BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
government should implement a 'fat tax'

The first problem I foresee with what you are saying is that there is not yet a clarity in what you are proposing. One idea, the tax on fatty foods, is not one that I disagree with. I believe that a tax on extremely unhealthy foods would be beneficial for people, because the food's price tag would discourage people from purchasing the food. However, a tax on people because of their weight is something I disagree with. A tax on people because of their weight, would be fundamentally wrong. Just because they are overweight, or "fat" does not mean that they are lesser people than those who are a normal or healthy weight. By giving these people an extra tax, you are making them pay more simply because of the way they were raised, because of their metabolism, or because they simply do not have the time or desire to change their weight. A tax against fat people would be like imposing a tax upon people who smoke. There is nothing wrong with taxing the good that causes them harm but taxing the person who uses that product is wrong. In the case of your "fat tax" one suggestion is taxing fatty foods, and one is taxing people who are overweight. One idea is a good one, it would increase the amount of money needed to buy unhealthy food. Your other idea is bad, in that it goes against the idea that the law does not judge people based on their appearance, habits, ethnicity, religion, or health because everybody is equal.
government should implement a 'fat tax'

the exact tax details is not important. it's just that we have taxes. the taxes can be on the fatty foods, or increase on the person as they get fatter. what's important is whtether we have a fat tax at all to begin with. elderly people can eat less and may be able to do aquatic or less intensive exercise. but even if we execmpted them, it doesn't negate tht we shouldn't have a fat tax to being with. i prefer to tax them regardless of whether they take insurance from government. ause they will likey end up on government rolls in the end. i mean, if we said you can't do that in the end, i might be open to not taxing them. but as a practical matter our government wil help them when they are having problems related to being fat. so i tend to say tax the food, and tax the weight.
government should implement a 'fat tax'

What counts as "fat" There are different levels of being overweight. There is overweight, and obesity. According to the CDC, if you have a BMI above 24.9 means that you are overweight. Having a BMI of above 30.0 means that you are obese. If you could please clarify which or both you are suggesting this fat tax against, I would appreciate it greatly. Secondly, I would like to ask, are you suggesting we tax the elderly who are obese? Because, due to various problems (balance difficulties, joint problems, etc.) it may become difficult for elders to exercise. Especially elders who are not incredibly wealthy. Would these count as medically known reasons for being overweight? Especially since some elders with some joint difficulties may find it more easy to exercise, while others may not. Thirdly, with this "Obama care penalty" logic. Are you thinking that anybody who is fat and is using health care that is necessary because of their fatness? Or do you think that anybody who is fat gets this tax no matter if they are using government healthcare or not. It would be helpful to clarify. I got my information on BMI from http://www.cdc.gov... Thank you, and I look forward to your rebuttal.
government should implement a 'fat tax'

government should implement a 'fat tax' the idea, that heart disease and other bad health effects from being fat causes an increase in health care costs, in a country that is heavily subsidized by the government. so, whatever it costs should be made up for in fat taxes. my understanding is right now the costs of being fat to the government are not sufficiently made up for in sales taxes. if it were, it would be more prohibitive for over eaters, so they would't eat and be lazy as much, and it'd be ensure the government is getting reimbursed for what it spends. could make an exception for medically known reasons for being over weight. i might agree with making the tax contingent on taking any government benefits, i'm not sure. probably along the idea of the 'obama care penalty' logic, i'd tax all who are fat, cause everyone needs health care at some point, especially notably those who are fat.
This house would oppose the indigenous cultures marketing for the purpose of tourism

Here we have the indigenous people, In many areas a group that has been destroyed by colonials and disease and ignored by history and religion. Very often the indigenous have no modern day capitalist skills. The unemployment rate is disproportionately high in indigenous communities. I neglect the idea that these people are genetically lazy, As they are the only people willing to inhabit the nation, The only people capable of thriving without industrialization and slavery. They are indeed the most capable survivalists that exist. In todays day and age there is no market for survivalist employmers. If these people need to resort to sale of their culture to the oo's and ah's from fortunate tourists, They should at least be given that freedom. To preserve themselves and their culture.
Life is worth living

It is obvious that the cost MUST outweigh the benefits to some people; else the concept of suicide would be a myth, and we would not be having this debate. Every 13.7 minutes, another man, woman, or child in the US takes their own life. One hundred and five do so every day. [1} Every forty seconds, someone on this planet takes his own life. [2] Each of these people obviously felt, for some reason, that life was not worth living. That there are people who have not yet ended their lives proves nothing; they may have lacked opportunity or courage at the vital moment. They might be terrible procrastinators, putting off the last decision of their lives. They might not have thought it out thoroughly enough. The fact that there are over 788,000 each year [3] that do commit suicide is ample proof that life is not worth living for no small number of people. We need not stick to bare statistics, either; if my opponent call for it, I can provide individual cases of people who have gone through hell on earth, and quite logically decided to risk the dreams that may come in lieu of the nightmare they were living. Does my opponent disagree with their choice? The resolution is phrased in universal terms. The burden of proof is on my opponent; can he show that life is worth living, period, full stop? That it is intrinsically worth living, despite circumstances? Does he have any proof that people who conclude that their lives are NOT worth living are wrong? Can he argue against the collective voice of the 788,000 suicides each year? If he cannot, and I cannot imagine how he can, then the resolution is negated. [1] http://www.suicidology.org... [2] http://www.who.int... [3] The WHO (source 2) gives a rate of one every 40 seconds; over the course of a year that comes to 788,400 http://www.wolframalpha.com...
Life is worth living

I am still alive, but not of my own volition. I did a careful cost-benefit analysis, taking into account my statistical probability of significant future happiness, and the regrets that I will carry with me until my memory becomes too unreliable, and decided that life is simply not worth it. The brief moments of happiness are more than set off by the long stretches of unrewarded stress and deep chasms of pain and anguish - I didn't choose this life, and I certainly don't see any reason to continue on a course of action that I have not chosen for myself. Upon reaching that conclusion, I set about the process of ending my life. I won't bore you with the details; merely suffice it to say that I was interrupted before the happy conclusion, and spent the next six months under medical observation. My usual track record of failing at everything has haunted me here. I have not yet, in six attempts, been successful in ending my life. I intend to find a quieter spot for it this time, and have settled on a foolproof method. At the conclusion of this debate, I intend to carry it out; so I thank my opponent for his cooperation in making this a quick and relatively painless debate. I return it to him, with my thanks.
Life is worth living

"It is obvious that the cost MUST outweigh the benefits to some people; else the concept of suicide would be a myth, and we would not be having this debate." Yes, this is true. However, the question regards life in general, not any particular circumstance of life. "The fact that there are over 788,000 each year [3] that do commit suicide is ample proof that life is not worth living for no small number of people." There are 7 billion+ people on this planet, none of whom have committed suicide. The statistics my opponent shows give a global suicide rate of approximately one and a half people per capita-hardly an overwhelming number. "They might not have thought it out thoroughly enough." My opponent claims that it is possible that all people who are still alive had the kind of circumstances he mentions. While this is true, I could just as easily say that it is possible that everyone who has committed suicide didn't think it out thoroughly enough. If anything, I could do it more easily, since I have much smaller numbers to get out of the way than my opponent does. "We need not stick to bare statistics, either; if my opponent call for it, I can provide individual cases of people who have gone through hell on earth, and quite logically decided to risk the dreams that may come in lieu of the nightmare they were living. Does my opponent disagree with their choice?" I cannot respond to this, as my opponent provides no examples. "The burden of proof is on my opponent; can he show that life is worth living, period, full stop? That it is intrinsically worth living, despite circumstances? Does he have any proof that people who conclude that their lives are NOT worth living are wrong?" The fact that there are 7 billion+ people still living it in one year while only 788,000 choosing not to in one year shows that it is worth living to many more people than it is not. "Can he argue against the collective voice of the 788,000 suicides each year?" Notice the backwards logic in my opponent's argument: 788,000 people is too high a number for them to be wrong-but 7+BILLION people can be wrong no problem! Also, note that my opponent drops his original argument.
Richie is a weinie

Your spelling is amazing. Also isn't the word phallus not descriptive enough for this purpose? It's similar to saying something looks like a rock. Couldn't anything in theory look like a rock, as rocks come in many different shapes and sizes? Also the argument that you are something just because you have it is an interesting one because in a sense you are every part of your body. I mean you have an a**hole therefore you are an a**hole. Right? *phallus *wienie
The Ethics of Voting. It is possible for someone to vote Pro in the below listed scenario.

Here is the scenario. The debate resolution is as follows. "Chocolate ice cream is better than any other kind." Pro takes this stance: "Vanilla ice cream is better than any other kind." Con argues this stance: "Toffee ice cream is better than any other kind." Here is my contention. Providing that the Con never points out that Pro is not fulfilling the resolution a voter cannot ethically vote on this point. Therefor the voter must vote for whoever has done the best job debating in round. Thus, if Pro argues successfully that Vanilla is the best kind of ice cream and says you should vote for him because of it, you can ethically vote for him and should. (Providing con does not point out he is not fulfilling the resolution) Dare to oppose me?
The Marvel Universe is more intricate than that of DC

Again, if this was "MCU is better written than DCEU", I'd agree 200%. But just because they can make use of their overarching plot to connect multiple characters, that doesn't mean they are more intricate. It just means they are intricate. If we were to compare franchise verses franchise, I could concede that MCU is maybe as intricate as DCU, if only barely... but when you consider MCU has released 19 movies so far in order to do that, whereas DCU has only had 5 movies... That shows a lot higher density of intricacy in DCEU movies... which is a BAD thing, not a good thing.
The Marvel Universe is more intricate than that of DC

What I was thinking was that the near omnipotent beings that reoccur in Marvel comics such as infinity war and the infinity gauntlet, ie: Eternity, Infinity, the living tribunal, etc, are able to fit into the Marvel world and address larger issues that work on a much greater scale, while still occasionally taking other characters out of their normal story lines and involving them. I feel like when you see the way they move characters too and fro, from taking part in their own personal conflicts, to helping others work against a more dangerous enemy together shows that even in stories that aren't all about them, many characters are still acknowledged in the background.
We live in a simulated reality

Sure. We might. There is no evidence that we do or could, but we might. However, acting as if we live in an objective reality reliably gives us results we expect and can use, and I would be amazed if the Pro side does anything but eat, drink, and not jump off buildings, as if their physical body needed actual nutrition and is subject to objective harm if gravity is ignored. The pro side has made a positive statement- "We live in a simulated reality". This is a positive truth statement, that it is something that is true, not possible. This puts the Burdon of proof firmly on his side. Even if possible, I see no evidence it is true.
We live in a simulated reality

I quote the pros terms from the previous argument "Maybe, maybe not", "It's all theoretical", "Not necessarily", "the scientists could be programed" In other words, she accepts there are no definitive answers to this question, it is a hypothesis with some claimed evidence, but a great deal of conjecture and theorizing. This does not support a contention that we ARE living in a simulation. Her last paragraph is telling, saying I don't produce proof or evidence. I don't have to. She has made a definitive statement of and absolute condition- not "Might", "Could" or "there is evidence of" but "We are". It is not incumbent on the pro to provide evidence to the contrary, just to show there is insufficient to sustain the proposition. This has been done by the pros own, honest use of non definitive terms as she cannot definitively sustain the proposition. Thus it is defeated,
We live in a simulated reality

So, one person has express that it is. That is not evidence, that is one opinion. It is the logical fallacy of "argument from authority". If we live in a simulation, a simulation of what? If it is the simulation of an actual Universe, so well crafted as to be indistinguishable from that actual Universe, then we would not be able to distinguish such, by definition. It would thus be impossible to ascertain that we are in a simulation. If we are merely digital avatars created and controlled by some outside entity, then they would have control over our though processes- they would control what we believe. If it is their desire that we believe we exist in a real Universe, they could easily include that in our programming. The very fact we are able to contemplate the idea that we live in a simulation is powerful evidence that we don't. At least sufficient to render the definitive statement that we do falsified. This has actually been the subject of some enquiry, and has lead to varying conclusions. here-https://cosmosmagazine.com... is the claim that it has been definitively debunked. I don't necessarily agree with the definitiveness of that statement, but it certainly shows there is enough conjecture to render a definitive statement in the affirmative falsified,
We live in a simulated reality

My opponents argument can be summed up by the only sentence he cared to take the time to present us in this debate. "All of which argues that it may be possible that the universe is a simulation, but not that it is." But actually, James Gates, Physicist, of whom I referenced doesn't claim it "might be", but that it "is" a simulated matrix. https://www.sott.net... ````` So, let's summarize the debate so far. 1)My opponent referred to me as "he" when I am a female in college. 2)My opponent did not attempt to make a serious rebuttal in this round. 3)My opponent's one sentence response was actually factually wrong based on the actual comments of my source. ````` In an interview, James Gates said: "If we look at the computer from the outside, our artwork looks solid. If we take apart the outside layers of the computer and watch in slow motion how its hardware works beyond the microscopic level, we will see that it is made of vast streams of electrical currents. Electrical currents are another form of energy. At this level, our artwork will look like flashes of electrical currents. This analogy of how a computer works is similar to how our minds and consciousness create our illusionary external reality. ... If we can go beyond time and space and look down at our third dimensional reality, we will see that our reality is also made of flashes of electrical signals or light. In other words, this is the state of our reality before it is processed by our consciousness. The reason why we perceive things as solid is because our bodies and consciousness encode the energy patterns around us as solid. It is at this moment that we are tricked into believing that our reality is made of solid materials." https://www.sott.net... Even Neil Degrasse Tyson said, "it"s "very likely" the universe is a simulation." https://www.extremetech.com... Nick Bostrom is an Agnostic and Philosopher- I will leave you with his words... Nick Bostrom"s hypothesis: "One thing that later generations might do with their super-powerful computers is run detailed simulations of their forebears or of people like their forebears. Because their computers would be so powerful, they could run a great many such simulations. Suppose that these simulated people are conscious (as they would be if the simulations were sufficiently fine-grained and if a certain quite widely accepted position in the philosophy of mind is correct). Then it could be the case that the vast majority of minds like ours do not belong to the original race but rather to people simulated by the advanced descendants of an original race. It is then possible to argue that, if this were the case, we would be rational to think that we are likely among the simulated minds rather than among the original biological ones. Therefore, if we don"t think that we are currently living in a computer simulation, we are not entitled to believe that we will have descendants who will run lots of such simulations of their forebears." http://bigthink.com...
Should we exterminate jews first or negros first(jews pro, Negros con)

HAHA! You've fallen right into my trap. If you're a god, Then you're the god of predictability, Thats what. See, I was lying about my power. I was only using 30% of my power, And you were so scared of my power thst you even used 50%. Hmph, Now I know how much you are capable of, And I will proceed to destroy you procedurally. Now, Lets define the meaning of perfection. It is an aryan, Of course. Now, What is the opposite of perfection? It is what aryans hate. While I concede that both niggers and jews are despicable, More jews were purified in the holocaust. Therefore, The aryans hate jews more, Thus they are more imperfect. THEREFORE WE MUST FULFILL THE ARYAN MANIFESTO AND KILL ALL JEWS.
Should we exterminate jews first or negros first(jews pro, Negros con)

UGH I FEEL SUCH IMMENSE POWER. Not bad, BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH. YOU KNOW, THE GODS DON'T CALL ME THE INCINERATOR FOR NOTHING. LOOKS LIKE I HAVE TO RESORT TO USING 50 PERCENT OF MY POWER. SEE THE FACT THAT MY 50 PERCENT IS BETTER THAN YOUR 57 PERCENT MEANS I AM GOING TO WIN!
Should we exterminate jews first or negros first(jews pro, Negros con)

Well well well. You. 've already exceeded my expectations, Low as they are. Not bad, For an amateur of course. Hoho, This may prove to be interesting now. Very well, Brace yourself, For I will now use 57% of my full power! Prepare yourself for the power that is: GANDY LAMB UNLEASHED! You must be a jew yourself to even consider debating me on such a clear cut topic that I can easily win in just 1. 3 moves! Ive already checked you, And I know that there is only one move you can make to avoid mate. Go on, Make your moves exactly as I have foreseen.
Should we exterminate jews first or negros first(jews pro, Negros con)

Hmph. You seem pretty strong for a mere mortal. So you like metaphors eh? I will give you this one. I AM THE POLAR EXPRESS AND YOU ARE A MERE DEPRESSED MORTAL. I AM THE STEEL AND STEAM, AND YOU ARE NOTHING BUT BLOOD AND CARBON 12. I CAN CUT YOU INTO PIECES, WHILE YOU CAN ONLY SCREAM. I TRAVEL TO THE TOP, THE NORTH POLE. TURN BACK WHILE YOU STILL CAN! THIS TRAINS COMING STRAIGHT AT YOU!
Should we exterminate jews first or negros first(jews pro, Negros con)

For inferior debaters like you, This game is a game of tic tac toe. But for GODS OF PHIOLOSOPHY LIKE ME, THIS IS A COMPLEX GAME OF CHESS. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? , I AM THE QUEEN AND YOU ARE A PAWN. I AM JUST 3 MOVES AWAY FROM CHECKMATE. However, You amuse me, So I will let your debate dreams live, For now. Hmph! You are worth less than the ground that i spit on. Until you prove your skill, I will be debating you blindfolded and at the same time as 19 other arguments.
Should we exterminate jews first or negros first(jews pro, Negros con)

FINE. I ACCEPT THiS CHALLENGE. HMM. SO YOU CALL YOURSELF THE GOD? WELL, IN THIS WORLD, THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE GOD. AND THATS ME. I WILL HAVE FUN WITH YOU. I HAVEN'T HAD A EXERCISE SESSION SINCE I DEBATED WITH ZEUS ABOUT NEGRO INFERIORITY. I ACCEPT! LET'S DUEL!
Should we exterminate jews first or negros first(jews pro, Negros con)

Very well, So you want to see my true power so badly? Very well, Prepare yourself! THIS IS THE PRIMORDIAL FORCE THAT ENGULFS THE WORLD, THE LIGHT THAT IS TOO BRIGHT FOR MERE MINOR GODS TO COMPREHEND! IT IS I, FULLY AWAKENED, GANDY LAMB THE ETERNAL DIVINE LAMB OF GOD, THE 12TH EXECUTIONER! NOW, I WILL FINISH YOU WITH MY FINAL ATTQCKKKKKKKKKKK! AHHHHHHHHHHHH
Should we exterminate jews first or negros first(jews pro, Negros con)

HA! I DOUBLE FOOLED YOU INTO THINKING THAT I'M USING 50 PERCENT OF MY POWER SO YOU CAN REVEAL YOUR TRUE POWER. THIS IS EXACTLY MY TRUE PLAN. SEE, THIS IS ONLY 30 PERCENT OF MY TRUE POWER. Anyways. You make the argument that aryan hate jews more because they were mainly killed in the Holocaust, But you forgot the mentioned the NEGROES WERE ALL ENSLAVED BEFORE HITLER. See, Great aryans like king Henry V of England and Napoleon have enslaved the majority of the negro race. Hitler was only doing his part and enslaving the jews. IT WAS SAID IN THE HOLY ARYAN BIBLE THAT THE DARKER THE PERSON THE MORE EVIL HE IS. HOWEVER, THE DEVILS MOTHER KNOWN AS KILLARY K LINTON. HAS FREED NEGROES LIKE BARACK OBAMA. SEE, THE EXTERMINATION ARGUMENT IS RELEVANT TO CURRENT TIMES, WHICH THE NEGROES ARE THE MAIN ENEMY. Ps you dumb
in a democratic society, felons should retain the right to vote

"Well if they lost them for commiting a crime they should not be able to get them back.The way you put it they shouldn't be taken away to begin with so after they commite a crime they should be able to go back to there life without any changes so there rights haven't changed at all and it's like they didn't commited the crime at all." --> I never said they should be taken away, however for the desirability of the resolution we need to also see the imapct of returning to society. *He refutes none of my case, thus extend the whole thing.*