BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Make Income Tax Rates Flat

I believe that a flat income tax rate would help the overall economy and is fairer for everybody. Let's set some terms before we begin. Rules: 1) No trolling or insults. 2) If you forfeit, you automatically lose. 3) You don't have to cite sources for common knowledge, although it would be preferred. If something is not common knowledge, cite it. A general rule of thumb is that something is "common knowledge" if you can find it in three or more sources. Debate period: Round 1: Just greetings and acceptance. Round 2: Main arguments (no rebuttals yet). Round 3: More arguments, rebuttals, counterarguments. Round 4: More arguments, rebuttals, counterarguments. Round 5: Conclusion of argument.
Smoking in Public Areas Should Be Banned

The opposition has forfeited last round, and has failed to come up with any arguments against this case. The proposition stands by its arguments that smoking in public areas should be banned. Non-smokers who are passing by actual smokers become just as much at risk when inhaling the air around smokers. When smokers do this around public areas such as schools, malls, and on public transit, it becomes impossible for non-smokers to avoid inhaling carcinogens caused by smoking. This is extremely unfair to non-smokers, and is violating their basic freedoms as human beings. This is called "second-hand smoking" and is becoming increasingly prevalent, with thousands of people dying from cancer caused by second-hand smoking every year. For more detail on the stats on this, or for more information about second-hand smoking, please refer to my arguments and sources in Round 2. Thank you.
Smoking in Public Areas Should Be Banned

Smoking in public areas should be banned. There are a number of reasons for this: 1. Second-hand smoking (inhalation of fumes from someone else's smoking). 2. Discourages people from walking in certain areas (ex: discourages people from walking near certain areas at public malls). 3. The banning would encourage smokers to quit by reducing the amount of places they can smoke. I will get further into these points as the debate progresses, but I just wanted to make sure not to intimidate anybody with a wall of text. For now, these points should serve their purpose at summarizing my arguments.
The Bible does not support the idea of a closed canon of scripture

Resolve: The Bible does not support the idea of a closed canon of scripture. Time to argue: 72 hours Argument max: 10,000 Characters Definitions: 1: Bible: "the collection of sacred writings of the Christian religion, comprising the Old and New Testaments."(1) 2: Canon: "an authoritative list of books accepted as Holy Scripture."(2) Pro will argue in favor of the resolution. Con will argue that the Bible supports a closed canon Format as follows: Round 1: Acceptance and a brief statement of position. (no more than 100 words.) Round 2/3: Arguments and Rebuttals. Round 4: Rebuttals and closing statements. (No new arguments.) This debate is intended to be serious, please no trolling. Good luck to whomever accepts. Brief Opening Statement There are many Christens today who say "A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible."(3) It has become the dominant belief in Christianity that the Bible constitutes a closed canon of God's word. I will show that the Bible does not support the idea of a closed canon of scripture. (1)http://dictionary.reference.com... (2)http://www.merriam-webster.com... (3)https://www.lds.org...
The Bible does not support the idea of a closed canon of scripture

I repeat my "Round 2 argument.", The Bible IS the current accumulation of Bibical scriptures cannoned by the Catholic and then Christian church. Bible is not a term designated to holy scriptures, but instead to this very Book, and nothing else. There is no indication hat the Bible is sacred or holy or blessed in omnipotency as God's word. And thus the debate has been founded on a disputable principal, "that the Bible was intended to be The Bible and not more or less. meaning, the Bible, which is intended to be as such, in itself supports the claim that it can not be an Open cannon. It would thus be the "Bible + some", or "some + the scriptures." However I agree that holy texts should be in continual accumulation and inspection. The Bible is not indicated within itself saying, "The Bible is holy, sacred or true." . However much I believe in the Bible, which I do; The Bible is as I indicated in round 2, The current cannon of Scriptures. The Bible was not the Bible prior to the new testament*** nor would it be the Bible if it were expanded, for if this were to happen, then the Past generation were not reading the Bible and you would have high-jacked the term from them unto a blasphemers end. Please forgive me for missing my last round, and explaining my 2nd Round point more thoroughly here and now.
The Bible does not support the idea of a closed canon of scripture

Extended arguments "The belief of a closed canon of scripture is not found in the Bible. The Bible contains zero references to God saying that his words and revelations and interaction with men would stop. In fact the Bible does contain instructions on how to distinguish true prophets/revelation from false. This implies the idea of continued revelation. The Christian world has no reason to accept the idea of a closed canon of scripture. This doctrine should be dismissed by Christians. " My opponents comments did not address the resolution.
The Bible does not support the idea of a closed canon of scripture

Con says "The Bible is not a term used to describe Holy scriptures. It is a term which is defined and described as the current cannon of scriptures." I resubmit the definition presented in round one for Bible. "the collection of sacred writings of the Christian religion, comprising the Old and New Testaments."(1) Con says "Many bishops and Popes, and disciples have added to the philosophy and message of Christianity." I agree with this statement. Con says "Because the Bible is a closed Cannon." Again I resubmit a quote used early in the debate. "Of the entire corpus of 5,366 known Greek New Testament manuscripts, only 35 contain the whole New Testament as we now know it, and 34 of those were compiled after A.D. 1000."(2) Cons comments do not seem to be directed at the resolution which reads "The Bible does not support the idea of a closed canon of scripture." Therefore the resolution stands. (1) http://dictionary.reference.com... (2) https://www.lds.org...
The Bible does not support the idea of a closed canon of scripture

Thank you Kasmic. When discussing the book of Revelations. I do agree. The Book of revelations is likely only making reference to itself. I have never been in the belief it was a reference to the entire Cannon, and in fact have argued with is with devote Christians. However. The Bible is not a term used to describe Holy scriptures. It is a term which is defined and described as the current cannon of scriptures. Many bishops and Popes, and disciples have added to the philosophy and message of Christianity. These things were accepted. But they are not biblical. Because the Bible is a closed Cannon. Anything added to the Bible would be, the "Bible and this", or "this, with quoted biblical contents"
Congressional Health Care for Seniors Act

i have read that canada has a much more efficient medicare type system than we do. if the numbers are actually so close as con points on, on actual administrative costs per person, it would very easy to conclude that canada is probably cheaper per person. but i am not informed enough on the topic, and can't find any decent data to say so on a basic search. so, with that said, i concede the debate, until, if that is possible, i am able to find compelling counter data. con presented a very compelling final argument. (he should have presented it sooner, but i got to give him credit) i do notice this... which shows con has taken my position in the past. if he has changed his position due to facts, i highly applaud his sincerity and dedication to truth. http://www.debate.org... i actually had changed my stance in the past, and forgot that i did. i agree, a tightly regulated private system would be optimal, based on the data i can find. http://www.debate.org... here is the debate that changed my mind, with the opponent using the same graph and much of the same information to refute me that con did. http://www.debate.org...
Congressional Health Care for Seniors Act

R1: Medicare has Lower Administrative Costs “If the USA spent ten percent GDP on healthcare instead of ten, this could accumulate to a trillion dollars a YEAR.” Let’s look at the facts. Many people think that “Medicare has lower administrative costs”. Yet, this isn’t true if we are looking at total administrative outlays. Medicare has a much greater level of spending (because the beneficiaries are older and consume more health care services). Due to higher expenditures, administrative costs can be concealed. Comparing Medicare and private health insurance on the metric of administrative costs shows that Medicare spends 25% more on administrative outlays. [2] If we are looking at Medicare compared to Medicare Advantage, the latter (a form of supplemental private insurance) has lower administrative costs. So yes, I investigated the arguments of Paul Krugman and his associates, but their arguments were refuted. [1] Also, Pro doesn’t prove her sources, she just makes blatant claims. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- R2: Medicare Savings “that doesn't mean we are spending less overall or getting more bang for our buck.” The private insurance plans (through this reform) will essentially be paid by the federal government. The private insurance plans also will run at a profit, so costs are not transferred to the private sector. Senior citizens also stand to gain, as they see cost-savings. Since the federal government is spending less overall (as I proved the last round), and seniors are saving funds, that has to mean that we are indeed getting more bang for our buck. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- R3: Medicare Advantage The comparison of Medicare and Medicare Advantage is showing the fact that people like the private health insurance better than traditional Medicare. Perhaps it is because private insurance is influenced by competition and the profit motive…---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conclusions To recap my rebuttals and arguments: - Private insurance has lower administrative costs (on a per-patient basis) - Private insurance has higher consumer satisfaction ratings - CHCSA would improve retirement security (saving beneficiaries about $1,000/ year) - CHCSA would improve health care services (through competition, individual choice, and less bureaucracy) - CHCSA would significantly lower federal expenditures - CHCSA would help save Medicare, cutting its unfunded liability in half - CHCSA would scrap over $100 billion in economic deadweight loss – imposed through Medicare’s red tape. Sources: [1] (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com...) [2] (http://www.heritage.org...)
Congressional Health Care for Seniors Act

i won't contest that opening up competition would improve efficiency. i would contest, though, that it doesn't mean t the government couldn't do it better. again, it has no profit motive and smaller administation costs than the redundancies present with private insurance. see the stats i provided. if the USA spent ten percent GDP on healthcare instead of ten, that could accumulate to a trillion dollars a YEAR. a lot lower an the savings you cited. how much we spend on GDP isn't really debated much given it's straightforward to calculate. this information is freely available. you mention that medicare's ligability would be significantly reduced, but that's only because private insurance is taking over. that doesn't mean we are spending less overall or getting more bang for our buck. more doctors might see private plan patients more than medicare. but taht doesn't prove that it's cheaper than medicare. in fact, i would speculate that they only would see them more, cause they would pay more than with medicare. medicare is so efficient, or at least cheap, that doctors don't see as much in their hands. we can debate whether that's good or not, but it seems we should agree it sounds cheaper. i'm not sure what point is really established to basically just say that people are more satisfied with medicare advantage. all that program does is charge you more for more services. of course people will like more services. but they are charged more. again indicating that basic medicare is cheap. medicare is built efficiently at its core. having looked into medicare, it acts a lot like catasrophic care at its most essential. you have to pay like a little over a thousand to hospitals for visits, but they cover the rest. catastrophic is known to be a great saver of money. instead of all those high premiums, you just have a reasonable deducle that covers most issues. it encourages you to spend wisely so as to avoid the deductible. this built in efficiency combinedw ith the administrative efficincy indicates medicare is the optimal approach we should take. i would agree that premiums would be reduced with increased competition etc. but that doesn't prove that medicare is not more efficient. it only proves the private premium situation that currently exists could be improved. this issue of better competition if it only involved before and after comparisoison to private insurance only, would be a no brainer. but we have to consider the alternative prospect of medicare. i highly encourage pro to look into the benefits and efficiencies of "single payer" health care. this stuff is very well established.
Congressional Health Care for Seniors Act

while the act as described as many benefits, such as means testing and increasing the age eligibility, it should not be given over to private insurance. this basically is using all the arguments for single payer. medicare is essentially single payer. the USA spends 17% GDP on health care, other industrialized counties only pay ten. most of them are single payer. the reason it saves so much money, is because insurance companies are middle men who serve no purpose but to take more in profits and reducances in administration that are not present in government health care. private insurance pays 30 cents on the dollar for administration and profit. medicare has no profit, and only spends 5 cents on the dollar on administration.
Congressional Health Care for Seniors Act

-----Structure-----R1: Acceptance and DefinitionsR2: Arguments/ RebuttalsR3: Rebuttals/ Conclusions*No semantics*Forfeiture = lose all pointsCongressional Health Care for Seniors Act:Medicare as is is replaced. All senior citizens will have their choice of a private health insurance plan on the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP), which is an array of insurance options which includes over 200 private coverage plans. The government will pay approximately 75% of the cost of individually-chosen health insurance plans. Additionally, these provisions are included(1) The Office of Personnel and Management administers the program;(2) The initial eligibility age is gradually increased to age 70 over the next 20 years;(3) The degree of federal benefits is "means-tested" based on recipient income. I welcome a worthy opponent...
LGBTQ is Totally Okay!

I'll just leave that adoption business to the side, as it could be solved by alternate solutions which don't pertain to the debate. (I'm glad to see that you turned out to be a very well balanced and rational person despite the disadvantages imposed on you by the adoption system for the record!)On this point, I completely agree with you. Hating and discriminating against LGBTQ people is completely inappropriate and barbaric. Discriminating against a group of people because they don't match you and your ideas is inhumane, and should not be tolerated.Having said that...the debate is about whether or not it is "Totally Okay" to be LGBTQ, not if it is alright to discriminate against them. In conclusion, I think I have made some good points as to how functionally speaking being LGBTQ is not completely okay, as it is defies an integral part of the functional meaning of life. While you did make a few relatively good points, I was able to partially disprove/discount most of these points, while it appears to me that you had a bit of trouble discounting my logic. I had a really good time having this debate with you, and I really hope that we can have debates on other subjects in the future!Sincerely,DrRisen____________________________________________________NOT PART OF THE DEBATE!!!As for my political views, if I had to pick I would be with Clinton, (whom I voted for), however my views do not always align with her or the majority of the democratic party. I would say my political and social views vary from moderate to heavily liberal. If you would like, you could take a look at my profile to see a somewhat more in-depth analysis of my views. Maybe you could use one of them as the basis for a debate, in which case you can simply challenge me to a debate. Have a good day/night/whatever it is where you are!
LGBTQ is Totally Okay!

Yes, it was theoretical! The thing with the over population is that there are so many kids in the world who need good families, yet some people around the world keep popping out kids, that to be frank, could also end up in the adoption system. I was put through the adoption system, its not fun. I have way more info on that subject but I'll save it for another time. Back to the side of LGBTQ having people hate on them , its not right. Yes, people can have opinions but is it right to chant and rant about it? No. Yet people still do. Why do they do this? Some people in the world need to show some compassion. Argumentatively, The Queen ( so Clinton, Trump or Green party? I'm neutral. I hate both equally)
LGBTQ is Totally Okay!

No, no I can't... wait, that was theoretical, right?____________________________________________________The notion of overpopulation is somewhat ridiculous in my opinion. Simple birth control programs would contradict the population growth, and in fact, already do in some places, a more prevelant example being China. To be completely honest, overpopulation would happen with or without that 10% of non-reproducing people, so it really doesn't matter. As for the child bans, its already happening in parts of the world (China, again), and controlled birth wouldn't neccesarily cause mass upheval. People are suprisingly maleable when it comes to choosing between screwing like jackrabbits and not starving. Again, I would like to point out that not reproducing, or at least not being available to do so, is a waste of genetic variation. Human beings are supposed to be diverse. Its one of the reasons we are so resiliant as a species. If you aren't going to contribute to it, what is the point of existing, from a functional standpoint. It just creates a resource sinkhole, where resources that could be used to further the human race are siphoned off, then dissapear from the equation. Sincerely,DrRisen (I don't have a kingdom either. I'm more of a constitutional democratic republic kind of guy.)
LGBTQ is Totally Okay!

Yowch. You are very good. If you can't help the guy on the plane, can you help the guy with a bullet in his brain? So the kkk members are completely out of order but unfortunatly they have no place in this arguement. We could overpopulate by everyone being straight. 10% of the world self-identify as gay or lesbian. If this 10% were straight and everyone had 2-3 kids on average we would be very overpopulated and some goverments may have to put a child ban on their country. But that riles up debates on free countries and it would be war. I have more info but i'm saving it for the next round Sincerely, The Queen (with no Kingdom. It should be a Queendom with a queen. duh. )
LGBTQ is Totally Okay!

Thanks for the clarifications! Lets get to it then.________________________________The concept of being LGBTQ is not a new one. Since the dawn of time people have been going for the same sex, or both, or neither, or being just plain old confused. Of course there is nothing "wrong" with having a hard time making up your mind, however from a purely functional perspective the concept of being an alternate orientation could be described as a waste of resources. One could argue that the base meaning of life is to reproduce, and to further humanity. This raises the question, does being LGBTQ fulfill these requirments?Some of them obviously can however two, L and G in particular, prevent the reproductive perspective of this base. Now, I am not implying that anyone L or G is LESS than a hetero or any other orientation, however, if they are indeed a value to humanity being L or G prevents them from furthering their genetic code in the human race.Now this leave BTQ, however, the argument is based on "LGBTQ is Totally Okay", not LGBTQ is usually ok or BTQ is totally ok.I could also bring in a psycological perspective into the argument, however I think I will save that for the next round. Counter-Argument: The tables being turned is extremely unrealistic, as the human race would probably not be very successful in reproduction if we didn't effectively reproduce. It is NOT ok to "hate" on the LGTBQ community, however, this has no place in the argument."Force" is relative. (Sorry for semantics)Of course people are allowed to love whomever they want, but that doesn't mean its right. One could argue the same point but from the perspective that KKK members are allowed to say almost whatever they want, because its freedom of speech, and its a free country.Sincerely, Dr. Risen (No I can't help the guy having a heart attack on a plane)
LGBTQ is Totally Okay!

Of course its. Theoretical. Why would I ask for your actual opinion? Sources are up to you. Post them, don't post them whatever is good for you. I'll go with more philosophical but if you've got facts to prove it go ahead. LGTBQ Good or Bad is technically your own opinion because its not right or wrong. Your opinion may be wrong or right by different people. Argument: People are allowed to love who they want. Its a free country. You can be who you want to be. Why is that wrong? You can't make someone not be gay. You can't force someone to change their sex. You can close them out of your life. But its completely okay to love someone the same sex,different sex or trans. If the table was turned, straight people would be hated on for loving different sex. That is not okay by straight people. Why is it okay to hate on the LGTBQ community? Regards The Queen avatar
LGBTQ is Totally Okay!

Before we get started I think I need to make some things clear and . This is a THEORETICAL argument. I'm not going to state my actual opinion on the subject, but for this debate I will be advocating for the anti-LGBTQ side. You mentioned that we don't have to state sources, does this mean we cannot? Also, is this supposed to be a statistical/factual argument or more philosophical?Best of regartds, DrRisen