BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Income Taxation should be abolished

The Income Tax also reduced incentive to work hard because the better you do, the more tax you have to pay. Therefore it is not just deontolligically immoral but consequentially inefficient. If excise taxes on tobacco are supposed to discourage people from smoking than what is income tax supposed to do? The argument for the income tax is 'who will build the roads and prisons' but as we have seen in the previous argument, people have the incentive to voluntarily put their money towards these things. Also there is something that is provided by the private sector much more important than roads- food. Imagine if food was publically funded. Then people's argument would be 'Who will provide the food because if we privatise food, no one will have the incentive to make and sell it so we will all starve!' Do you see how ridiculous that sounds? And complex inventions such as the mobile phone and television are provided by the private sector, so why can't roads which are FLAT things be provided by the private sector. And even if normal people do not have the incentive to build roads (which obviously they do), then Car Companies and Petrol Companies will. And that's another thing- Petrol. Imagine if petrol was provided by the government. Everyone would be shocked at people wanting to privatise it. So in conclusion the Income tax is wrong and we do not need it because we can decrease government spending dramatically and also because other taxes provide for most of the spending anyway.
Income Taxation should be abolished

Now according to the Oxford dictionary the act of stealing is 'taking another person's property without permission. Tax is a 'compulsory contribution to the state. ' For some people they want to give money to the government to provide for currently state funded services but other people may not want what they earn of their hard work to go to something that might not necessarily affect them but only other people. Therefore in this case they are being relieved of their property without their permission therefore the Governement is commenting theft. The income tax's implementation suggests that the state owns the labour of its citizens. Some may argue that this forced theft is necessary but I will argue on the contrary. In America before 1913 all Americans kept 100% of all their earnings and despite this they still had roads, schools, military (who won several wars and drew one) and every other of these services income tax supporters claim are dependant on the income tax. As Ron Paul points out 'You might be surprised to know that the income tax accounts for only one-third of federal revenue. ' The money other two thirds of the federal revenue and the money supplied for the services before 1913 were and are in the form of excise taxes, tariffs and property taxes. So only a third is supplied by this immoral tax on a productive individual's labour and I could also argue that over a third of the spending needs to be abolished. The income tax gives government a claim on people's life and work! It isn't even necessary! Roads could easily be built in a voluntary society. Think about it. People want roads to improve their lives, otherwise people wouldn't go ranting on about their necessity. So if people want them people will put their money together to pay for their construction. And that is just one example. I could apply the same principle for almost every public service including prisons and police. This will sound risky and controversial but it will work because if people want these essential services so much than they would pay for them! People are being brainwashed to think that the funding of these services requires the initiation of force. No government has the moral right to lock an individual in a cage for refusing to hand over their justify acquired money which they don't even know is going to- it might not affect them. This goes against man's right to exist for his own sake and not the sake of others. I am partly an Objectivist in this way but I do not altogether oppose altruism. In fact I once gave 10 quid to a homeless guy on the London tube. I just oppose FORCED Altruism which is wrong. I do not understand why people accept a state forcing them to let the government choose how their money is used. So, how should we decrease spending? In Britain we need to replace aid to foreign countries with trade to foreign countries which will be beneficial for both countries and in America and in Britain we need to remove our military from foreign countries where we should not have got involved in the first place.
why do all men want women to look like the girls off prono movies

I believe it is only appropriate for me to say that spelling and grammar is on the poll that we vote on at the end of a debate. This is why I believe it is an issue. Also, the resolution of this debate was simply invalid, as they are not suppose to be asked in the form of a question. This is why I was confused at the beginning of the debate. I believe that everything that needs to be said has already been said. And so, I ask my opponent if he would feel it is appropriate to conclude the debate in round 4 and no longer argue the "resolution." Do you accept?
why do all men want women to look like the girls off prono movies

yes im sorry for the fact i miss typed it as you can tell im new lol so what i was ment to say is fair enough to the fact that if there girlfriend is good looking then fair enough but its the fact i know a few people that only go out with there girls because they are good looking so i just think its not right. you should love them for them and not look for the girls that look like the girls out of pron because they are the girls that upset you. there not all the same as im saying but its just the fact ive met a few in my life and they are not cut out to be exact what you expect.. and im sorry for the way i talk but i cannot help it because im from london and dnt beleive in talking in full words chavvy yes i know but oh well
why do all men want women to look like the girls off prono movies

I apologize for my mistake. My opponent's argument had seemed misleading. However, this would still be invalid. When he says, "look like girls off the porno movies," he did not elaborate in his first argument on what would qualify for this. This would all depend on perspective on how someone looks. Should men not be with a woman just because her looks aren't what might be considered to be "tasteful? " Of course not. So, while men should not use attractive women to make people jealous, being with someone who is would not be something that should be considered a negative.
why do all men want women to look like the girls off prono movies

My opponent is arguing that it is "out of order for men to want women to look like them skanks off porn having sex just to make money. " However, in legitimate adult entertainment industries, it is in fact, a choice for women to engage in sexual activities and broadcast it. My opponent argues as though we are forcing women to do porn, which is simply not the case. While some believe men should just love the person they are with no matter what, it is not in their place to judge others. Some men are lonely, and choose porn as a way of getting their minds off of it. Some couples even, as a matter of fact, watch porn together. While it is a mental thing, the adult entertainment industry is good for the consumers, and for the actors. As long as no one is being forced into it, it is a harmless business. Simply put, if you oppose porn, you do not have to watch it or partake in it. For the reasons listed above, I urge a Con vote. I conclude my argument for round one.
Keep animals home as pets

I will not add more to my case in this round. I will simply restate the framework to this debate that my opponent has accepted via her silence on the issue: "Next I would like to note that a plan that fixes any supposed ethical issues must be supplied in order for you to win this debate. If you have no alternative to keeping animals home as pets (i.e., you cant provide a course of action that fixes the ethical issues and results in an overall better state of affairs) then I win, because I have shown that keeping animals as pets is the best policy alternative. In other words, even if you show that keeping pets is terrible, you must provide an alternative to show that keeping pets isn't still the best course of action. An example: Say we are are starving on an island and are rationing the food to prevent depleting the food supply. You may say "rationing is terrible, we never get enough to eat and are always hungry." I then say "That may be the case, but what can we do about it?" Because you would be unable to explain an alternative course of action, you have not shown that we should not ration. In a similar way, unless you can suggest a better policy option, you have not shown that we should not keep animals as pets." "I would like to say once again, that this debate is extremely difficult to conduct without knowing exactly what the Con is advocating. Does she want to ban the sale of pets? Does she want to reform the pet industry? What actual policy does she want to institute to solve the problems she mentions? Without a policy advocacy, the Con loses this debate. As a judge, you should vote for me simply because I am the only one with a clear policy advocacy: the status quo, keeping things the way they are."
Keep animals home as pets

Hello Raisor, Reply to all of your assumptions: 1.Animals don't choose to be our pets. Dogs are pack animals that need companionship, but they are often kept singly and left during the day. Birds flock together and need to fly free - impossible in the prison of a cage. Burrowing, climbing, swimming or very mobile animals are forced to live unnatural lives in small spaces. Animals are driven to breed but usually are not able to as pets. 2.Keeping pets is a risk to human health. Many animals can pass diseases on to people (such an illness is called zoonosis). Examples include salmonella from handling reptiles and amphibians, psittacosis from parrots and bird flu from many birds. Pregnant women risk their babies by handling cat litter. And many people are allergic to pet hair or feathers. 3.People that are doing pet trade business are after the profit. The pet trade is bad for animals in the wild. Birds and exotic animals in pet stores may have been trapped, often by raiding nests or killing mothers. Usually most of those caught die on the journey to the pet store. For some species collecting for the pet trade may lead to them dying out in the wild. 4.People often fail to look after pets properly. Today we all lead such busy lives that animals can be neglected. Dogs go without walks and proper training, cats don't get their litter trays changed, fish tanks go uncleaned, etc. Many owners let their cats, dogs or hamsters breed, and then fail to find good homes for the babies. We should not look on animals as a consumer toy, to be enjoyed for a while and then put away. Too often films inspire families to buy pets which are then cast off. Examples include (Teenage Mutant Ninja) turtles, clownfish (Finding Nemo), and breeds of dog (any Hollywood dog film). 5. However, what human being have done first is removing pets' reproductive organs before keeping them home. 6.That's the problem, human beings enjoy keeping animals, therefore, they are producing animals for the pet trade. It is cruel! There are two reasons for this. Many dogs are born on puppy farms where conditions are bad and individual dogs do not receive the care they should. In some countries, cats are declawed and dogs have their tails docked (cut off) to make them easier to sell - both cruel and painful processes. The other reason is that the whole pedigree (purebred) animal business is cruel. Breeding animals to meet human standards is bad science. Getting the physical features we specially want in a breed of dog or cat means breeding from a small group of related individuals. But small gene pools also lead to a whole range of health problems. For example, boxer dogs unable to give birth safely, german shepherds with bad hips, fearful spaniels, bald cats, etc. Crossbreeds (mongrels) are usually both healthier and more intelligent. 7. How do you feel if others remove your reproductive organs?
Gay Marriage

Gay marriage is not something I debate very often so I look forward to this. I do believe that the Bible is quite clear that homosexuality is a sin, but as for laws against homosexual marriage, I'm actually on the fence about whether they should be allowed or not. So I could be argued out of my position. I will still offer Gensai a riveting, thought-provoking, and, hopefully, challenging debate. As Gensai has the burden of proof, it will be my job in this debate to case doubt upon his evidence.1) He must offer compelling evidence for why I should not only be "open-minded" about gay marriage, but why I should accept it to be allowed in our country.2) Why there is no difference between homosexual and heterosexual marriage (except for the obvious gender differences).3) How two people of the same gender can raise a child just as well as two people of opposite genders.4) I'm not sure if this point is necessarily relevant, but I will still be interested in hearing what he has to say.5) How the Bible verses are misinterpreted and how homosexuality is not a direct violation or sin, even though historically orthodox Christianity has always taught homosexuality to be a sin and one of the oldest orthodox Christian sects, the Roman Catholic church, has never accepted homosexuality. I look forward to the Instigator's arguments.
Gay Marriage

In this debate. I will argue the following: 1. Reasons people need to become, open minded about Gay Marriage. 2.There is no difference in a gay marriage, then there is a tradional marriage. 3.Gays raising a child. Is not so different from how a man and a women raise a child. 4.The gay community, is a stable community. 5.That the bible verses, widely assumed, to be direct to gay marriage, is often misinterpreted and and not a direct violation or sin, in the christian community. http://christiangays.com...
eating meat is not inherently immoral

As mentioned before, having canine teeth has absolutely nothing to do with eating meat, as many herbivores have canines. In addition, I have shown that humans are not designed to eat meat and eating meat leads to ill health effects, and as such, it should not be part of our diet. Humans are able to tolerate eating meat, but pro has somehow implied that this means it is part of the natural human diet. In this debate, pro failed to show any evidence for his claims. In this last round, pro stated that, "surely I can find evidence that humans ate meat early in civilization," yet he did not actually do this. In closing, humans are not designed to eat meat, and doing so can lead to negative health effects. As the animals killed for meat clearly do not want to be eaten, it is cruelty, and it is immoral.
eating meat is not inherently immoral

"In response to pro's point about eating a small amount of meat, I ask for evidence. Humans are able to tolerate eating meat, however this more likely suggests being designed to eat meat only in times of famine. My opponent also references the diet of cavemen, but has provided no evidence to support this." given humans are omnivores and have canine teeth, the presumption is in my favor. if you wish to rebut that, the threshhold is on you. you say that humans eat meat is "more likely" only for famiine..... that is unheard of, and you critize me for not giving sources? surely i can find evidence that humans at meat early in civilization and as a species.... but you will just say that it was for faminie purposes. so, where is your evidence? con cannot provide any. the most natural diet includes a little bit of meat. unless we are supporting an out of control meat industry or some other scenario, only then could eating meat be considered bad. as is, eating meat is not inherently immoral. )
eating meat is not inherently immoral

My main point is not that "animals are people too," as suggested by pro, but instead that animals are living being that feel pain and emotions, and as such, killing them is cruel. According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of immoral is "conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles," and it is generally accepted that cruelty to animals is not moral. In response to pro's point about eating a small amount of meat, I ask for evidence. Humans are able to tolerate eating meat, however this more likely suggests being designed to eat meat only in times of famine. My opponent also references the diet of cavemen, but has provided no evidence to support this. Finally, my opponent mentioned the Bible. The Bible is not sound evidence for humans being designed to eat meat, however if it is to be taken as evidence, other quotes from the Bible contradict eating meat. For instance, "And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." from Genesis 1:30, and "The wolf and the lamb shall feed together; the lion shall eat straw like an ox; but the serpent"its food shall be dust! They shall not hurt or destroy on all my holy mountain." from Isaiah 65:25.
eating meat is not inherently immoral

con's main point is that if we don't need to eat meat, we shouldn't, cause "animals are people too". that's just an arbitrary stance that is not based on our design or the natural order. the natural order says eat or be eaten.... at the very least, eat. we may not be designed to eat a lot of meat, but we are designed to eat some. in small amounts, it would be the most natural diet to have.... as that would reflect what a caveman would eat. plus the bible should at least be taken to add some evidence to this debate, and it says 'what God has called clean we are not to call unclean"... meaning it is okay to eat meat at least in terms of it not being unclean, and indicating that it is not inherently immoral too.
eating meat is not inherently immoral

First let me say that I am a vegetarian, but very few of my friends or family members are vegetarian or vegan. Let me start by addressing your claim that our bodies are designed to eat meat. You first mention that we routinely eat both meat and plants, however this is not evidence of being designed to do so. While we do have canine teeth, those alone are not evidence of being designed to eat meat. Although carnivores and omnivores do have canines, so do herbivores such as giraffes. There are different types of canines, and ours are not the kind designed for shearing. While humans do have the ability to eat meat, this is only supposed to be in rare circumstances. Humans show evidence of being designed to eat mainly plants. For instance, humans have well-developed facial muscles, similar to herbivores, saliva containing carbohydrate digesting enzymes, similar to herbivores, acidic stomach acid, similar to herbivores, livers that cannot detoxify Vitamin A, similar to herbivores, and blunted nails, similar to herbivores, according to Milton Mills M. D. Not only are humans not designed to eat meat, but eating red meat is the leading cause of heart disease and high blood pressure according to the American Heart Association. In addition, recent research from Loma Linda University shows that vegetarians have a 12% less chance of dying over a six-year period. As humans are not designed to eat meat, killing animals for human consumption is entirely unnecessary. Just like humans, animals are living beings that can feel pain and have emotions, and killing them needlessly for food is inherently immoral and cruel.
eating meat is not inherently immoral

eating meat is not inherently immoral our bodies are designed to eat meat. that is proven by the fact that we eat both meat and plants. and, our canine teeth shows that we are designed to eat meat. as long as considerations are given to how the meat was created, such as inhumane conditions of livestock being bad meat to eat. especially if you grow your own meat, it is not participating in a corrupt meat market. regardless of the corrupt meat market though, eating meat is not inherently immoral if it wasn't for that. so how can it truly be called inherently immoral to eat meat?
Racial slurs are not offensive

I believe in fact that it does matter on where it has been used in our history because we have inherited their words and for most times the words were used in a negative context for example nigger was a word used in the 60s by the white people to describe slaves and humans whom they have deemed lower than them which is segregation. Words like these are condemned in society today for a reason and that's because they are racist ,we cant expect to call ourselves equal if we treat each other differently and i believe that racial slurs are examples of negative treatment. My burden of proof is: racial slurs are negative on society because of inequality
Racial slurs are not offensive

I am arguing that racial slurs, such as "nigger" or "faggot" are not, on their own, intrinsically offensive unless one chooses to be offended by them. When I say racial slurs, I mean words that are deemed socially unacceptable that refer to a particular uncontrollable, but not inherently bad trait. Rules: 1. No talking about public opinion-it is not relevant to what is intrinsically offensive. 2. No personal insults 3. No forfeits Debate is open to anyone who accepts. First round is not for acceptance. Burden of proof is on my opponent.
Racial slurs are not offensive

Well, it may have once been used to mean "slave". But that was then, and this is now. And what does it mean now? It means a black person. So, if "black person" isn't offensive, then why is the n-word? You're right, we can't expect to call ourselves equal if we treat each other differently. But calling someone a "n***er" or "f**got" is not treating someone differently. When I say racial slurs are not offensive, I speak in general terms, not only those used to describe minorities. Furthermore, I asked why they were intrinsically offensive. This means that they would still be offensive even if they were not deemed offensive. You have not shown that. Also, minor nitpick: I do believe you mean your "proof" is. More importantly, like I said, it is not inequality because I believe ALL racial slurs are not offensive, not just those used to describe minorities.
Rap battle (clean)

In all gracefullness I shall note, That Pro's rap was too short to quote; Foolishly non-rhythmic raps he wroteHe shall face my cold storm and put on a thick coat. He accused me of having no rhymeHis raps are but foolish mime I shall destroy him as does timeHe shall be crushed and turned to chalk-pale lime. In fear, in pain, he has turned white He's confusing left with right, Crumbling in the force of my might Shutting his eyes in the blindin' light. He says you don't need rhymes - just enoughThe guy who's mute but acts all gruff, You needn't act strong; you need to be toughOr in my wrath your body'll be in cuffs. This guy will never come backFor in power and courage he does lack, His skull and bones, my force shall crackJlara'll be crushed in the train track . .. Then he'll be crippled and never call me a "piece of flak" -'Coz his stupid raps are small - mouthful bites that'll make my lips smack. It is official and a fact, That what Pro lacks in raps he lacks in fact; He'll crumble beneath the power of my axe, Till his life he'll pay as tax. His raps are short 'coz he is dumb, After this ends, he'll be rendered numb -Death will ask him to hell to comeAnd he'll crumble, shorter than my thumb. What will I gainfrom crippling his already stupid brain? I'll throw him 'cross his lane 'Coz he's so dumb he spells "fan" as "fane". He's gonna fall to my lion's mane.