BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Taxation is theft

It is clear that in a democracy the state is representative of the individual. Democracy is the rule of the people, and the budget of a state is therefore the budget of the people. When a leader is elected, the people are indicating that they agree with the priorities of the leader. When you consider the state and the people as one entity - which in a democracy they must be - anything owned by the state is owned by the people, and no tax is actually taken from the people, but is rather re-designated to improve the lives of the whole people rather than only the individual. Besides this, tax is used to improve the life of the individual in public services and security. An individual would not be able to live in a state providing these things without paying taxes. If an individual were not taxed, the money would still be spent on improving the life of the individual, but not to the same effect as a government could provide, as a single person is not capable of constructing roads or maintaining a military for their protection. As my opponent has stated, theft by any definition must be non-consensual. However, freedom of movement is a human right, and people may move from a country if they truly disagree with how the money is being spent. By having citizenship of a nation, an individual is guaranteed all rights and privileges associated with citizenship. Through citizenship, the individual is implicitly accepting both the rights and responsibilities, and is therefore consenting to tax as according to the laws of the nation. Consent is therefore given, and a theft has not occurred.
Taxation is theft

Hello everyone, I am here to argue the well-trodden argument that taxation of a person's labor is tantamount to theft. This is my first time debating on this website, and I would like to test myself and challenge my ideas. I am arguing that taxation of a person's earnings, under threat of government force, is equivalent to theft. Even if the tax dollars were being used purely for strategies that benefit society, forcing the populace to give their earnings to the government without any say is theft, as is any non-consensual transfer of wealth. At the very least, should citizens not be able to choose how their money is spent. I do believe that taxation is of land ownership is legitimate, because owning land uses rivalrous public goods, and thus the community should be compensated. How this tax money is used should, however, not be down to the discretion of the most empowered in society. Even though they are voted for democratically, the decisions they ultimately make may not be representative of wider society. To argue that taxation is legitimized by the democratic election of representatives is also faulty. It would be considered theft if one person took money from someone and used it, regardless of how high-minded and ethical its use. Why should it be okay for an entire population to agree that everyone's money should be given to a cause? If even one person does not consent to this investment, then theft has occurred, under the pretense of legitimate government and social benefit. You can imagine that you were one of 100 people assigned to a group. The group votes that everyone should pitch in some money to build a pool for the group to use. You vote against the proposal, but are subject to the group's decision. The group forces you to hand over the money anyway. Does this not seem like theft? When you consider the fact that the state is armed and endorsed with the power to use violence over others, this seems even more evident to me. As it stands, I can see how taxation can provide benefit to wider society. But I would consider it immoral to force someone to give to charity, and apply the same reasoning to taxation.
Alcohol is a hardcore drug. If you drink alcohol, you are a drug user.

== DRUG USER == Back to one of the core points of my arguments: "If you use alcohol, you are a drug user". I didn"t mean it as simple pedantry or to make a silly point. Like I said early on, I don"t consider having a drink with one"s meal to be tantamount to drug use. Note how I said drug user and not "junkie". I don"t think people who do drugs are automatically junkies. Moderate recreational drinkers aren"t junkies. If you put a psychoactive chemical in your body to alter your mind state, you are ingesting a drug. == RISK SPECTRUM == This is of course arbitrary, but everything carries risk. It"s just a matter of how fatal the risk is and how likely it is to happen. Dying from a vending machine fall isn"t a risk worth worrying about. Dying from heroin injections aren"t risks worth taking. But with drugs like alcohol (legal) and Ketamine (illegal), both are capable of being used in moderation, both are pleasant for the user and both carry serious risks. Not enough risks for people to stop using them but enough risks for people to use them with great care and realize it"s no joke. == FRACTIONS == People have a misconception of how drugs work. They think that in order for a drug to be hardcore, most users have to get seriously hurt. So, when we see alcohol, we think it"s different than most drugs when it"s really not. Heroin is arguably the most harrowing drug imaginable, and the addiction rate is only about 23% (according to drugabuse.gov). That means three quarters of people who use heroin will be fine. That doesn't mean it isn't hardcore. The fact that the majority of people who use alcohol will be safe doesn"t convince me that it"s a low-lethality drug like caffeine or marijuana. == LANGUAGE IMPLICATIONS == As a corollary of my argument, I"ll say that casual users who drink for recreation are consuming a hardcore drug. It doesn"t mean they"re reckless irresponsible people. Lots of things are hardcore. Doesn"t mean you can"t do them safely and responsibly. == SOCIETAL RISK == Before we get into the "cars and guns kill people too" discussion, I"m not asking to prohibit alcohol. I"m not even asking that we demonize alcohol. I ask is that we acknowledge that the majority of legal drugs are less fatal and toxic than alcohol. I ask that if you have two sons, one of them is drinking with his buddies and the other is eating magic mushroom with his buddies, you don"t say "Okay have fun " don"t get too drunk" to one and "No! Are you crazy? Don"t do drugs!!!" to the other.
Alcohol is a hardcore drug. If you drink alcohol, you are a drug user.

Drugs don"t exist in a legal/healthy and illegal/unhealthy binary. It"s a spectrum. Marijuana and caffeine might be a 2/10 in harm. MDMA might be a 5. Heroin and Crack might be a 10/10 in harm. Alcohol would probably be an 8. By hardcore drug, I simply mean the risk that it carries. Most people are fine, but a fraction of the users are in serious danger. Drugs like PCP are used moderately at raves just fine (and work fine for most users), but I wouldn"t call them "light". Likewise with alcohol. Although, alcohol carries a societal risk. Drunks often get physically active into fights and into cars for that matter. I'm more afraid of what an alcoholic might do to innocent people than what some star-gazing LSD hippie would do. When employers, teachers and programs like DARE say "Drug A kills many people, so don"t do it" but also say "Drug B kills many people, but try to moderate it", it"s a very mixed message. I'm not saying don't do alcohol ever. I'm saying, it's very dangerous, be really careful and be aware of the risks. And for god's sakes, stop demonizing people who use other drugs - because they're no more stupid or reckless than people who get drunk at keg parties. I'm also saying, don't be afraid of things like skydiving and bungee jumping either, if they're less risky than alcohol. Counter-arguments: I agree cars and cigarettes are deadly too, but it doesn"t oppose my point that alcohol is a hardcore drug. With nicotine, at least, you are functional, able to work, drive and carry out other tasks. Alcohol? Nope. Your other comparisons (like CO2 and factory work) aren"t even relevant to the subject. Snowboarding down Mount Everest isn"t a hardcore drug because it isn"t a drug period. Duh. Lol. Minimal amounts of most drugs (heroin for example) won"t impair you. It doesn"t mean they aren"t hardcore. My point about alcohol being a date-rape drug, is that it would be an unacceptable property for a designer drug to have (Fox News would be all over it), but alcohol gets away with it. I"m just saying, if almost every single prescription warning (and not just a few) says a combo with alcohol is risky, then isn"t alcohol the problem really? They"re not actively warning you to avoid caffeine or Robitussin. As for dosing, drugs don"t come in "snort" and "shot" units. Their weighed into milligrams and taken at precise doses. Comparing someone"s line of cocaine to your 1 beer isn"t analogous. It"s like saying cookies are worse than sandwich because 200 of them will do more damage to you than 1 sandwich.
Alcohol is a hardcore drug. If you drink alcohol, you are a drug user.

An exception can be made for someone who has a drink with their meal on occasion. But when you're drinking to "have fun" or "unwind", it's not much different than snorting something like PCP to unwind. If it's taboo for a restaurant to serve you a Vicodin with your meal, it should be taboo for a restaurant to serve you alcohol with your meal. If it's taboo to have a social event on every street corner entirely based around the consumption of marijuana, it should be the same for alcohol. When 1 person at a rave dies from MDMA/ecstacy, it makes news as a hardcore drug but when thousands of people die from alcohol, it's tolerated (because of tradition) Alcohol: * Has no currently accepted medical use * Has a high potential for abuse and addiction * Is neurotoxic ; It kills brain cells * Kills 6 Americans each day via overdose * Kills 10,000 Americans each year via car accidents * Can kill their user in their sleep via vomit/suffocation * Makes people crazy, violent and aggressive * Is the cornerstone of child abuse, domestic abuse and homelessness * Heavily impairs coordination and judgment * Is a date-rape drug, aiding in many college campus rapes * Increases risk of cancer, heart disease, stroke, seizure, nerve system damage * Increases health risks when mixed with almost any drug/medication And people are okay with it. If a new designer drug came out with all of these properties, no matter how "fun" or "relaxing it is", it would be condemned in an instant. It would be seen as deadlier than all drugs except for meth/heroin/crack. But alcohol gets a pass because of tradition.
The Boston Celtics will win the NBA finals.

You have failed to respond to any of my arguments about other teams or the playoffs themselves. Every round I get arguments about how great the Celtics are. I realize your a big fan, but the fact is that any team can look good against terrible teams. You haven't responded to the fact that the Celtics schedule is soft. The fact that the Celtics are losing close games is a BAD thing. Why should a supposedly great team be losing nailbitiers to cellar-dwellars? The Celtics split with the Pistons and have had trouble with other teams in the East, as you mentioned. We are only half way through the season and the C's are starting to struggle against the few good teams that they play. At this point, claiming Boston as the heir-apparent to the championship is a bit lofty as they are struggling to beat their own inferior conference. In the event they get out of the East, Boston hasn't played the great teams of the better West. If you are starting to struggle against teams like Charlotte, how do you claim to be able to beat teams like Phoenix? The fact is, Boston's record is due to their soft schedule. They are certainly a good team. But, as they start to show weakness in their own conference, how can they possibly win the whole thing?
The Boston Celtics will win the NBA finals.

Wingnut, I'd like to start off first with your closing comment concerning that "teams are starting to figure them (the Celtics) out, as we saw last week." Yes, the Celtics lost back to back games against the Wizards. Maybe the Wizards have figured out the Celtics gameplan to a point. Since then it seems to only be Washington who have begun to "figure them out", as since then they have won 3 straight games, each on an average of 17.6 points, starting it off by defeating the Portland Trail Blazers, who have been the hottest team in basketball in recent weeks. Going back to Washington seemingly opening a hole in Boston's gameplan, The C's and the Wiz don't meet again until April 9th. By then, gameplans can be changed. If Doc Rivers or any of Boston's coaching staff saw problems, they would be abruptly fixed. No cause for alarm yet. Let's take a look at Boston's six losses; only one has come by a margin in double digits, a 12 point loss to Charlotte. Boston loses a game on an average of 6.6 points. This shows that when the Celtics struggle, they keep their struggles tight and to the end. The Celtics never let up nor give up, not until the final buzzer sounds. With that attitude and momentum carrying into the emotion-filled postseason, its going to take a lot to deny a team like the Celtics. Furthermore, the Celtics team chemistry is impeccable. Let's take a look at the NBA Finals last year; the superior play of Cleveland Cavaliers superstar LeBron James against the combined forces of Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, Bruce Bowen, and Michael Finley. Sure, the Cavaliers had other players. But when you look deep down into it, LeBron made up every vital organ of that team, right down from the brain to the kidneys. Boston not only has three all stars in their starting lineup, but young and veteran players alike that are on the same page, a telekinetic connection shared in each of their minds. Each of the Celtics players is a key one, and when each and every key comes together as one giant key, it opens the door to the NBA Finals, and, 4-7 games later, an NBA Championship.
The Boston Celtics will win the NBA finals.

First, about the West. The West IS BETTER. The west teams have dominated the inter-conference meetings during the regular season and the finals for the years reaching back to the Bulls dynasty. The Celts look good against the West because they haven't played any of the good teams yet. The best team they have played in the West is the Lakers, who are struggling to get into playoff contention. This means they are unproven against difficult opponents. Based on their struggles with inferior teams like the Wizards, we can suppose that the C's would struggle with lofty teams like the Mavs. You miss the divisional argument. I'm saying that the terrible division the C's play in makes their record look more bloated than it is. Its easy to have a great record against terrible teams and the C's are surrounded by them. On the contrary, it takes only one team to send you home. Chances are the C's are going to meet the Wizards in the playoffs. Based on what we have seen this season, that means the C's wouldn't even reach the finals. The Celtics may be a good team, but they have split with Detroit and have a losing record against the Wizards, meaning that they could not even reach the finals. If they do, Boston will face teams that they haven't seen before, like Dallas and Phoenix. The playoffs are four rounds deep and it looks like the Celtics will struggle in every one. Remember how unbeatable the Mavs were supposed to be last year, with their awesome record? They lost in the first round to the eigth seed. It looks like Boston is taking a page out of their book. They have a weak schedule and teams are starting to figure them out, as we saw last week.
The Boston Celtics will win the NBA finals.

Yes, wingnut2280, the Western Conference is hyped up to be, as you said, "Head and shoulders harder" than the Eastern Conference. But the Celtics, as I had stated earlier, have an undefeated record so far against the Western Conference, thus likely predicting the dominance they shall bring to their Western challenger in the NBA finals. While the Celtics' division may not be the toughest collaboration of teams to face up against, those teams will not be a large factor against them in the playoffs, as they will stack up against tougher teams, such as the Detriot Pistons and Washigton Wizards. Speaking of the Washington Wizards, yes, they gave the Celtics back-to-back losses. And so far, they have been the only team in the league to somewhat crack leaks in Boston's well-oiled machine. However, it's going to take more than just one team to stop the C's. So the C's have their occasional off day. Their performance, however, when they're not having an off day, is phenomenal. The Celtics have no room for mediocrety-in their own team and in others.
The Boston Celtics will win the NBA finals.

While records do indicate that Boston is a great team. I don't think they will make it out of the East, let alone win an NBA title. Yes, they are a turnaround team. Yes, they have the best record. But, none of this is reason to believe that they will win. First, their record is falsely lofty. There early season schedule was loaded with teams like Charlotte, Miami, and the Knicks. There division is one of the easiest in the league as well. The reason their record is better than the Suns is because the West is heads and shoulders harder than the East. The Celtics have yet to play anyone significant in the West. While their dominance against these teams early was apparent, the Celtics spent last week losing to those Wizards twice in two days and losing to the lowly Charlotte Bobcats. While the have made a great turnaround and their potential is there, the Celtics have had an easy schedule, split with the Pistons, and have showed weakness lately.
The Boston Celtics will win the NBA finals.

The Boston Celtics have been the biggest turnaround in NBA history in recent years. After a dismal 24-58 season, and a disappointing 5th pick in the upcoming NBA draft, everyone seemed to have lost faith in Boston-except for one man, fearless GM Danny Ainge. June 28th rolled around, and after selecting Florida's standout forward Jeff Green, Ainge shipped him off to Seattle along with Delonte West and Wally Szczerbiak, for 7-time All-Star and 3 Point Specialist, Ray Allen, and the 35th pick in the draft, where Boston selected LSU Standout "Big Baby" Glen Davis. Even then, Boston was considered to be a contender in the Eastern Conference. A month and 3 days later, without breaking a sweat, Ainge pulled off the largest trade in NBA history for a single player, shipping off Al Jefferson, Ryan Gomes, Theo Ratliff, Gerald Green, Sebastian Telfair, Boston's 2009 first-round draft pick, and a previously obtained first round pick in 2006 to the Minnesota Timberwolves, for 6 foot 11 behemoth Kevin Garnett. Even then, even after Ainge had built around the team with veteran players such as Eddie House and James Posey, even then sportswriters seemed to question the potential of Boston's new Big 3. Then came Friday, November 2nd, 2007, and the doubters were silenced. The C's steamrolled over the Washington Wizards in TD Banknorth Garden by the score of 103-83. KG got a double-double, and Pierce and Allen combined for 45 points. Boston went on to win their next 8 games, starting the season at 9-0. As of January 19th, 2008, the C's are 32-6, with an 18-3 record at home, a 14-3 on the road, 9-0 in their division, 21-6 in the Eastern Conference, and 11-0-yes, 11-0, undefeated, against the Western Conference. They have a comfortable lead at the top of the Eastern Conference standings, with the #2 ranked Detriot Pistons trailing them by 4 games. In the Western Conference, they stack up with their #1 contender, the Phoenix Suns, with a lead of 5 games. All in all, the Big 3 is the formula for championships, and for many to come. See anyone else in the NBA with a Big 3 like KG, Ray Allen and Paul Pierce, with this kind of bond, this kind of chemistry, this kind of talent? I dont think so.
My opponent picks the potential topic.

"2nd round-Pro Argument & selection of topic. I will provide a confirmed topic here, define the topic and supply my arguments as necessary. My side (pro/con) will also be clearly stated here. Please cite all research and arguments. Please provide evidence for all arguments. " "Failure to follow the rules and format stated above results in a full 7-point forfeit to the opposing team. " My opponent has failed to follow his own structure and should be docked 7 points a consequence of doing do as he stated he should. However, I wish to show my opponent mercy and let the debate proceed if he takes on the following resolution. My opponent will be con for this resolution. Involuntary Slavery Should be Illegal. Definitions Slave: noun A person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant. . http://m.dictionary.com... Slavery: The keeping of slaves as a practice or institution. . http://m.dictionary.com... Involuntary: Not voluntary; independent of one's will; not by one's own choice: an involuntary listener; involuntary servitude. . http://m.dictionary.com... Illegal: Forbidden by law or statute. . http://m.dictionary.com...
My opponent picks the potential topic.

Here are the ten topics. 1. Being immortal is beneficial. 2. Industrial Age technology should be banned. 3. Animals shouldn't be exposed to cruelty. 4. Cats are evil. 5. Women should be allowed to expose their breasts in public. 6. Year round education. 7. Spanking your own children. 8. Affirmative action. 9. Porn should be illegal. 10. Slavery should be illegal.
My opponent picks the potential topic.

Welcome to the debate. This is a special debate, with special formats as follows.FORMAT1st round-Pro Introduce the parametersSelf-explanatory1st round-Con Provide the possible argumentsProvide ten possible topics for me to choose from. Do NOT try to define or explain the arguments, as I can interpret the arguments any way I wish. Anything here should only be greetings or topics. I decide which side I wish to be, IGNORE the fact that debate.org says that I'm pro. The debate topics have to be somewhat different, to prevent ten rewording of a single topic. I can change the topic you provide slightly as well for the debate to be a fun experience. A good example of a topic is 'bottled water should be banned' while the topic 'books' should At the start of round 2 I will underline and bold the confirmed topic. 2nd round-Pro Argument & selection of topic.I will provide a confirmed topic here, define the topic and supply my arguments as necessary. My side (pro/con) will also be clearly stated here. Please cite all research and arguments. Please provide evidence for all arguments.2nd round-Con Argument & Rebuttal.Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments.3rd round-Pro Argument & Rebuttal.Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments.3rd round-Con Argument & Rebuttal.Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments.4th round-Pro Argument & Rebuttal.Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments.4th round-Con Argument & Rebuttal.Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments. 5th round-Pro Conclusion & Rebuttal.Rebut arguments and provide a conclusion in this round. No new arguments.5th round-Con Conclusion & Rebuttal.Rebut arguments and provide a conclusion in this round. No new arguments.No abusive language please. The topics that con picks should not be abusive. The topic has to be debatable worldwide. "My opponent picks the topic." is only a placeholder for real topic, so you may NOT post "I am not posting any topics, therefore I win" or something along those lines. Also, please post topics that are easy to debate on both sides.Failure to follow the rules and format stated above results in a full 7-point forfeit to the opposing team.PLEASE READ THE FORMAT AND RULES.I hope we have a good debate. Time limit for each argument: 1 day.Character limit: 3000Thank you.