BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Need of Information

First off, let’s look which side is the real idealistic one. The opposition claims the effectiveness of Guantanamo Bay through the information the United States can get from questioning the detainees. However, they have completely missed out the realistic part of the story. Military reports admit that prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have been thrown or dropped on the ground or thrown against walls as a mean of physical abuse, which have been further clarified in our first contention. Sadly enough, the conditions in Guantanamo Bay are not as smooth as the opposition assumes, and therefore the true reality of Guantanamo Bay would go towards the proposition side. Now the real issue kicks in whether those ‘tortures’ that are unbearable for the detainees at the camp are even effective at all. "Torture during interrogations rarely yields better information than traditional human intelligence, partly because no one has figured out a precise, reliable way to break human beings or any adequate method to evaluate whether what prisoners say when they do talk is true," Rejali wrote in a 2004 article on Salon.com. [[http://goo.gl/E4DZO]] Therefore, although the opposition tries to put Guantanamo Bay as a great place to extract information from detainees and secure the world from terrorism, it is no better than another prison of deadly tortures that don’t even work as effective. Yet another issue exists whereas innocent people are held. “Documents from CIA revealed that 150 Guantanamo Bay prisoners were innocent but the US government kept them locked up for years anyway, The Daily Record informs.” [[http://goo.gl/vgWi0]] Realistically, when tortures don’t even work on guilty detainees, what can the US government get from innocent prisoners? Opposition has put forward some stories of prevented terrorist attacks from Guantanamo Bay but the results compared to the efforts through deadly tortures are not even comparable.
Shift of the Problem

First, putting detainees in harsh conditions is better than anything else. “Muhammed al-Qahtani, alleged to have been implicated in the September 11 plot, was physically and mentally mistreated. For six weeks, he was intentionally deprived of sleep, and subject to sexual and other physical humiliation.” [[http://goo.gl/2T67J]] Thus opp has completely overlooked all possibilities when they stated we have no guarantee that violations would end through closing the GB. With all these possible threats to lives of detainees, how can we assert that the situation is changing and already is better? Second, they stated that closure of GB causes opening of new facilities. But we want to state that CIA institution have the same effect as the GB, which is under the US gov’t control. Both of these prisons use the same tactic but just try to hide it in different ways, which also proves that US gov’t is willing to have private prisons. This shows that it lacks transparency thus more encouraged to violate more human rights in GB, which we already stated in our first contention. The representative of democracy is formed when population is acquired in decision making. However since these actions are unwanted by the majority, the gov’t is undermining the meaningful transparency since there are no liberties, inspections nor have protection of human rights in their country. Since US promotes a global image as a democracy country, it hurts its international relation which will be expanded on in our 4th contention. Lastly, opp has already acknowledged that unpleasant events are occurring at that time, but we should appreciate even the fact that it is ‘transparent’. However this point surrenders the rest of their other points because they have admitted that human violation is occurring in GB which links to our first contention. Although in their earlier contentions, they stated that the conditions are getting bettter and how rights are protected.
People have a right to pass on the money they earned through hard work

If that were true we'd have no justification for tax of any kind. The fact is that the state already pilfers people's hard earned pennies for its nefarious ends including via the current inheritance tax system. How is a 100% tax any less morally justified than a 40% tax? Your argument seems to protect hard-earned money but not easy-earned money. In the case of inheritance, hard-earned money transforms into easy-earned money, which your argument does not claim to protect. So, nabbing the dough at the transition point or just slightly after (but before it reaches the pocket of the child) is allowable by your own argument. Further, this argument requires judgment about how hard someone worked to gain money that he legally owns.
It would have unintended consequences

There is no empirical evidence as to what, if any, the unintended consequences might be. As older people empirically tend to be more risk averse than the population, it may be more likely that they do not in fact change their savings behaviour. For this reason, a gradual increase in order to have time to empirically test for and devise policies to counter any unintended consequences would be adviseable. Equally the implementation of any sharp increase in inheritance tax to future generations should go hand in hand with an equivilent increase in gift tax. However, if there were unwanted consequences, these should serve as a deterrent to those who would otherwise cheat the process by gifting their family with their wealth while they live.
It's better than income tax

This is plainly not true. If you were taxed all of your wealth after death then what would be the point in saving? People would no longer invest money into bank accounts in order for their children to benefit. A lot of people say they are just a stepping stone for their children, and if nothing could be left for them financially, they would not work as hard. They would only want to earn what they could reasonably spend. In the current recession that we are in, we need people to invest ion banks. If everyone withdrew their savings to spend whilst they were alive, our credit crunch would be a lot more dramatic and disastrous. Inheritance tax, like income tax, reduces the incentive for people to work and save. It increases their incentive to spend as they approach old age.
Would promote getting money into the economh

If people knew that their savings were not going to go to their children and would instead go to tax then they would be less inclined to save it in the first place. Instead they would be out enjoying it and spending it which would help the economy. Rather than passing it on to their children, who leave it in the bank to pass on to their children and so forth... This would then mean that there be more money moving around the economy which in turn would mean more jobs for everyone's children. So greater enjoyment for parents, and a better economy.
It would have unintended consequences

Think about it. If you know that when you die, 100% of your estate will pass to the state in taxes, and none will be left over to give to your family, friends or chosen charities, that is very likely to change your behaviour in one of 2 ways: You might try your hardest to spend all your money while you're alive - leading to irresponsible / unnecessary spending behaviour to the very limit of one's resources, and an increase in destitution among older people who get the calculations wrong and live longer than they expected. Alternatively you might feel a strong sense of duty to gift your life savings to your children before you die, so that your children receive something rather than nothing. This could backfire on older people who are disappointed in their expectation that the children to whom they've just donated their life savings will be responsible enough to repay the favour and look after them. It could also cause great feelings of guilt in those elderly people who don't want to donate to their children during their life. At best, it just shifts the problem of 'unearned wealth' being inherited during the life of the giver rather than after their death. You may think inheritance tax should be higher but it shouldn't be too high or it will change behaviour in the period before death in unwanted ways.
It's better than income tax

Ultimately income tax can only achieve a certain level of equality. If you tax people too much you disincentivise working hard and the economy collapses. Taxing people after they are dead is somewhat less of a disincentive to them working hard whilst they are living. Gradually increasing inheritance tax (ultimately to 100% if successful) would reduce the amount of money available to buy real estate and so make housing more affordable on average. It would also make it possible to reduce income tax (or at least avoid any need to raise income tax). If people wish to pass their home to anyone (e.g. an adult child carer), they could make that person joint owner.
Hard to get round

Admittedly there are lots of other ways to pass on inequality to children, pay for them to go to Eton, drip feed them cash while you're still alive or simply set them up with contacts in your chosen field. But the most effective remains to leave them a lump sum of cash when you die, this simply prevents that. Furthermore we already have plenty of clever ways to stop people evading the current 40% tax, we simply need to extend them. You also can't emmigrate to avoid the tax, everyone born in the UK gets hit. That's perfectly possible, US emmigrants still have to pay income tax to the US government, this would work in the same way. Admittedly leaving the country before you have children prevents them getting hit, but does anyone honestly have the foresight to emmigrate in order to decrease their deceased future children's tax liabilities. I thought not.
Meritocracy is good

Many parents earn money just for their children. continuing a happy, healthy family is nature. Once the money is made by whichever member/s of the family if becomes the money of the family as a whole. Let's says for example a wife and a husband have a family. The husband, in this case, makes 100% of the money while the wife looks after home affairs. Does the fact the the wife has not earned the money mean she does not have a right to have and use it? This can be applied to parents and children. The family earns money as a whole. If certain parents think that this is not how their family works or should work then they can write their children out of their wills.
Destroys incentive to work

99% of parents who work in older life do not do it to produce money for the heirs and any parent or millionare who does work in there old age to give it to spoilt children is surely a bad thing. This destroys there childrens incentive to work and become a part of a healthy active society by understanding the value of money. Most doctors work as doctors because they like helping people and entrepenures because they like making money, if you did an economic regression, i think you would find most millionaires and billionaires make money because they enjoy it, not for there children, especialy self-made ones. Secondly if people did retire early its because they have earnt the right to do so and therefore have contributed to society so why is it a negative thing? To add to the above argument, there is plenty of unemployment at the moment, and jobs are sought for. If those who already have enough to survive quit their jobs, they make a place for somebody in greater need of work. Losing incentive to work, if you already have enough, needn't necessarily be a bad thing.
Better to Collect from the Dead than from the Living

It is better to collect from the dead yes. But its not just the dead. What about the families left behind. The kid who wants the family home. Its hard enough for young people today to buy property. Its almost impossible. And then suddenly they can't inherit? Also the above point. Why should the stay at home partner, the one who raised the kids and supported the working partner be cut out the loop? If it was just collecting from the dead then I would understand, but its not and it only would be in the rare cases.
Meritocracy is good

Hopefully most people would agree that a society where you have to work hard to earn money is better than one where you can inherit it from mummy and daddy. The first reason for this is a simple question of rights to wealth, how can someone hold the right to wealth that they did not create. Many people criticise the idea that members of the royal family gain social status and wealth without any personal merit, surely this is the same thing? Secondly this creates an incentive to earn. Relying on inherited income from parents is impossible, which incentivises even the richest in society to work hard and be a productive member of society. It's objectionable to see well-educated, well-brought-up people who can't be bothered to work, because they don't need to.
More tax money would be nice

OK, some people don't like big government, but everyone likes not getting MRSA when they visit an NHS hospital. Likewise better schooling, transport, cuts in existing taxes even more nukes to fend off the commies if that's what floats your boat. Please note that the title of this debate is 'inheritance tax' not income tax. I agree that 100% income tax would be insane, since there would be no incentive for anyone to earn money. Money earned from a 100% inheritance tax would always be less year on year than that earned from current taxes, that means a 100% inheritance tax does not require raising the overall level of tax.
Corruption is one of the most damaging elements in politics, as it involves a democratically elected...

On the contrary, state funding, with its lack of transparency to the average voter, actually encourages corruption by its complex nature. At the moment, French politics is engulfed in controversy over sleaze despite partial state funding, and British campaign spending limits are always ignored in practice. In the real world, groups will always find a way to influence politicians amenable to corruption, by secret donations to offshore accounts, or by setting up ‘research’ funds for specific concerns.
Corruption is one of the most damaging elements in politics, as it involves a democratically elected...

Corruption is one of the most damaging elements in politics, as it involves a democratically elected representative serving his own interests rather than those of the people he was elected to serve. Sleaze brought down Major’s government, and the Ecclestone affair damaged Blair’s credibility immensely (Blair exempted Formula 1 racing from a ban on tobacco advertising. It was later revealed that Bernie Ecclestone, the Formula 1 boss, had donated 1 million to the Labour party). With state funding of political parties, perhaps proportional o average opinion poll ratings, the potential for corruption would be reduced.
At the moment, the amount of money needed to run a successful election campaign prevents new parties...

Why should parties be funded out of the public purse when there are so many other pressing concerns, such as education and healthcare ? Why should our taxes go to parties whose policies we may not support, and who we certainly will not vote for ? Indeed, if money is being given to any party that meets a threshold of support, this will mean nationalist and extremist parties being funded by a majority who despise their views. Besides, if parties are removed from the necessity of having to raise funds, they will become more unrepresentative and more detached from the day to day political realities. The artificial level to qualify for funding makes a false distinction between the spectrum of smaller parties that exist today, and gives some disproportionate influence.
At the moment, the amount of money needed to run a successful election campaign prevents new parties...

At the moment, the amount of money needed to run a successful election campaign prevents new parties, or smaller parties, even exerting their small proportion of influence on the outcome. Smaller parties are a vital part of a democracy, as they ensure that a complete spectrum of opinions is represented. The fact that the need for wealthy backers excludes them is unfair and unrepresentative; there has been many complaints about the way Lord Ashcroft is seen as one man bankrolling the Conservative party from his private fortunes, and thus exerting a disproportionate influence on politics. State funding provides a level playing field.
Why should parties be funded out of the public purse when there are so many other pressing concerns,...

It is a right for anyone to be able to make a donation to a cause they strongly believe in, and to curtail this right is to curtail liberty. State funding removes thus right, and places it with unaccountable civil servants on funding committees, who set the levels at which support will be given. These are the people who decide who big a party must be to qualify for funding, and the Proposition has simply shifted responsibility away from the public to an elite. It should be the right of any individual to lend support any party he chooses
Why should parties be funded out of the public purse when there are so many other pressing concerns,...

Why should parties be funded out of the public purse when there are so many other pressing concerns, such as education and healthcare ? Why should our taxes go to parties whose policies we may not support, and who we certainly will not vote for ? Indeed, if money is being given to any party that meets a threshold of support, this will mean nationalist and extremist parties being funded by a majority who despise their views. Besides, if parties are removed from the necessity of having to raise funds, they will become more unrepresentative and more detached from the day to day political realities. The artificial level to qualify for funding makes a false distinction between the spectrum of smaller parties that exist today, and gives some disproportionate influence.
School doesn't cater to everyone's strengths

The current educational system is not suited to everyone.Only a specific set of skills or talents prominent in some students are developed(e.g analytical and mathematical skills). In the process a whole lot of other students with other skills or talents are neglected.Fact is some learn better inn a classroom while some are made for more practical or artistic work.So,instead of allowing those with diverse talents waste away due to neglect and frustration,they should just be allowed to leave.Some are actually a lot smarter than highschool level.
However, it should be hard to dropout.

i think that people have situations where they need to drop out of high school because of personal matters or maybe they have something else they want to pursue. I think that these people should definitely be allowed to dropout of high school. However i do think that those kids that just dropout because they are lazy and dont want to work but dont want to go to summer school. They just want to dropout to not put up with the hassle of school. Those people should stay in school. They are obviously going to not do any better outside of school, in fact some will do worse. So i think we should give them a chance to turn around and change and save themselves so they wont regret it. So i propose that we have the guidance counsler determine the dropouts along with the principal and the candidate that wants to dropout must have a valid reason and a bunch of back up points to their reason, therefore only the people that need or really want the dropout get it and not just all the lazy kids in high school.
True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty. As our Nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness. We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. "Necessitous men are not free men." People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made. Franklin D. Roosevelt. State of the Union Message to Congress, 11 Jan 1944. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=16518#axzz1uxaxGgw4
Studies show that with a larger gap, there are more social problems

It is not surprising, then, that during the last bubble (from 2002 to 2006) the top 1 percent of Americans - paid mainly from the Wall Street casino - received two-thirds of the gain in national income, while the bottom 90 percent - mainly dependent on Main Street's shrinking economy - got only 12 percent. This growing wealth gap is not the market's fault. It's the decaying fruit of bad economic policy. Why concern ourselves with economic inequality, though? Speaking generally, Wilkinson and Pickett, in their recent book The Spirit Level, show that, globally, income inequality corresponds strongly with a range of societal ills. By creating an index of these societal problems, such as crime rates, and measuring them against income inequality, the authors find that nations with higher income inequality have the greatest prevalence of these social ills. Raymond H. Brescia. The Cost of Inequality: Social Distance, Predatory Conduct, and the Financial Crisis. New York University Annual Survey of American Law: 2011.
Economic inequality caused the great depression

But what relationship, if any, does economic inequality have with financial crises? In his seminal work on the Great Depression, Galbraith pointed to the severe income inequality in the United States - what he called the "bad distribution of income" - as one of the five "weaknesses" in the economy that "had an especially intimate bearing on the ensuing disaster. In 1929 the rich were indubitably rich. The figures are not entirely satisfactory, but it seems certain that the 5 per cent of the population with the highest incomes in that year received approximately one third of all personal income. The proportion of personal income received in the form of interest, dividends, and rent - the income, broadly speaking, of the well-to-do - was about twice as great as in the years following the Second World War. Raymond H. Brescia. The Cost of Inequality: Social Distance, Predatory Conduct, and the Financial Crisis. New York University Annual Survey of American Law: 2011.
The Rich Poor Gap Silences the Political Voice of the Poor

Research has also demonstrated a connection between economic inequality and political voice. The political process is far more responsive to the claims of the privileged, and the privileged are far better organized and engaged in the political process than are less affluent citizens. Recent studies show that government officials are far more likely to support the policy preferences of the wealthy than those of the poor. In short, there is considerable evidence to suggest that there is a growing divide between those who have wealth and political influence and those who do not. Yasmin Dawood, THE NEW INEQUALITY: CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY AND THE PROBLEM OF WEALTH, Maryland Law Review: 2007. Lexis-Nexis Databases.