BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
National Sales Tax

Opponent- First of all, if we eliminated every other tax, and implemented this at a rate of 17% TOTAL (Don't worry, the states' cash cow would be toll roads based on converted carpool or left shoulder lanes on highways and interstates), the economy would shoot up LIKE A ROCKET. + You have no basis for this. So I'm going to respond the same way: ...nuh uh... Opponent- People would be more productive, because they would be encouraged to produce something because their income is no longer taken away from them by the government, and thus, will make more money. Your rebuttal? + Are you saying that America is not encouraged to do well? America has a $13.5 trillion GDP. Here's all the encouragement Americans have needed since 1776: You don't work, you don't eat. Americans have not needed more motivation because our capitalist economy keeps people motivated. NEW ARGUMENT -The poor will not be able to afford food because they can barely afford it now and dont pay taxes. The poor will not afford food, then die, the rich will control the country without opposition and be able to control America, the greatest, most powerful country, thereby the world, they can even enslave China, who will eventually retaliate with nukes, causing a nuke war, killing every person on Earth. Please respond to the following arguments: - It will raise the the price on ordinary things for the poor - The poor will not be able to afford food because they can barely afford it now and dont pay taxes now. - children will not be able to afford the things they can now - a national sales tax will not be enough money for the government - it will encourage states to get rid of their sales tax, giving them less money - states will either continue income tax or increase sales tax significantly, starving the poor - There is a very severe problem of taxing business inputs under a sales tax. These must be exempt from tax in order to avoid cascading—taxes being levied on taxes—which creates serious economic distortions. To avoid this under a NRST, every business, no matter how small, would need some sort of exemption certificate, which would create unlimited opportunities for evasion, or they will have to be extensively audited in ways at least as onerous as under the income tax. - Services are by their nature much more difficult to tax than goods. For this reason, no state makes any effort to tax more than a few of them. Yet the NRST would tax 100 percent of services, including medical services and government services - Every serious analysis has concluded that a NRST would have massive evasion. Taxing the spending of drug dealers and others not currently paying income taxes will not come close to compensating for the new evasion opportunities that will be created. Since it is not in the interest of either retailers or consumers to pay the tax, and because all of the revenue is collected at the point of final sale, it will be too easy for tax-free deals to be made with producers and wholesalers. - Under our current tax system there is withholding of taxes on wages, which is the vast bulk of the tax base
National Sales Tax

First of all, if we eliminated every other tax, and implemented this at a rate of 17% TOTAL (Don't worry, the states' cash cow would be toll roads based on converted carpool or left shoulder lanes on highways and interstates), the economy would shoot up LIKE A ROCKET. People would be more productive, because they would be encouraged to produce something because their income is no longer taken away from them by the government, and thus, will make more money. Your rebuttal?
National Sales Tax

The National Sales Tax will - raise the the price on ordinary things for the poor - the poor will not be able to afford food because they can barely afford it now and dont pay taxes - children will not be able to afford the things they can now - a national sales tax will not be enough money for the government - it will encourage states to get rid of their sales tax, giving them less money - states will either continue income tax or increase sales tax significantly, starving the poor - There is a very severe problem of taxing business inputs under a sales tax. These must be exempt from tax in order to avoid cascading—taxes being levied on taxes—which creates serious economic distortions. To avoid this under a NRST, every business, no matter how small, would need some sort of exemption certificate, which would create unlimited opportunities for evasion, or they will have to be extensively audited in ways at least as onerous as under the income tax. - Services are by their nature much more difficult to tax than goods. For this reason, no state makes any effort to tax more than a few of them. Yet the NRST would tax 100 percent of services, including medical services and government services - Every serious analysis has concluded that a NRST would have massive evasion. Taxing the spending of drug dealers and others not currently paying income taxes will not come close to compensating for the new evasion opportunities that will be created. Since it is not in the interest of either retailers or consumers to pay the tax, and because all of the revenue is collected at the point of final sale, it will be too easy for tax-free deals to be made with producers and wholesalers. - Under our current tax system there is withholding of taxes on wages, which is the vast bulk of the tax base
This house believes that the media should not televise real extreme violence

Real extreme violence should not be televised on the media as currently in this era of technology many of us are easily influenced by it and tend to follow every single step taken as shown in the media. Those who are caught are normally the teenagers who are still fragile in their early stages of life and haven't seen much of the real world. Since they have a lack of experience in such events they seem to believe everything portrayed by the media and have an urge to follow it. Secondly, as what Albert Einstein has said "Out of clutter, find simplicity". It is a necessity for civilized humans to live in harmony. By educating violence through the media we are just going to break that harmony. Once the media has managed to influence the people it is really scary to think what may happen next as what we call human civilization, will be replaced by hungry for violence animals who are one day going to going execute what they have seen and basically it will add to the problems faced by the country already. For example educating humans to stop encouraging violence.
Andrew Jackson is innocent in the Killing of the Native Americans

Andrew Jackson is directly responsible for the thousands of deaths that occurred during the trail of tears. In 1830 he signed the indian removal act, witch made land belonging to Native Americans part of the U.S. Between 1831 and 1839 Cherokee,creek, Seminole, Choctaw and Chickasaw were forcibly relocated to indian territory, in what is now known as Oklahoma. In 1831 17,000 Choctaw were removed from their land in missisippi to Oklahoma. 6000 died. Luckily 6000 Choctaw were able to stay in their home land. In 1832 the Seminole Indians were removed. In 1837 15,000 creek Indians were removed from their home in Alabama and florida. 3,5000 died. 20,000 stayed in their land. In 1837 the Chickasaw tribe was removed. In 1838 the Cherokee Indians were forcibly removed from their home in North Carolina. 7000 militia men, regular army and volunteers under the general Winfield Scott helped Round up 17,000 Cherokee and put them in concentration camps many cherokees died if disease , starvation and exposure in these dirty dangerous camps. Cherokee homes were burned, their property destroyed and farms witch had belonged to Cherokee for generations were won by white settlers in a lottery. Luckily 400 Cherokee living in the great smoky mountains on land owned by William holland Thomas, a white man who was adopted by Cherokee as a boy, were allowed to stay. 200 Cherokee in nantahala allowed to stay. By 1837 46000 south eastern Indians were removed making up 25million acres for white settlers. Jackson knew about the harsh conditions in the camps and on the road to Oklahoma. He chose to expel thousands of people from their homelands where their people had lived for generations. He is responsible for the tragedy that was the trail of tears.
The electoral college ought to be abolished.

The value is morality as it is consistent with the word ought in the resolution. The standard is the veil of ignorance. Prefer because 1) allows us to see past our biases and into what a truly just world would look like. 2) the veil grants equal freedom and power to each individual. 3) the purpose of justice is to ensure the state doesn't discriminate against people based on factors they cannot control. Next is the contention. Abolition of the electoral college system is consistent with the veil of ignorance. 1) The electoral college is unpopular with the American public. Per Gallup 16, only 47% of Americans support the electoral college system. 2) The electoral college grants unequal power to some. Under the electoral college, some people"s votes are worth more than others, i.e in California the proportion of votes per electoral vote is higher than in Wyoming. 3) Political inequality is inconsistent with the veil. If we are establishing a society under the veil no one would say that certain people's votes are worth more than others. Case. 1) Turn, the electoral college disincentivizes candidates from traveling to different parts of the country. Example, dems don"t waste time in Texas because they know they will never win the state, but under a popular vote system they would be incentivized to appeal to the millions of democrats there. 2) You say candidates will only focus on states with large populations, but 1. you have no warrant, 2. your arg doesn't make any sense as small states are worth very few points in the electoral college, 3. they shouldn't have to appeal to a small state if they are popular with the majority. 3) Next onto your point about there only being 3 instances where the loser of the electoral college won the popular vote this: 1. Proves that the electoral college doesn't fairly represent the will of the people. 2. All times it happened with a republican victor, proving the system"s inherent bias against democrats. 4) 1. How is a democratic society unfair, you give no warrant. 2. I only advocate for a society that is moral under the veil of ignorance, which a society without the electoral college is. 5) Constitution is bad it limited the ability of blacks/women to vote.
The electoral college ought to be abolished.

The electoral colleges encourage candidates to focus their attention on different parts of the United States instead of just targeting voters in only a specific part of the country. California, Texas, New York, Ohio and Florida, states with some of the highest electoral college votes, are found in different locations in the U.S. These states have a large distance between them so that candidates do not focus their attention only to the Midwest, the south and other partial areas of the U.S. but to all areas of the U.S. Some may argue that if candidates do not hold their campaigns in states with small electoral college votes voters within these sates are not aware of each candidates plans. This is untrue. For example, the grey party candidate gives a speech in Texas. It is highly likely that Texas's neighbouring states and other southern states will know about what was discussed from: the influence of the people of Texas, the news, social media and many other forms of communication used by the public to express its political views. If the electoral colleges are abolished then candidates will be biased to states with a high population and forget about the rest of the United States. Another reason people disagree with the electoral colleges is the misconception that it disregards the popular votes. With over 40 elections held in the U.S. there were only 3 instances where the candidate with the most popular votes lost the elections. Those who will vote in the electoral colleges is determined by the voters. Each candidate has a set number of electors in their states. These electors will vote on their behalf if the people vote for them by voting for the candidate. The candidate must have over 50% of a state's popular vote for his party's electors in that state to be allowed to cast electoral votes. Your votes do matter! The reason the founders placed electoral college in the constitution instead of having a completely democratic country is because if you study most of history, a purely democratic society isn't always fair. Therefore, there is some modifications which are necessary to a successful country and for the United States the electoral colleges is one of them. The founders put the electoral colleges in place to ensure that the country is given all that is necessary to thrive.
I am real.

*Case Pro: Rebuttals* --> "Perhaps I am a fictitious character created by my opponent in order to further his reputation on the site. " If this were true I would simply be affirming my own existence. Moreover, I quite clearly exist by virtue of the fact that I am currently writing this sentence. --> "Perhaps my posts are the result of a computer program that can parse the English language and prepare responses. " There is not a single computer program that is known to exist that is capable of producing lucid and intelligent arguments on par with a fully conscious human. We can therefore use Ockham's Razor to dismiss this possibility. [1] The probability that you are a person that exists is much more likely. And even if you were only a computer you would obviously have to be some kind of self-conscious computer. Therefore, you would exist in either case even if you were only made out of silicone. --> "Perhaps my opponent has imagined everything. .. perhaps there are no readers of this site, perhaps the site only exists in my opponent's mind. " If it were true that DDO didn't exist then I would simply be having a debate in my mind in which I am affirming my own existence. Since I can think, I must exist. [2] I may be deceived right now, but I could not deceive myself into imagining that I exist. Therefore, even if DDO and its various members did not exist I would have sufficiently won this debate in my own mind by demonstrating that I exist. --> "While it is reasonable for members of this site to assume that I am real, my opponent has done nothing to prove that I am real to members of this site. " I disagree. You have already quite clearly demonstrated that you exist by merely creating this debate. If you were not real you would have been unable to create this debate. Therefore, you exist. (Resolution affirmed) Best, Freeman ---References--- [1] . http://www.iep.utm.edu... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... Good Luck
I am real.

While it is reasonable for members of this site to assume that I am real, my opponent has done nothing to prove that I am real to members of this site. Perhaps I am a fictitious character created by my opponent in order to further his reputation on the site. Perhaps my posts are the result of a computer program that can parse the English language and prepare responses. Perhaps my opponent has imagined everything... perhaps there are no readers of this site, perhaps the site only exists in my opponent's mind. I an instance the burden of proving my existence falls to my opponent.
I am real.

I thank jessecurry for his interesting response. *Case Pro: Rebuttals* "Even if I am a real person there is not a way to prove that to the members of this site." Contention 1: My opponent has only given further proof that he is real. By creating a very thoughtful argument my opponent has only provided further evidence that he is in fact real. Complex arguments and intellectually sophisticated sentences don't randomly generate themselves and magically appear on the Internet. Members of DDO are therefore justified in believing that you are in fact real. You have demonstrated this much to even the most die-hard scientific skeptic.
I am real.

It calls into question many assumptions that we all make to allow our day-to-day lives to make more sense. There are many ways that the phrase "I am not real" could be made to appear on this site, most of which would not require me to be a real person. Even if I am a real person there is not a way to prove that to the members of this site. Perception is by nature illusory as it is a subjective view of what is believed to be an objective environment. Even if I were real and you were to somehow place me in a room with members of this site there is not a way to prove that I am real to anyone other than myself. If you believe otherwise please outline the steps that you would take to prove that I am real to others reading this site.
Children can't consent

Poem about child's consent Children can't consent to sex But they can consent to be born They can consent to go to school To be bullied and ridiculed They can consent to be beaten They can consent to be degraded They can consent to be aborted They can consent to be circumcised They can consent to change their sex They just can't consent to have sex Videos of children being beaten are all legal, Are all legal Videos of children being killed are all legal Videos of children being insulted are all legal, Are all legal But God forbid if someone watched child porn, That person is evil, That person is evil That person is the spawn of Satan Because watching children have sex Is the worst thing ever Because when children have sex, they are damaged forever It is worse than watching murder, It's illegal too Children can't consent, Oh silly you
In the Bible Angels and Demons are interchangeable

Pro's argument is kinda shaking the foundation of this debate. Hence i'd like to redefine terms Angels and Demons Angels: beings full of goodness and willfully surrendered to God's will. Demons: Revolting against God's will and misleading others from following God's will. I quote further from the Bhagavad-Gita to differentiate between Demons and Angels. Bg 16.13-15 " The demoniac person thinks: "So much wealth do I have today, and I will gain more according to my schemes. So much is mine now, and it will increase in the future, more and more. He is my enemy, and I have killed him, and my other enemies will also be killed. I am the lord of everything. I am the enjoyer. I am perfect, powerful and happy. I am the richest man, surrounded by aristocratic relatives. There is none so powerful and happy as I am. I shall perform sacri@257;ces, I shall give some charity, and thus I shall rejoice. " In this way, such persons are deluded by ignorance. Bg 16.16 " Thus perplexed by various anxieties and bound by a network of illusions, they become too strongly attached to sense enjoyment and fall down into hell. Bg 16.17 " Self-complacent and always impudent, deluded by wealth and false prestige, they sometimes proudly perform sacri@257;ces in name only, without following any rules or regulations. Bg 16.18 " Bewildered by false ego, strength, pride, lust and anger, the demons become envious of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is situated in their own bodies and in the bodies of others, and blaspheme against the real religion. I don't understand how are these traits which are complete out of phase interchangeable? Pro said "A. To follow the leader's orders blindly, invading Poland? or B. To march directly to the border and stop without crossing, accepting a coward's court marshal? " I think the soldiers should use their conscience and make intellectual conviction of what do to instead of blindly following their leader. .. . Refutation with a Story: There a story in Hindu history (believed to be more than 2 million years ago) in which there existed a king called Hiranyakashipu who wanted himself to be called God. He would persecute all those who worship Lord Vishnu. People of his kingdom started worshiping him as God. read the story in full version here since i'm not a good narrator: . http://www.indolink.com... Video version with English Subtitles: (prahlad's faith will inspire you) Conclusion: My point here is. .. .Hiranyakashipu is similar to God of OT (a demon) and who's son Prahlada is similar to God's Son Jesus (an angel). .. .Thus i've clearly demonstrated that there's a massive difference between Angels and Demons whether it be Bible or any other scripture, hence are not interchangeable. Bhagavad-Gita reference: . http://vedabase.com... Thank you pivot, its been pleasure debating with you!
In the Bible Angels and Demons are interchangeable

Yes the Old Testament is barbaric. The Old Testament is a barbaric relic. We can even say that the Old Testament is- The Barbaric Relic That is because the Pharaoh like Heil Hailstone was not an original thinker. Pharaoh was controlled by the demonic who persuaded Pharaoh to liquidate the first born of Israel. Now comes the interchangeable part- The only difference between the Egyptians and the Israelites was that the Egyptians held political power and the Israelites did not. Therefore- In order to enforce the LAW the Angels had to do it themselves. The Angels with all their goody goodness that Con has mentioned in Karmac went ahead and slaughtered all the innocent Egyptian children that they could find. While we must face the fact that there is such a thing as LAW, that does not mean that we are LAW zombies. The German Blitzkrieg operated under the rule of law. Heil Hailstone ordered the German army to cross the border and invade Poland. What was the legal obligation that the German army had since Hailstone was the legal leader of Germany at the time? A. To follow the leader's orders blindly, invading Poland? or B. To march directly to the border and stop without crossing, accepting a coward's court marshal? (Con, you didn't say anything about a court marshaled coward being good.)
In the Bible Angels and Demons are interchangeable

Using the opportunity of Liberty of Source....I'd like take the Hindu scripture Bhagavad-Gita as my source. In the Bhagavad-Gita chapter sixteen, Lord Krishna (The Supreme Personality of Godhead) speaks about the Divine and Demoniac Natures. The Divine corresponds to Angels and The Demoniac corresponds to Demons. Bg 16.1-3 " The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Fearlessness; puri@257;cation of one"s existence; cultivation of spiritual knowledge; charity; self-control; performance of sacri@257;ce; study of the Vedas; austerity; simplicity; nonviolence; truthfulness; freedom from anger; renunciation; tranquillity; aversion to fault@257;nding; compassion for all living entities; freedom from covetousness; gentleness; modesty; steady determination; vigor; forgiveness; fortitude; cleanliness; and freedom from envy and from the passion for honor " these transcendental qualities, O son of Bharata, belong to godly men endowed with divine nature. Bg 16.4 " Pride, arrogance, conceit, anger, harshness and ignorance " these qualities belong to those of demoniac nature, O son of PM71;thā. Pro quotes from OT But Old Testament cannot be taken as a coherent source of spiritual knowledge but an attempt by an imperfect soul to describe the Absolute. Scriptures like OT defame God and ashame theists. Such scriptures incite hate against God and have also been instrumental for atheism. If someone was to include Adolf Hitler in a mini-series that portrays him as a noble and admirable man by deliberately and completely removing anything about his cruel persecution of innocent people there would be absolute outrage. But when such a portrayal is done for Moses in The Bible series, no one blinks an eye. the Old Testament is the barbaric insanity from which Christianity and Islam flow. From the two verses i've posted above there's a massive difference between Angels and Demons...And Its impossible to interchange both character as PRO states...Even though OT states so, we can clearly understand the lack of spiritual knowledge of OT authors.