BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Flat tax is the best from of taxation

Pro's refusal to put a song means he gives up the conduct point, if he did not want this he should have never accepted the debate, onward then. Okay my argument against a flat tax is that it raises taxes on most people who do not make a lot of money annually. You could put many different percentages on it, so I just need to use some examples. Keeping in mind whenever taxes are too low in a heavily populated country, the government can not pay for anything. Okay, for example, in the 2012 U.S presidential election, Republican Herman Cain proposed a flat tax plan of 9% on income tax, 9% sales tax, and 9% business tax. However in an article done by the New York Times, they used information from a study done by the Tax Policy Center, that showed that this flat tax would increase the taxes of an average family of four by more than $4,000 yearly. However it would lower the taxes on a similar family that makes between $500,000 and 1 million dollars a year by approximately $60,000. Source, article: http://www.nytimes.com... Source, study: http://taxpolicycenter.org... However while we now know that a 9% flat tax plan would put a large tax hike on middle and lower class people, and a reduction on some one making hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars a year. It makes sense to get more examples I guess. Source:http://budgeting.thenest.com... Here on this website, they use a sample flat tax of 20% to see what it would do to wages. Some one who makes $30,000 a year would pay $6,000 in taxes, yes that is quite a hike. So in conclusion a tax plan is garbage for some one who makes little money annually. Now for my choice of song, I Comfortably Numb, by Pink Floyd. Hello, Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me. Is there anyone at home? Come on now I hear you're feeling down Well, I can ease your pain And get you on your feet again Relax I'll need some information first Just the basic facts Can you show me where it hurts? There is no pain, you are receding A distant ship smoke on the horizon You are only coming through in waves Your lips move but I can't hear what you're saying When I was a child I had a fever My hands felt just like two balloons Now I've got that feeling once again I can't explain, you would not understand This is not how I am I have become comfortably numb I have become comfortably numb O.K. Just a little pin prick There'll be no more aaaaaaaah! But you may feel a little sick Can you stand up? I do believe it's working, good That'll keep you going through the show Come on, it's time to go. There is no pain you are receding A distant ship smoke on the horizon You are only coming through in waves Your lips move but I can't hear what you're saying When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse Out of the corner of my eye I turned to look but it was gone I cannot put my finger on it now The child is grown The dream is gone I have become comfortably numb.
Flat tax is the best from of taxation

I am arguing that a flat tax is not the best form of tax, my opponent is arguing that it is good for the majority of people. I prefer we be cordial and respectful, what I mean by that is I prefer you put the lyrics to a nice song at the end of your song. Failure to do this will result in the loss of the conduct point most likely. My first choice is... The Day I Tried to Live, by Soundgarden. I woke the same as any other day Except a voice was in my head It said seize the day, pull the trigger, drop the blade And watch the rolling heads The day I tried to live I stole a thousand beggar's change And gave it to the rich The day I tried to win I dangled from the power lines And let the martyrs stretch Singing One more time around Might do it One more time around Might make it One more time around Might do it One more time around The day I tried to live Words you say never seem To live up to the ones Inside your head The lives we make Never seem to ever get us anywhere But dead The day I tried to live I wallowed in the blood and mud with All the other pigs I woke the same as any other day you know I should have stayed in bed The day I tried to live I wallowed in the blood and mud with All the other pigs And I learned that I was a liar Just like you
Abortion should not be illegal

Abortion should be legal under some circumstances, i.e. if the girl is raped. It is argued that abortion should be legal for minors, only if they have consent from their parent or legal guardian. But does the government have the right to control what a girl does to her own body? Does the government have jurisdiction over any person's own body and what happens to it? I do not believe they do. By controlling the reasons a woman can have an abortion the government is actually controlling the rest of her life for her. The choice to get an abortion can effect her education, her chance to be employed, and even her relationship with other people in her life. I do not believe that a government body (especially the masculine) has any right to decide a woman's life for her.
Global Warming has not accelerated the Water Cycle in the last 115 years

Resolution: Global Warming has not accelerated the Water Cycle in the last 115 years. Definitions Global Warming - A process of climate change frequently associated with the warming of the environment due to man made pollution. 115 Years - For statistical limitations to be 1900 to 2014 and early 2015 Accelerating the water cycle - A sustained increase in water evaporation, or precipitation beyond the first 30 years of the 115 year range, or 1900 to 1930.
Global Warming has not accelerated the Water Cycle in the last 115 years

Dam RiversThere are three responses to this. One, human impacts only account for about half of the observed increase in river runoff. "On average, land-use change has increased global runoff by 0.08 mm/year^2 and accounts for ~50% of the reconstructed global runoff trend over the last century. " There's still the other half that needs to be accounted for. [1]Two, CO2 also has a negative effect on river runoff. "When allowing for the increase in foliage area that results from increasing atmospheric CO2 levels in a global vegetation model, we find a decrease in global runoff from 1901 to 1999. " This seems a bit counterintuitive. However, the increased precipitation that CO2 induced warming has caused has still had an effect on the rivers. The effect is just masked by the land-use changes and negative feedback related to plant growth. This is entirely separate from the water cycle. [1]And three, this topic has been very controversial, namely owing to different collections of data and statistical methods used with that data. However, this science is solid. HumidityActually, decreased SO2 levels would cause humidity levels to reduce. "Trajectory studies and model simulations suggest that the SO2increase results in the formation of more sulfuric acid aerosol particles in the upper tropical troposphere. As a consequence, more ice crystals of smaller size are formed in the tropical tropopause, which are lifted into the stratosphere more readily. Our model calculations suggest that such a mechanism could increase the amount of water that entered the stratosphere in the condensed phase by up to 0.5 ppmv from 1950–2000. " While the decrease in SO2 emissions has slowed the rise in humidity levels a little, CO2 levels are still rising exponentially. [2]ConclusionOverall, this is basic physics. A warmer climate, caused by rising greenhouse gas emissions, causes more water to evaporate from the oceans, which causes more rain to fall, which causes the river runoff to increase. While we have been affecting river runoff in other ways, the underlying data is still there. My opponent has also failed to adequately refute my humidity (related to the amount of water in the atmosphere), and he has completely dropped my precipitation point. My opponent has provided a confusing, uncertain, and misguided argument himself. The evidence supports the conclusion that human induced global warming is the cause of the acceleration of the water cycle. Sources[1]: . http://www.pnas.org...[2]: . http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
Electric Supply

Electric Supply problems can occur anytime and anywhere and in order to overcome such electrical problems, we need experts to solve it out. Hudco Electric Supply deals in all kind of electrical works and products delivery. They are know for their quality work. Get the best lighting supply in Toronto from Hudco. Address- Hudco Electric Supply, 132 Commerce Park Dr, Barrie, ON L4N 8W8 Hudco Electric Supply Ltd, 6975 Tranmere Dr, Mississauga, ON L5S 1M2 Contact Us- TORONTO / NORTH YORK CALL: 416-663-5475 MISSISSAUGA / BRAMPTON CALL: 9053622002 BARRIE / CENTRAL ONTARIO CALL: 705-719-7555
Rap Battle 2: Lwerd vs. Vi

Because you pulled a Biggie, the most suitable way to combat it is with a Tupac :) Some Info: Italian translations: Vinci = I win Si perde = You lose Corona reference -- sun's outer layer is called a Corona -- translation "Crown" Enjoy http://www.youtube.com... --- Lyrics --- INTRO: How your words curl, you sound so cute, I'm impressed But I only need to look at you, girl, and you get undressed CUE MUSIC: Hey there sexy, I'm Vi Now please don't be nervous Is my name ringing a bell? That's cuz you give me service Call this a warning or it'll have to be a repeat going easy on me mirrors the day we did meet You were loudly spent, forget about discreet I got a wink at the check out, had to pay for the dent Show me like an ornament, Yeah baby I'm the star With an iced out corona and a spliced up cigar Slipped in your slot, thought you were coin operated Flipped you heads or tails, you sure as hell cooperated either way, babe, you're on your knees doin' whatever it is I please I'd tell the crowd the rest, but unfortunately it's X-Rated so back to you bein' my b1tch hell yeah you ridin' me, on my lap- I'm the rolla' it's hard to drive and you wont let me pull over I'll leave you Reeboks, I'll be lacin' up Adidas "Impossible is nothing" when against your "Freestyle" An answer to your question: You're the reason I'm here, Ma To present the confession, and yeah I'm bein' sincere, Ma Quid pro quo, Pro - you sold out, dear, and I'm here to take DDO Remember it's only business, so get to bein' my secretary and blow-- Oh! you know it's hard to record when doin' me in the studio I score so easy, you should call me a free throw That's right baby, I got you on your back and I'll nail all the right buttons, I deliver faster than email Here in the Chi we do it harder, better, faster, stronger The reason why you couldn't stay in Brooklyn any longer Yes, Baby, I was mafia from a very early age drove a different car every day, never had to earn a wage That's the original gangsta, different money, same ways Your type blow snow, while my people blow J.F.K "Vinci"? No, "si perde", I'll have to disagree I have you up against the wall like the N.Y.P.D. Doesn't look good, seems you're in a rough place This is the easiest way to say it, I know it's hard to face Your not so dope, at best your rhymes are bourgeois I know why they call you L, and it's cuz I'm smoken yah OUTRO: No need for tension, just gimmie the gold and take your bronze Stay classy New York, gentlemen prefer complacent blonds
Does God Exist? plus 2 more questions

Does God exist? The existence of God is the most controversial topic/issue this world deals with because the belief/disbelief in God is essentially the glass to the lenses you view and dictate life through. Round 1: Does God exist? Why or Why not? Round 2: Why do people believe in God? Round 3: Why is it rational to believe/disbelieve? Personally I am open minded and I typically I have always supported theism/deism but philosophy has really opened my mind so I would like to debate this topic so I may here another perspective and get practice in debating my side. I'd like this to be very open. Include your own personal experiences and your true feelings on the subject. Let's put it out there and have a good discussion/debate. *No bashing *No blatant negativity
if middle schoolers should have recess or not

OK well while giving students breaks does indeed give them a boost of positivity and energy, it also leads to a reward system that impairs their learning. Students will support breaks themselves, because not many children/adolescents WANT to work. The reason it impairs learning is because by creating a reward based system of breaking, it causes students to think about the upcoming breaks, taking away from their schoolwork. Same as at the end of the day or at lunch, students are excited to leave and will miss a portion of the material being taught as their attention focuses towards the upcoming relief.
Individualism (pro) versus collectivism (con).

Anyone with a different religious viewpoint will completely disagree with you. Rights are not something anyone gives us. What we call rights are decided by collectively as societies, hence why in many places you will find yourself with fewer rights than in others. What this boils down to is your delusion in thinking that a fictional deity gives you any sort of right. Truth of the matter is, were it not for civilised collectives of people forming societies, then you would be no different from a beast who's only individual rights are whatever you can find to eat from the wild.
Individualism (pro) versus collectivism (con).

Who's God? Your God? What about another individual's different God, did you take their god into consideration or just your own? Fact of the matter is, god has no place in this discussion, not foremost because he's not real, but largely because individual's believe in many different gods. Therefore, your own individual thoughts and feelings about whatever deity are irrelevant when the collective does not share that same view as you. What you are choosing to do is impose your individual viewpoint on an entire group our society. That individualism has no place in a world with different ideas and views. The collective approach is to rule by common consensus, understanding and rationalism that appeals to all.
Should Skate Boarding be banned

Secondly I would like to mention that pro's 4th argument has been posted on another debate and therefore I would like the judges to disregard it. Now that we are done with that I would like to clarify what I mean by skating being banned. This means that skating would not only be banned on streets but also in Skate Parks. That being said pro's first point that "Skateboarders are skating in the street annoying pedestrians" does not matter because if skating on the street was that big of a problem we would ban that and not ban skating in skate parks. To address pro's second point "Skateboarding injuries have increased and it should be banned for safety reasons" I will say that because more people are skating than their used to be obviously the injuries will increase. My second point is that pro makes it sound like by skate boarding you are most likely going to get injured, however that is not the truth at all. The reason people get hurt skateboarding is because they are constantly trying new things, new dangerous things. To tell people that they can't do something because it is dangerous is just disgusting,. Pro's third and final point is that there have been people who have died skateboarding. Are you joking, of course people have died skate boarding. .. . people have died doing everything so there is no point in mentioning that. According to . http://www.chacha.com... 42 people died skateboarding in 2006 and 40 of them were outside of skate parks, This shows that if anything we should focus on banning long boarding because according to . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... shows and I quote "824 people (whose average age was 19) who were treated for injuries from either longboarding or skateboarding at a trauma center in Utah between 2006 and 2011, researchers reported here today (Nov. 5) at a public health research meeting. More than half, or 57.5 percent, were injured from long boarding" I conclude that it would be ridiculous to ban all skateboarding and if you wanted to even think about it you would need to close in your parameters.
Should Skate Boarding be banned

Skateboarding should be banned because 1 Skateboarders are skating in the street annoying pedestrians 2 Skateboarding injuries have increased and it should be banned for safety reasons 3 People have died from skateboarding 4 Skateboarding should be banned. After you think about it, this statement couldn't seem any more true. As we all know, Urban Skateboarding, especially on handrails and curbs, causes irreversible damage to the surrounding community. Skateboarders do a thing called "grinding", which involves one scraping the axles of their board against metal, concrete, or wood, causing not only cosmetic scaring, but structural defects as well. Even when a business, or the city for that matter, puts up a "No Skateboarding" sign, or even goes so far as to make their curbs "un-grindable" by fixing pieces of metal at intervals along the curb, skaters still seem to disregard the law and vandalize whatever they see as a good "skate spot". As you can see, Skateboarding causes vandalism in the community.
Should Skate Boarding be banned

I have seen many debates on here that claim that skateboarding should be banned. personally I find this ridiculous so I have decided that I would like to debate someone with those feelings and voice my own arguments. My only rule is that it will be in the form of Round 1: arguments Round 2: rebuttal and Round 3: closing arguments and response to rebuttal. If you have any problems with these rules but still want to debate join and comment and we can figure something out. Anyways thanks and I look forward to debating you. Okay i'm going to begin by stating my opening arguments about why skate boarding should not be banned. Argument 1: Skateboarding is a great source of revenue, there are many shops only based on skateboarding apparel. Also there are several large company's that are focused on skateboard building. To ban skateboarding would mean laying off/the unemployment of tons of factory workers, and the closure of many small businesses. Argument 2: The banning of skateboarding would be against our rights as Americans to do what we want. Argument 3: It is well known that if something is banned it will mostly always make it more dangerous because it will still be done in secret with less safe gear, meaning (ramps,boards,protective gear) Argument 4: Honestly you need some serious reasons to ban something as big as skateboarding and I don't believe you will be able to find anything that bad so I am very excited to see your arguments.
Man is the master of everything and decides everything

My opponent has dropped all my arguments and only contended the argument of the Big Bang, stating that this event was before mans history, even if that argument doesn't stand, my other points do, and more so seeing as my opponent never bothered to contend them, The expansion of the universe is up until the present day and obviously man has not control ownership or master-ship over the rate of it's expansion, man also has no control over the force of gravity, or how the atom is held together, all these events occur within the history of man, and man Is not the master over these events, as my opponent has falsely assumed. .. Also my opponent dropped the argument about God may having decreed the laws of science, as stated by Stephen Hawkins in the quote I provided, so this argument also still stands. . Also Has Man been the master of natural disaster's, or has man been the master over his own body aging, let's admit it, nobody like's getting old, can man decide that he will never age. The answer is No, How about his death, is man the master of his own death? and does a man decide when he is going to die, or is that outside of mans ability to know his time of death? Obviously the resolution has not been affirmed and has further been negated herein.
Man is the master of everything and decides everything

As Con, you should have a stance and be able to refute my arguments, but as displayed, Con does not provide any of them. Con hasn't even taken the time to read my statements, he put the words in my mouth that I apparently said "Man changes everything in history." He goes on to state the big bang. But as I clearly stated in POINT ONE: "Through out man's history, man has affected every change and progression." I said THROUGH OUT MAN'S HISTORY. Thank you Con for wasting my time on this topic, I will find another person that can form their own opinion and stance on this topic while providing evidences not quotes. Also, its very rude to simply put "Vote Me" in your ROUND 2 argument, its very unprofessional.
Man is the master of everything and decides everything

Thanks to my opponent for his contribution to the debate. Now I will being by showing the flaws in my opponents resolution and show why it simply can not be true that man is the master of everything and decides everything. Firstly lets take a re-cap of the definitions I offered and to which my opponent didn't contend. Man is a singular human being, which has control over or ownership over everything, All that exists. My opponent offers a few examples where man has the ability to make decisions and mistakes this to be the all in all, He claims. Every historical event which has taken place was due to a man's decision. Pro. This is simply false and flawed logic, For example the Big bang was a historical event but man had no control or ownership over it's outcome, also the formation of our sun and moon, the planet earth, and the expansion of our universe, as well the force of gravity and the way the atom is held together. .. .Man has no control over these events and IF God exists then obviously God set the laws of the universe to work in the order they do work in. Stephen Hawkins said this about the laws of the universe in 2007. I'm not religious in the normal sense. I believe the universe is governed by the laws of science. The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws. Quoted in "Stephen Hawking prepares for weightless flight", New Scientist (26 April 2007) God may or may not exist, but it is not my burden to prove it, my opponent must show that God does not exist and also how man is the controller and owner of all that exists, obviously my opponent has a tough task ahead.
Man is the master of everything and decides everything

Point One: Through out man's history, man has affected every change and progression. Every historical event which has taken place was due to a man's decision. Every bullet fired, every word written, every speech spoken, and every bomb dropped was due to a man making a decision at the very moment. Every progression in human history was at the hands of a human and nothing other then that. Point Two: What or who else is there to consciously decide everything? There is nothing else in this world or universe that could possibly consciously decide to progress or make a change in the moment. Only man is the master to his own destiny. All other claims of a deity causing change is physically unprovable.