BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
U.S. citizens under the age of 18 should not pay taxes.

I'm sorry the site went down. Huge drag. I. The difference is that there was no Member of Parliament for Massachusetts, and the Commons sat exclusively for the interests of the British, and for that matter mostly English, people. There was no representative anywhere for the colonies, but there are representatives for every person in the United States. To argue that you must vote for a candidate to be represented by him is absurd and runs entirely contrary to the Republican philosophy of the Constitution. II. Blacks were thought of - haven't you read any of the controversy over the inclusion of slavery as a charge against the King in the Declaration of Independence, let alone during the Constitutional debates? But you're forgetting the 3/5ths compromise. The South, in a legal system where some humans were thought of as property, still consented to a system in which legal non-entities were counted for the purposes of representation in the House, and the North considered it a major first step in the legal disestablishment of slavery. Even the musical 1776 treats the slavery issue with more depth than you do. I mean, the fact is that nobody is perfectly safe from the government. Many of the people interned during the War were American Citizens. What you're arguing for, if your concern is the abuses of government, would actually delegitimize the claims of minors to many rights and freedoms. How can we argue that mandatory schooling laws are abusive, that we should be able to enter into contracts on our own, that curfews ought to end, and that status offences are unjust if we accept status as legal non-entities who don't contribute to society? We can't secure greater protections when any claim we have to them - that we're taxpaying, duly represented members of American society, goes away under your plan. III. Petulant answer. First of all, it's in everyone's interest that poor people not starve, even the interest of minors, because they probably like their grandparents too. Second, and perhaps more importantly, not everybody gets to enjoy every program to the same degree. Equality before the law doesn't mean that every program must help every person the same way. The fact is that you don't get a say because while you understand the government or its functions, and and you understand the philosophy of our civic institutions, at least to some degree, most kids don't. I'd be horrified to know that some of the people I went to high school with would be allowed to vote because they barely knew what a state was let alone anything about politics or the system. You never answer my arguments about the fundamental incapacity of children to participate in the system, and I think it's a major issue in this round. You also never answer the plethora of services which exist partially or exclusively for children which take up a huge portion of Federal, State, and Municipal budgets. You also never answer arguments about diminished legal responsibilities, or about why voting is a necessary legal consequence of taxation.
U.S. citizens under the age of 18 should not pay taxes.

Wow, two times now I finished typing and then the website went unresponsive. I'm not going through it all again. Brief: 1. Me not being able to vote for my representative (Although still supposedly being represented) Is no different then the colonists not being able to vote for their representatives (Althouh still representated by Parliment) 2. Minorites, Woman, Immigrants are not proteted by government all the time. Ex. Slavery, Japenese concentration camps. They were not set up to be represented through the constitution. Blacks were not considered human in the founding father's days, so to say they were thought of during the time of the constitution is absurd. 3. Social Security and other welfare programs are going bankrupt, when I am older they will not be there for me. Im paying into something I'll never see. I should have a say where my tax money goes, so either give me my right to vote, or stop taxing me. Brief, but I didn't want to retype it all again. Thanks.
U.S. citizens under the age of 18 should not pay taxes.

To counter your points: 1. Citizens under the age 0f 18 are not represented! To say that their interests are spoken for is incorrect. If a person can not vote then they did not have a say in their representation. Yes, the colonies rebelled because their wasn't any colonist representing them in Parliament. However, it is not that far of a stretch to say citizens under 18 are not represented because we don't get the oppurtunity to vote. Even still, if my vote never got the person I chose elected. We would still be represented because not all citizens under 18 would vote for the same candidates. Just because older citizens get to vote for representation, does not mean that citizens under 18 are represented. 2. Yes, because most don't make money over the poverty line we don't pay income tax. However, there is still taxes taken out for social welfare programs like Social Security, and Medicare. Things that we will never see the benefits of, and yet still, we don't have a vote to support the politicans who speak out against these things. Yes, we are entitled to campaign for the candidate, still what it comes down to is the votes. We also pay a federal and state tax. At the end of the year we do get more money back then most, but we still lose out on some money. This would be fine, if we were able to vote. Since we are not able, it is wrong. And if it was so low impact, then why not just stop taxing us? 3. This is probably your best point. However, I still don't agree. People from here that are just visiting are not viable to represented. Since they are just visiting they should pay the taxes because they could go back home at anytime. But if they applied for citizenship they would have the right to vote. Us, under 18, would still not have that right. And in that lies the reason why we shouldn't have to pay taxes. I will say though, that i'm more for paying these "Other taxes" more so then I am for the taxes that get taken out of my paycheck. Thanks for the debate sir! I really liked your points, they at least made me think about it in a different light.
U.S. citizens under the age of 18 should not pay taxes.

This is inconsistent with the philosophy of taxation in American Law and History for three basic reasons: I. Minors are Represented Kids actually are represented in government - their interests are spoken for in local, state, and federal government even if they do not directly elect that representation. Put another way, a congressman still speaks for the people in his or her constituency even if they did not vote or don't intend to. There was also a time in American history where no one directly elected their Senators but nobody made the claim that Senators didn't represent the states they spoke for in the Congress. The American colonies had no voice in the British Parliament, and not even one seat was given for their interests. The disanalogy between the American Revolution and the modern American system really hurt your case. Further under this idea is the fact that minors can and do petition the government for a redress of its grievances in a huge variety of ways, from letter writing campaigns to demonstrations and student strikes. Minors have a diminished say in governmental function that goes along with their diminished legal responsibilities. II. Functionally, most minors don't pay income tax anyway Only those minors with income above the poverty line actually pay income tax. You can argue that this is still a harm for rich white kids, but the tax system systemically fails to equally protect the rich and that's a separate case. The only actual harm relative to income that a teenager suffers is the fairly small amount withheld for Medicare and certain other forms of tax and must suffer the inconvenience of applying for a refund. All in all, there's no major oppressive burden on kids that needs to be redressed. If there were a higher tax burden it might matter, but your plan is so low impact it's almost irrelevant. III. Other Taxes Virtually every other tax that a minor might have to pay is levied against all people in the United States and aren't based at all on citizenship - these are sales taxes, property taxes, tolls, etc. Every society makes any person who does the action with which the tax is associated pay it (I have to pay sales tax in the UK and British citizens have to pay sales tax here) but those actions aren't strictly necessary, so there's no harm incurred given that minors are travelling, consuming, and owning property of their own free will despite the knowledge they will have to pay a tax.
U.S. citizens under the age of 18 should not pay taxes.

It is my belief that U.S. Citizens under the age of 18 should not have to pay ANY taxes. Although we do get to have much of the benefits of where the tax money is spent, we have no representation in the government. Because we are not eligible to vote, we should not have taxes taken out of our pay checks. This was the battle cry of the American Revolution, "Taxation without representation."
schools and internet blocking websites

My opponent fails to realize that all the information on the Internet was not eternally on the Internet. People had to use books and such to archive information. Therefore, it is perfectly plausible for you to get information without the Internet. Also, while my opponent says that researching without the Internet is harder, I don't believe that to be a bad thing. Imagine if there was an automated program that completes ALL of your schoolwork for the rest of your life. Is this a good thing? I think not, as you would miss out on the point of it all - learning.
schools and internet blocking websites

alas yes... IN THE STONE AGE THAT WAS... this was when their were resources in the schools and public libraries and now all those resources are available to us in the easiest ways possible. look up the program "ZOTERO" in mozilla firefox it is wonderful and does all of the work for you (for citation and background information) when it comes to exit projects...when the websites aren't blocked in school that is. therefore schools are indeed putting more strenuous tasks on students, mentally and emotionally, in this day and age because kids aren't being taught how to cite websites in school they are taught that they just put the url here and they're work is done for them there and pops up over here.
schools and internet blocking websites

I will be arguing for web filters and the like on school computers. The reason being that the school owns the laptops, not the students. Therefore, it can be assumed that the School cannot take away the students' rights in regards to the computers, as they had none to begin with. P1: The school owns the computer P2: The school decides to put a web filter on their own computers. P3: Students do not own the computer. P4 The school has the right to put web filters on their computers. Web filters can ensure that students stay on safe and child friendly sites, while not blocking what they need to complete the course.
Obelisk would defeat Slifer in a battle

Okay. Well, funny. My opponent agrees with me. Wow. We don't need to debate, I guess. I ultimately won, because my opponent agrees with me. Thanks! However, let's begin: 1. Ultimate Win I ultimately won, because my opponent definitely agrees with me that Slifer would defeat Obelisk. 2. Power Slifer has X000/X000. If you have four cards in hand, Slifer would become 4000/4000. Slifer could have, at the highest, 9000/9000. Obelisk, has only 4000/4000. This is why Slifer would definitely beat Obelisk. When a monster is summoned, the monster's attack is reduced by 2000. So, if Slifer was on the field, and Obelisk is summoned, Obelisk's power would be 2000/2000. This means that Slifer would definitely win. http://yugioh.wikia.com... I give thanks to my opponent and the readers. Good luck!
Obelisk would defeat Slifer in a battle

Well, I guess I won. However, you could have won with the argument about Obelisk sacrificing 2 cards to eliminate all the cards on the field, but I had a trick up my sleeves. If you placed this, I would argue that when Slifer is summoned, a card on the other field must be destroyed. Therefore, this could have been a hard debate. However,you forfeited, so I guess I won this debate. I would like to debate you in the future about some other topic.
There is no right or wrong

Pro claims that he made two arguments showing that there is no right or wrong, so I went back and read his post. I cannot for the life of me see that he made any argument at all. There are three paragraphs in his opening.In the first paragraph, he complained that I was not going to assume the burden of proving that there is a right and wrong. Then he said he'd argue against altruistic morality.In the second paragraph, he merely explained what his point of view was. He gave no argument for it.In the third paragraph, he continued to explain his point of view. He came close to making an argument when he brought up David Hume, but he made no argument.I pointed all these things out in the last round. I was not ignoring Pro. I was simply pointing out that he had made no arguments for his point of view, so there was nothing for me to respond to.In this last round, Pro points out that in the absense of a moral truth, there is no morality. Well, of course not! But that's a tautology, not an argument. Again, he's just stating his position. He doesn't think there's a moral truth; therefore, there is no right or wrong. That's not an argument. That's a tautology. He hasn't shown that there is no moral truth.Strangely, Pro admits that he can't prove there is no moral truth. He said, "I of course do not think there is a way to prove that there is no objective morality," but that's what his burden of proof is in this debate. If he's going to come right out and admit that he can't bear his burden of proof, then might as well have just conceded the debate from the beginning or not initiated it at all.Pro again comes close to making an argument in this round when he says that "until they can prove this absoluteness it is safe to assume they are speaking from opinion." Perhaps what he means is that if a person fails to prove that there is a right and wrong, we should assume there is not. And since I haven't bothered to prove there is a right or wrong, the conclusion we should draw is that there is no right and wrong.If this is an argument, it's obviously fallacious one. How does it follow that because I refuse to prove there is a right and wrong that there therefore isn't one? It doesn't follow at all.I suspect Pro is just trying to shift the burden of proof here. He wanted me to assume the burden of proving there is a right and wrong so that all he'd have to do is refute my arguments. But given the fact that he initiated this debate as Pro with the resolution being that there is no right and wrong, and given the fact that he did not stipulate that his opponent must share the burden of proof, the burden of proof in this debate was entirely on him. He refused to meet his burden of proof. I had nothing to disprove since he made no arguments in support of the resolution.It is unfortunate that Pro would respond with vitriole in calling me a bore. He should rather have made some arguments and given me something to respond to. I'm disappointed as well.
There is no right or wrong

Well the neg has refused to debate anything. I proposed 2 reasons why there is no right or wrong. If you didn't want to debate than you shouldn't have accepted. If you think that my arguments don't prove that right and wrong are not real things but simply valuations of the world, then you should say why. The best I can do is to respond to the commenter that said there is no way to show this. Of course there is, in fact I don't see how anyone could prove that right and wrong have any form of objective meaning. (note when I say right and wrong I mean Immoral and moral not correct and incorrect). If you chose to debate me now there would be no point. You have already ruined the debate by refusing to engage me on any level. The mere saying that someone hasn't met the burden of proof is not how you show that they haven't you have to run through the arguments they make and show how each doesn't prove anything. Also I made it clear that my view is a negation of morality. In the absence of a positive moral truth their is in affect no morality. I argued that their is no such positive moral truth. if ~p is the statement that there is no morality, and p is the statement that there is a morality. Then a rejection of p is the acceptance of ~p if you want it in logical terms. I of course do not think there is a way to prove that there is no objective morality, because it is a concept that literally means that someone prefers something. People may think there is some absoluteness to their preference, but until they can prove this absoluteness it is safe to assume they are speaking from opinion. This applies to any opinion. If someone says red is the worst color for a car, then they must give you some reason for believing them. Eg cops pull over red cars more often than they do any other color. I hope someone else will take me up on this debate, because you have been quite a bore.
There is no right or wrong

Pro hasn't given me much to work with. He states and explains his point of view, but he doesn't offer any arguments in favor of it. He cites Niezsche as agreeing with him, but doesn't make it out as an argument from authority, so that's not really an argument either. The closest he comes to an argument is when he explains David Hume's is/ought dilemma. He claims that nothing about a situation can, by itself, give you a right or wrong. Rather, you must have a value already in place before you will see the rightness or wrongness of any action. But Pro doesn't tell us how this works out as an argument against right and wrong.So there's really just nothing for me to respond to here. Pro hasn't offered any arguments for his point of view, so he hasn't met his burden of proof.
There is no right or wrong

Strange I was hoping for a reason to be moral, because amorality needs a morality to reject. Here it goes anyways, and because you didn't make an argument for morality I will argue against the altruistic brand. I hold that morality is something that people made up, and that I (or you do not need to conform to it). I do not of course assert the absurd argument that there is no concept of write or wrong, but rather I hold that these concepts are merely an interpretation of the world. There is no such thing as what is really wrong or what is really right, but only what one person thinks is wrong or write. That is if they judge the world in that way at all! I am not going to throw a bunch of quotes at you, but Nietzsche makes this point the best. He claims that right and wrong only came about as concepts during the slave revolt in morality. The old tables of good and bad, able and unable, were flipped on their head. The able man is now the evildoer in the wrong, and the unable man is now the saint. Many unable people may need this valuation of right and wrong to get through their day, but I grant them no weight. They are like the Caloric theory. They are concepts without anything behind them. You probably find this clich", but I would also like to propose Hume's Is ought dilemma. That is you can never know what you should do based only on the facts about a situation. You must have a value not being hurt before someone can convince you that you shouldn't touch fire. I know that all of this sounds rather cruel. Sorry.
There is no right or wrong

I don't believe in right or wrong. I think it would make for an interesting argument so lets have at it. I don't have to care about anything. I do care about myself. I happen to care about some people. But this does not mean I have to care about the poor or the down trodden. In fact, I think a life lived for others is a life wasted. If everyone lived for other people we would all be living for nothing.
theists and atheists lack evidence.. therfore can never win a debate

Throughout the debate I will be making the assumption that theists and atheists have no solid arguments. In debate there is a thing called the 'burden of proof. ' When a person makes a claim it is their responsibility to provide proof or evidence of that claim. Without such proof or evidence than the claim can be dismissed. The negative can never have burden of proof because you cannot prove nonexistence. For instance, if I said there is a purple unicorn next to me, it is not your job to disprove it. But, if you say 'prove it' and I can't, then you are not going to believe there is a purple unicorn next to me. The reason is if the person making the claim cannot prove the claim then you can reasonably not believe in the claim. Likewise, if the theist has no argument, then the logical step is to not believe in god, thus being atheist. Agnostic does not have any sort of debate power because logically you don't automatically go to "I don't know then. " If I say 'Pokemon are real,' and provide no factual evidence for that claim, you aren't going to say "Wow, since there are no arguments against the existence, I don't know if pokemon are real! " You will automatically dismiss the claim as false until an argument is provided.
Secular objective morality exists

Seeing as all my opponent did was provide a much too lengthy explanation for why teenagers do drugs and then when I asked him to elaborate he simply said he did bring an argument and that I didn't read it. I will ask voters though to read through my opponent's posts and try to find a defense of secular objective morality. If my opponent did bring one then I have failed to refute it and you should vote for my opponent. If you see like me that my opponent brought no such argument then I ask for a Con vote by default as there was nothing to refute.
Secular objective morality exists

If we are assuming that there is no God, or higher Being, then objective human morality would consist of a human being, without and independent of human influence, either from themselves or from other people, making the moral and virtuous choice in a situation that requires a decision of morality. My argument is that this objective morality exists. When a child is born, they are born into a world that is full of people that are both very moral, but they are also born into a world that is full of immoral people. When the child exits the womb, objective morality exists. Babies and children are the most innocent things in the entire world. There is nothing in their mind or conscience telling them to make an immoral choice. Parents' roles are to teach children the things that are right and the things that are wrong. The children would not even know that these immoral things are wrong until their parents tell them that they are wrong. It is at the point that the children realize that there are "right" things and "wrong" things that they begin to see that they can make immoral choices. With the influence of parents telling children that certain things are wrong, and therefore "forbidding them," it is only making the child or person want to do these things. The natural choice for the child, without knowledge of there being a decision that is rebellious, would be the thing that seems the most right to them. Why do most teenagers try drugs and alcohol? The bottom line is because their parents tell them not to. If a child grew up in a hypothetical world where they were never told that drugs were bad, but the drugs played the same role that they did today, then the children would see that there was no need to use drugs, and they would stray away from drug use and abuse. It is at this point that objective morality is obvious. In our world, most kids choose to use drugs because it is just the rebellious thing to do. It is not because they honestly want to have the drugs in their body. Without knowing that drugs are bad, and that people do not want them to use them, the students and teenagers would not partake in drug use.