BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Tax Rates

Rebuttal Alarmingly, the gap between the rich and poor is surging. Where did you find that chart? Can you please cite it? Also, how can you attach this growing inequality to tax rates? Correlation does not equal causation. What I'm getting at here is that the rate of economic growth should not be the primary concern of an economy. The primary concern of an economy should be to serve the needs of the majority of the people. A nations economy must serve people, not the other way around.But increasing economic growth is good for everyone, is it not? If you raise taxes, businesses are less productive and lay people off, so their minimum wage is $0. Someone cannot possbiyl be happy without a job, can they? Also, when businesses are productive they provide good products to use, such as iPhones, at lower prics. Otherwise they raise their prices to cover the taxes. letting the rich get richer decreases mobility. Mobility simply means movement between socioeconomic status. America should be the land of opportunity and this rising inequality is squandering it. Where is your evidence for this? This is only anecdotal. real-estate prices become inflated. There's only a limited amount of land but those who are getting immensely rich buy it up. In the process, real estate prices rise for everyone else. Inflation of real-estate prices? I've never heard this before. Evidence? countries with lower inequality tend to be the happiest."Released Monday, the 2013 World Happiness Report ranks the happiest countries around the globe, with Denmark, Norway and Switzerland leading the pack." - huffingtonpostDenmark, Switzerland, and Norway all have a significantly lower Gini Coefficient (measure of income inequality) than the U.S.Evidence? You didn't cite a sourc.e Also, prove to me that raising taxes will decrease income inequality. I think it will make everything worse because rich people will lay off poor people. Have a poor person ever given you a job? I don't think so. Also, there is a diminishing marginal utility per dollar earned as income rises. It would be incorrect to assume that $1 to a rich person gives him the same amount of happiness that same dollar could bring a homeless person. Proof? Rich people use the money to invest not consume, so this thesis is fundamentally wrong.The tax on the top 1% of rich people should rise enough to stop the income gap from widening.How much more would you like it to rise? They're already paying about 40% of their income. What's enough?. . . the headline figure has everybody outraged: 95% of income gains since 2009 have accrued to the top 1%."http://www.businessinsider.com...... That's because of the Federal Reserve pumping money into the system so this is financial wealth. You cannot link that to tax cuts. I'd also like to point out that all of my arguments have been dropped at this point.
Tax Rates

First, I will readily admit that raising taxes on the top 1% will reduce economic growth. Economic growth is not always a good thing, especially when there is a rising gap of inequality. Alarmingly, the gap between the rich and poor is surging. GDP is not a very good measure of a country's well-being but GDP is often used as a measure to indicate how the well-being or "happiness" of a country.What I'm getting at here is that the rate of economic growth should not be the primary concern of an economy. The primary concern of an economy should be to serve the needs of the majority of the people. A nations economy must serve people, not the other way around. 3 reasons why taxes should be increased on the top 1%. 1) letting the rich get richer decreases mobility. Mobility simply means movement between socioeconomic status. America should be the land of opportunity and this rising inequality is squandering it. 2) real-estate prices become inflated. There's only a limited amount of land but those who are getting immensely rich buy it up. In the process, real estate prices rise for everyone else. 3) countries with lower inequality tend to be the happiest. "Released Monday, the 2013 World Happiness Report ranks the happiest countries around the globe, with Denmark, Norway and Switzerland leading the pack." - huffingtonpost Denmark, Switzerland, and Norway all have a significantly lower Gini Coefficient (measure of income inequality) than the U.S. Also, there is a diminishing marginal utility per dollar earned as income rises. It would be incorrect to assume that $1 to a rich person gives him the same amount of happiness that same dollar could bring a homeless person. The tax on the top 1% of rich people should rise enough to stop the income gap from widening. " . . . the headline figure has everybody outraged: 95% of income gains since 2009 have accrued to the top 1%." http://www.businessinsider.com...
The Republican Party

All righty, then. Let's get into this. You always put up a good fight- just not quite good enough. Here we go. Here's a bulleted list of the crucial reasons why I hate the Republican party. This will be how we do the debate- rebutting this one bulleted list, over and over. We'll stay with this list, and nothing else. With that said, here are a few big reasons why the Republican party truly stinks to High Heaven: 1. Abortion. Republicans refuse to grant women the right to get an abortion- but they also refuse to give any money to poor women, so the poor women are unable to support kids and they have to get abortions. Pretty counter intuitive, when you think about it. It really is. Children cost. There's no denying that. If you Republicans don't give people welfare, then they'll have no choice. They'll have to get those babies out somehow. Better to end the fetus's life while it's still in the womb than to have it starve to death on a street somewhere. Democrats actually decrease the number of abortions. Poor people get more money, and thus, they can raise their kids. It makes complete sense. 2. Global Warming. You guys are notorious for denying the existence of climate change, even though there have been countless statistics which say otherwise. Saying that climate change isn't real is like saying that the Earth is flat. It's a ridiculous idea. Climate change is absolutely real, and it's destroying the world. 3. Gun control. You guys want guns to be sold everywhere, and can't seem to understand that guns are weapons and that they can kill people. 4. Class structure. You hate poor people and, because you're rich, you refuse to pay any taxes to give to the poor people. The Republican party, in summation, is a group of backwards people who don't understand how the world works. Go ahead and rebut the five points that I've made above. Sorry about my brevity, I'm almost out of time. Go ahead and rebut. I'll wait.
The Pen Is Mightier Than The Sword

"Whoever said 'the pen is mightier than the sword' obviously never encountered automatic weapons " - General Douglas MacArthur. "The first round is for acceptance of the debate. The Con will first argue and put forward his points"Kind of contradictory here. Since this is only two rounds I will argue first after I clarify one thing"The Con should try to prove himself having the BOP"We both have the BOP on this one, I need to prove that the pen isnt mightier than the sword, you have to prove that the pen is mightier than the sword. Now then as for my argumentThe saying "The pen is mightier than the sword" can be interpreted in many ways depending on perspective, but since there are no rules (as the pro said) ill go ahead and give my own interpretation. The phrase to me states that in times of war, negotiation is stronger then confrontation and conflict when it comes down to warring nations. I for one disagree that negotiation is a better tactic for getting what a nation wants compared to warfare or intimidation. WWII in Europe ended only after Russia and the US had dismantled the Nazi government through military occupation. WWII ultimately ended with the US nuking thousands of civilians. Saddam was removed from power only through military intervention, Osama was killed because of military precision and expertise, not because of any types of ceasefire or negotiation. The Korean war didnt end at all with any kind of peace treaty, there was only a cease-fire that has now lasted north of 60 years. Nations will always use the sword when dealing with an enemy and only use the pen if one side has accepted defeat at the hands of the nation holding the sword. Therefore the pen is not mightier than the sword, it is merely a prize for the nation that wields the sword the best.
Obama's Anti Gun Media Legislation Must Be Stopped.

Commonly used and unregulated internet discussions and videos about guns and ammo could be closed down under rules proposed by the State Department, amounting to a "gag order on firearm-related speech," the National Rifle Association is warning. In updating regulations governing international arms sales, State is demanding that anyone who puts technical details about arms and ammo on the web first get the OK from the federal government " or face a fine of up to $1 million and 20 years in jail. These are gross neglects and usurping of the Constitution. The first and second amendment as well clearly a target. It is an outright ban on infoation. How Far the mighty hath fallen. Regardless of what side of the isle you stand on politically, this legislation should disturb all American citizens. Taking firearms out of the equation, what will have to "be checked by the federal Government next? Two word: slippery slope. I digress.
Welfare programs are beneficial to the country and should be continued

Well this is disappointing. My opponent had promised me that he would get his response in before his time ran out, but I guess I'll just have to start round two without him. I'll keep it short and sweet since I don't have anything to respond to. The unfortunate stereotype of people on welfare is that they are lazy and keep pumping out kids so they can continue to collect bigger checks. This usually takes on racial stereotypes since many people think that the majority of people on welfare are black. In actuality, the average person is a single white female, under 25, with one child and is on welfare for one year. This is a far cry from the common perception of the welfare recipient. What's even worse is that, when asked, most people know of at least one person or one family that was on welfare and deserved to receive benefits. They used the program to better themselves and stopped taking welfare checks once they didn't need them anymore. One sad example is when I was talking with someone who couldn't see past the stereotype of the lazy welfare recipient, only to find out later in the discussion that his own family had been on welfare when he was a child. The popular perception of welfare recipients had clouded his own experience and made him incapable of empathizing with people who were currently receiving the same benefits he did. Despite the fact that popular perception and reality have diverged so far, Clinton and congress passed welfare reform in 1996 and changed the Aid to Families with Dependant Children program into Temporary Aid to Needy Families. Under this program, any individual my receive aid for a two year period so long as they are actively seeking work. An individual may receive benefits for two years at a time and five years total. While no reform was really necessary before 1996, the new program now makes it increasingly unlikely that anyone is abusing the system for any length of time. This program, and all social welfare programs, need some amount of reform still. For example, for a single mother to receive benefits under TANF, she must divulge the child's father and give up his current information. While this was intended to make sure child support money was paid, often times this means that women are forced to keep contact with abusive ex-husbands or boyfriends. Other programs need better oversight, but the fact of the matter remains that, despite the rather few exceptions, welfare programs do much more good that harm. I know I promised to keep it short. I'm sorry. I hope my opponent can find time in his busy day to put up some kind of fight in the next round.
Welfare programs are beneficial to the country and should be continued

After his first debate, DucoNihilum welcomed a challenge on this topic rather than debate in the comments section. While I have been guilty of doing just that before, I agree and understand with DucoNihilum's desire, and I hope he accepts my challenge. To begin, regardless of whether you think welfare programs are perfect in their current incarnations or need to be changed somewhat, it is undeniable that welfare programs are beneficial to the poor, as well as the country as a whole. These programs are much more often used by individuals and families to get back up on their feet after the loss of a job or affliction of an illness. Programs ranging from adult education programs, to medicaid, to "welfare", to section 8 help people transition from poverty to a better standard of living, as well as help formerly middle-class people transition through a difficult time. Without these programs, homeless rates would sky-rocket, wages for low-skilled jobs would plummet and the poor would have a much lower level of purchasing power than they do now. In addition to the practical side of social programs, we, as the wealthiest nation in the history of the planet, have a moral duty to help the poor rise above their state. Without these programs, our country would bear more of a resemblance to a fascist state, with those at the top accumulating all the wealth of the state while the poor are left to languish. This is actually my first true debate on this site, and I'm looking forward to it being a lively one. :)
Smoking shouldn't be allowed in public places in Bulgaria again.

I would rebut my opponent's argument, saying that he "doesn't think that it is needed to smoke inside closed/semi-opened areas;" as The Sofia Globe reports, investigators found widespread violations of Bulgaria's smoking ban, which entails the crucial relationship of customer and business owner, which the customer can be said of as smoker or not; in short, smoking is done by the smokers themselves that they would do anything in order to get their fix. I would argue, along with restaurant and bar owners, that we would rather pay the fines concerning breaches of the smoking law rather than deprive our loyal customers who are smoking of the chance to visit our place. I would argue further that smoking is a very hard habit to kick out, much like addictions to various stuff, like chocolate and sweets, video games, and the such. Having smoking banned does not actually do anything to solve the problem in Bulgaria, as reported by the Sofia Globe. It's not a problem, yes, but it is an irritating fact to go out into the cold to just smoke in the middle of a conversation. My opponent also said that "banning the smoking in those places won't be a reason to make any problems for the smoking industry." Though I said in the first round that smoking a multi-billion dollar industry, I focused on how the tobacco industry is affecting those who work in it, in Bulgaria. There's also a link about the tobacco industry and the restaurants and bars: 85% of the patrons of most of the "public spaces" that my opponent says are smokers. Banning would ultimately deprive the affected business owners of customers, thereby losing money, both on the side of the Bulgarian tobacco industry and some parts of the hospitality industry, along with the deprivation of the "expression of public freedom" from the smokers themselves. If a typical restaurant loses 10 out of twenty crew because of low customer turnout for business, then Bulgaria would find itself with 30,000 young unemployed people. Banning smoking, as we believe to be made clear, would only lead to a detrimental effect to many aspects of the Bulgarian society. To bring more points to the debate, having banning smoke resulted also with the Bulgarian government introducing a staggering tax hike to most cigarettes being sold in Bulgaria. I believe that this would only worsen the situation, because we believe that a tax hike could entail smuggling in Bulgaria and may bankrupt Bulgartabac, whose employees depend on the privatized company for livelihood. Banning smoking in public places in Bulgaria should be reconsidered, and revoked in order for society to function as it is. I rest my case.
Smoking shouldn't be allowed in public places in Bulgaria again.

Thank you for debating. Since this is my first debate I made a mistake by saying public places. I don't know how I had to say it but I meant restaurants, bars, hospitals and any other closed/semi-opened areas. I would like to point out that smoking was made illegal into those places by the ex-government. The new government is trying to legalize that again which is one of the reason for some people to go to the protests against the new government now. I know that people should have freedom but I don't think it is needed to smoke inside closed/semi-opened areas. The smokers can simply leave temporary the restaurant to smoke out their ciggaretes and not harm the people that don't smoke and don't want to breath the smoke. It is not such a problem for a smoker to leave the place to take a small smoke. Even if that made the economy a little bit worse, which I don't believe will happen because banning the smoking in those places won't be a reason to make any problems for the smoking industry. I again say sorry for my mistake. I bet you thought about banning it in parks and other places like that. But if that changed your perspective over this debate I will close the debate if you want. Like I said this is my first debate and I didn't pay much attention when making it and I can't speak english that well so I am really sorry.
Smoking shouldn't be allowed in public places in Bulgaria again.

Good evening. I would rebut my opponent's argument saying that "it's simply bad for the people that don't smoke and come to have a good time," by saying that non-smokers should be aware of the freedom of choice of smokers on the notion of smoking. If that were the case, then having chocolate as harmful to health would instantly result to anti-chocolate protests, even though those protesters (I believe to be 99.9% non-smokers), don't understand is that a life of someone is with his or her own. I would argue that smoking should not, and never be banned in public areas, because of the points like: > They are public. Areas that are public can be used in whatsoever case, like in posting democratic/nationalistic posters, vulgar or thought-provoking graffiti, besides public smoking. Smoking can be said of as an expression of individuality, if not freedom. Having banned smoking in public areas would only lead to believing that the government is against smoking in general, which brings me to my second point. > Smoking is a multi-billion dollar industry. Smokers and non-smokers alike benefit from the industry, because it can be used to fund a lot of things, like schools, infrastructure, and other ways in which society can benefit. Banning smoking in public areas would lead to decreased sales in both the national and international tobacco industry, and can hurt those people working in the industry, including farmers who have depended on selling their tobacco will have to cope with decreased sales; besides general farmers, I would also point out that Pomaks, a Muslim minority in Bulgaria, depends on the crop for cash; banning would ultimately kill the livelihood of these people. Bulgartabac, the state-turned-privatized company, grew 166%, effectively bringing more jobs to the Bulgarian economy. We believe that by banning smoking in public areas would be a detrimental effect to the smokers and those who service them in the tobacco industry, and can be irrevocably linked to the state's economy. I rest my case.
Predestination

Some who preach the doctrine of predestination insist that just because god can see the future has already forseen th evnts that will take place in the future. However, that notion actually undermines god’s wisdom, for it implies that he cannot control his ability to look into the future. To illustrate: If you had a singing voice of unparalleled beauty, would you then have no choice but to sing all the time? The notion is absurd! Likewise, god has the ability to foreknow the future, but he does not use it all the time. To do so might infringe upon our own free will, a precious gift that god will never revoke.Worse yet, the very notion of predestination suggests that god’s wisdom is cold, devoid of heart, feeling, or compassion. But nothing could be further from the truth! The Bible teaches that god is “wise in heart.” [1]Not that he has a literal heart, but the Bible often uses that term in connection with the innermost self, which includes motivations and feelings, such as love. So god’s wisdom, like his other qualities, is governed by love.[2][1] Job 9:4[2] 1 John 4:8
The Dragon Pokemon Type is the Strongest of all Pokemon Types.

I will no post my argument for why the Ghost type Pokémon is the best.First we must understand how the Type works. (What it is good/bad against)Ghost Type2x Effectiveness of attacking moves: Ghost Psychic0.5x Effectiveness of attacking moves: Dark0x Effectiveness of attacking moves: Normal2x Effectiveness defending against a move type: Ghost Dark0.5x Effectiveness defending against a move type: Poison Bug0x Effectiveness defending against a move type: Normal FightingBased on every Pokémon Type Attack, the average type is 2x effective against 2.88 other types of Pokémon.The average 0.5x effectiveness of a certain Type Attack is 3.38 types.The average 0x effectiveness of a certain Type Attack is 0.4 types.Now, the defending type averages:2x defending effectiveness on average is 2.83 types0.5 effectiveness defending type average is 3.16Moves that are do not work against a certain type, 0x effectiveness while defending is 0.44All of those averages are based of the total 18 types of Pokémon and their type strengths and weakness while attacking and defending.Now how does this apply to the Ghost type:Well, it is slightly below average in terms of how strong it is attacking other Pokémon. It is Super effective against 2 other types of Pokémon.However, it is only 'not very effective' against one type, well below average.It has no effect on 1 type of Pokémon, meaning it is above the average.While taking damage from Pokémon attacks, based on their type their are only 2 types of Pokémon that are strong while attacking Ghost type. Below average.Their are 2 types of Pokémon who are 'not very effective' against Ghost, keeping it below the average.The best attribute for Ghost type, 2 types of Pokémon have no effect while attacking. This is highly above average and puts Ghost types at a distinct advantage against other types, especially dragon.The Pokémon Type Chart can be found at: http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...
I think being LBGT is a choice, not genetics.

Proposition: "I think being LBGT is a choice, not genetics." Contention: It is as much of a choice as we have over the color of the car we drive; that is to say we are not given much choice in the matter. Evidently there is not much favor in purple cars which goes far to prove that color choice is genetic as is choice of lifestyle, by this example.
I think being LBGT is a choice, not genetics.

The reason why I think this is simple. Throughout the course of the development of human life, anything that would prevent the reproductive process would be eliminated if it was genetic, solely because it would die out. This especially pertains to Natural Selection and Darwinistic thinking. I believe that it is a choice, just like your favorite color, favorite band, or something similar. This is just my opinion, and I do not mean to be offensive to anyone. Source: