions that should be up to the patient and doctor to decide.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: Yes

But i think that every country should give their people a health care !!
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: No

Did you know that 46.3 million people in the US were uninsured in 2008 according to the US Census Bureau. In 2007, health care expenditures totaled $2.2 trillion - 16.2% of the US economy. Health care is the largest industry in the US, employing more than 14 million people.Proponents of the right to health care argue that it would stop medical bankruptcies, improve public health, and reduce overall health care spending. They say that no one in the richest nation on earth should go without health care. A June 12-16, 2009 poll shows that 64% of Americans say health care should be a right.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: Yes

@,@'' ... this information support my side !!! .
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: No

No its too free as it is.The enormous cost of health care is paid for by the tax and national health insurance payers and always has been..It is mainly free to most folk ,those who do not and never have paid anything into the system. Yet too much is wasted on the takers taking, and stupid expensive operations for 90% implant jobs,transgender jobs,gastric bands for lazy people. Nothing is free, too many people want free all the while. Workers have to pay for it
Debate: "Hitler was a more evil and ruthless leader than Stalin."
Side: Yes, I agree.

Hitler followed a rigorously crude, babaric and highly pervere idealogy that leads to the the deaths of millions of people. Germans suffered in poverty, without food and a roof to live under. -Melinda Chen, Swee Ying Yi.
Debate: "Hitler was a more evil and ruthless leader than Stalin."
Side: No, I disagree

What about Stalin? Many also suffered under his rule and those who disobeys him will be dragged to concentration camps . Life was a nightmare for them.
Debate: "Hitler was a more evil and ruthless leader than Stalin."
Side: No, I disagree

stalin had also made his people suffer . the citizens under his rule had not much food needed for themselves and had very poor living conditions due to several reasons like lack of basic neccessities.Collectivisation also made farmers poor as their crops were taken away by force. thus, you self contradicted.-yanyu,marcus,joel
Debate: "Hitler was a more evil and ruthless leader than Stalin."
Side: No, I disagree

Hitler targeted the Jews for a reason because when Germans are in poverty, the Jews were rich, thus they hated the jews. Of course, Hitler wanted to help his own German people and the only way to do so was to eliminate the Jews but Stalin eliminated everyone that opposed him, he did not want anyone to get in his way and overthrow him as he was paranoid. -denise and sohyee
Debate: "Hitler was a more evil and ruthless leader than Stalin."
Side: Yes, I agree.

Adding on, today, in our daily life, we may have also came across individuals that still judge the Gypsies, homosexual, handicapped and disabled. But in the world, no government had put into place laws against these minority groups to control, authorise arrests or even to sterillise them. -Swee Yingyi and Melinda Chen.
Debate: "Hitler was a more evil and ruthless leader than Stalin."
Side: Yes, I agree.

Just because mindless killings were performed does not make him ruthless. Exactly. Stalin killed people in a paranoid, confused state of mind. Hitler had a clear goal to power and was willing to use any means to get to his goal. - Aaron
Debate: "Hitler was a more evil and ruthless leader than Stalin."
Side: Yes, I agree.

Hitler did NOT only targeted the Jews. He also targeted the other minorities such as Gypsies, homosexuals, handicapped and disabled. They viewed these people as inferior and as social parasites, as well as considered them threats to the 'purity' of Aryan blood. Laws were instituted against these minority groups to control, authorise arrests and even sterilise them. Many of the minorities were sent to concentration camps and eventually gassed in large gas chambers. -Swee Yingyi and Melinda Chen
Debate: "Hitler was a more evil and ruthless leader than Stalin."
Side: No, I disagree

Hitler actually repaired the German economy to top shape. It wasn't until the end the Germans started to burn their marks for warmth.
Debate: "Hitler was a more evil and ruthless leader than Stalin."
Side: Yes, I agree.

Hitler was the excellent speaker and charismatic leader who was able to draw attention and manipulate them to support him. by wei cheng, darren, seongheon ( wc )
Debate: "Hitler was a more evil and ruthless leader than Stalin."
Side: No, I disagree

Gaining support from people does not cause harm to people. Stalin had caused many Germans to live in fear which would then lead them to committing suicide. A & X
Debate: "Hitler was a more evil and ruthless leader than Stalin."
Side: Yes, I agree.

hitler tried to overthrow the weimar government. while stalin never tried to overthrow its government. by darren , weicheng , seong heon (wc)
Debate: "Hitler was a more evil and ruthless leader than Stalin."
Side: No, I disagree

stalin tried to gain support by eliminating the people who were fighting for governance. he threatened people with the lives of their loved ones or by killing them . He posed being close to lenin and use undermeans like changing pictures of trotsky to his own face to show people that he is closer to lenin than trotsky. Marcus yanyu and joel
Debate: "Hitler was a more evil and ruthless leader than Stalin."
Side: No, I disagree

Hitler did it by legal means while Stalin plans out the assasination of his rivals.
Debate: "Hitler was a more evil and ruthless leader than Stalin."
Side: Yes, I agree.

Well Hitler did start executing his rivals in the end.
Debate: "Hitler was a more evil and ruthless leader than Stalin."
Side: No, I disagree

while stalin never tried to overthrow its government. Stalin was a Bolsheviks which overthrew the Russian Empire. Therefore, he did help overthrow his government.
Debate: "Hitler was a more evil and ruthless leader than Stalin."
Side: Yes, I agree.

hitler took advantage of the great depression and gained support of the people, by darren,seong heon, weicheng
Debate: "Hitler was a more evil and ruthless leader than Stalin."
Side: Yes, I agree.

Due to hitler, many innocent people in the world faced death. he caused millions of death in wwII by darren weicheng seongheon (wc)
Debate: "Hitler was a more evil and ruthless leader than Stalin."
Side: Yes, I agree.

I AGREE- i'm also that kind of leader.hahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahhh
Debate: "Hitler was a more evil and ruthless leader than Stalin."
Side: Yes, I agree.

hitler caused world war II. by darren, weicheng , seongeheon ( wc )
Debate: "Hitler was a more evil and ruthless leader than Stalin."
Side: Yes, I agree.

6 million Jewish had died under Hitler's hands as he hated the Jews. It had something got to do with his book 'Mein Kampf' written in his stay in prison for 5 years without consideration he might have triggered some upheaval. By Juan Miguel, Titus Goh, Chin Chong Yuan.-
Debate: "Hitler was a more evil and ruthless leader than Stalin."
Side: No, I disagree

But Stalin killed people too. What makes Hitler more evil or ruthless?
Debate: "Hitler was a more evil and ruthless leader than Stalin."
Side: Yes, I agree.

Yes, that's true. However, Hitler also eliminated threats from his own constituency. Even though he created his Secret Army, the Stormtroopers, he felt that Ernst Rohm, his old friend, was a threat and executed him and his followers that shared his point of view. Imagine, Hitler created the SA, and yet he still eliminated those people in the SA who he thought of as threats. Even if he was his own friend.- Aaron, Celeste and Clara
Debate: "Hitler was a more evil and ruthless leader than Stalin."
Side: Yes, I agree.

Yes Stalin did kill much more than Hitler estimated 50million, but he was selfish and only wanted to achieve the best himself to rule Soviet Russia.
Debate: "Hitler was a more evil and ruthless leader than Stalin."
Side: Yes, I agree.

What made Hitler more ruthless was he didn't know that his Mein Kampf had triggered some uprising heatup with the Jews, Hitler being the Chancellor made him strong enough to overpower and murder 6million Jews, to clear off Jews in Hitler's way. Because of that they might have thought that Jews should no longer belong to Germany and to be exterminated all, but however several thousands survived after the WWII and Hitler committed suicide because Germany had lost.
Debate: "Hitler was a more evil and ruthless leader than Stalin."
Side: Yes, I agree.

To him, only German bloods were citizens. Politicians thought that they could control Hitler were proved wrong when Hitler became Chancellor, which could control the communists, and even the secret police instilled fear of opposing Hitler. After German president Von Hidenburg died, Hitler took over and had extreme power to handle the whole Germany.
Debate: "Hitler was a more evil and ruthless leader than Stalin."
Side: Yes, I agree.

I totally agree. Anyone who dares abuse God's name to persecute people is worthy of the lowest level of Hell and is the worst kind of unbeliever.
Debate: "Hitler was a more evil and ruthless leader than Stalin."
Side: Yes, I agree.

Hitler was evil, he targeted, isolated, and slaughtered the Jews, but he was still fair to the Germans. On the contrary, Stalin hated everyone and wanted to achieve best by himself. Stalin also persecuted his own Soviet Russians and others.
Debate: "Hitler was a more evil and ruthless leader than Stalin."
Side: Yes, I agree.

When the Reichstag Building caught fire in February 1933, Hitler used this incident to direct blame towards the communists for his own gain. He convinced the President to deal with the 'threat' that the Communists had shown. After gaining access to the Emergency Act, he the banned all political and civil rights, which eliminated any other opposing political parties and eliminating any threat that could end his rule. This proved him evil and ruthless, as he would go to the extent of eliminating all oppositon to conform to his wish of endless power. :D - Aaron, Celeste , Clara
Debate: "Hitler was a more evil and ruthless leader than Stalin."
Side: No, I disagree

But so did Stalin. He too was ruthless in purging his enemies. Think about it. So how are we going to differentiate the 2 men?
Debate: "Hitler was a more evil and ruthless leader than Stalin."
Side: Yes, I agree.

Stalin killed those people in a paranoid, confused state of mind. Hitler eliminated those in his way with a clear mindset to reach his goal. Stalin may have killed a lot of people, but he killed them in a careless, frivolous way without any insight. Hitler had a clear plan of elimination, and not just beacuse people looked smart but because they had control of some power and could pose as a threat. - Aaron, Clara, Celeste
Debate: "Hitler was a more evil and ruthless leader than Stalin."
Side: Yes, I agree.

Stalin's killing was primarily to purge threats to him. Hitler killed to eliminate specific races.
Debate: "Hitler was a more evil and ruthless leader than Stalin."
Side: Yes, I agree.

He had to more evil by first gaining a lot of support. He used propaganda, Nazi Parties, forcing people to support. The Gestapo was the secret police which would arrest and often kill those who oppose Hitler and the Nazi party, were not accountable to the courts and laws of Germany.
Debate: "Hitler was a more evil and ruthless leader than Stalin."
Side: Yes, I agree.

I agree that Hitler was a more evil and ruthless leader than Stalin. Hitler plunged Europe into war however Stalin did not unleash a major war. He exploited the fears of communism of Germans, gave vague promises to farmers and businessmen. Hitler viewed the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, handicapped and disabled as undesirables and 'impure', a threat to the 'purity' of Aryan blood. He sent them to concentration camps, and majority were eventually gassed in large gas chambers. ~Tan Ming Xia & Chin Li Qi
Debate: "Hitler was a more evil and ruthless leader than Stalin."
Side: Yes, I agree.

While Stalin provided secondary education to all, plus many univesity slots, Hitler closed down all education above the fourth grade in occupied Soviet Territory except for certain relativevly priviledged minorities. -Melinda Chen, Swee Ying Yi.
Debate: "Hitler was a more evil and ruthless leader than Stalin."
Side: Yes, I agree.

Hitler used the Nazis as a portal to post racist propaganda to gain support for their persecution of Germany's Jewish population. Jews were arrested and beaten up. Many lost their jobs. Jewish shopkeepers were forced to close down their businesses. Abusive slogans were painted on their windows and armed SA men stood outside threatening any Germans who attempted to shop there. Stalin was nothing as compared to the brutality and racism of hitler.Stalin was fair, he gave rewards to those who work hard under him and promised that the people of Russia did not have to live in fear .
Debate: "Hitler was a more evil and ruthless leader than Stalin."
Side: No, I disagree

How is Stalin fair?! He forced farmers to surrender their crops to them even when they refused to. Thus many farmers would rather destroy their own crops than handing them over to the government this made germans to go through famines. All he wanted is money to buy more equipment for the country. alicia and xiang yi
Debate: "Hitler was a more evil and ruthless leader than Stalin."
Side: No, I disagree

Hitler rewarded women for having many children. he also gave workers cheap holidays and sporting activities. cars were also enabled tohave their own cars. workless people were also decreasing as the government projects needed many people, thus decreasing the number of unemployment. Marcus, Yan yu and joel
Debate: "Hitler was a more evil and ruthless leader than Stalin."
Side: No, I disagree

Stalin let his people starve even though they worked for him and their country. He did not even feed them. Is this considered fair to you?
Debate: "Hitler was a more evil and ruthless leader than Stalin."
Side: Yes, I agree.

-Bryan and Amos. Blah blah blah blah we need at least 50 characters yayayayayayayayayyayayayajcekfbjdvnsducvdibcuasbcivvucbaujsxiasdbcjb
Debate: "Hitler was a more evil and ruthless leader than Stalin."
Side: Yes, I agree.

Hitler murdered people by sending them to concentration camps and into the gas chambers eventually. Stalin did not have a system of killing the people. So, the people were killed by Stalin less miserably. Hitler was perverted in the way he developed a system of eliminating people.
Debate: "Hitler was a more evil and ruthless leader than Stalin."
Side: Yes, I agree.

i agreee with tthat statement. hitler is the worst ruler i've ever seen. he killed too many people all over the world
Debate: "Hitler was a more evil and ruthless leader than Stalin."
Side: No, I disagree

He killed people from germany and his areas of control only, not all over the world.