BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Flat Tax

You make three points in your argument: the effect of the flat tax on the poor, the effect on the rich, and the effect on the economy. I will approach them in that order. It seems obvious that a switch from our current system to a flat tax system would have a negative effect on the poor: their tax average would increase, and therefore they would have less money. In the short term, this is absolutely true. However, in the long term, the effect is quite the opposite. The increase in the poor's demand for money would lead many people away from low paying jobs, ensuring that companies compete more for their employees, raising their wages and benefits. So the mass change in needs of the poor would have a large positive effect on companies with high wages, due to the increased opportunity cost of staying at a convenient job with lower pay, and companies with low wages would lose money or raise wages to compete. In fact, one study showed that the implementation of a flat tax would increase aftertax income of people currently in the lowest tax bracket by an average of 7% because of this [1]. This leads into the argument against your claim that the taxes would benefit the rich. The vast majority of the rich are owners of large companies, with a large number of employees. Again, it seems blatantly clear that decreasing the taxes of the rich would increase their aftertax income. However, at some point this break will run out on them if they allow enough workers to leave due to better wages at a different company. So they must reduce their pay, or at least the pay of the high level employees at their company, in order to maintain headcount. So the reditribution of wealth due to the change in taxes will be nullified by the competition for labor it will create. Finally, you claim that the redistibution of wealth will dampen demand due to the inability of the poor to afford luxuries. However, as I said in my original statement, the incentivization of labor will increase labor participation, which wil necessarily increase the velocity of money, even here in Arizona. In conclusion, we see that when looking at the effects of the flat tax, despite predispositions, it will actually increase the income of the poor, decrease the income of the wealthy, and improve the economy. Source: http://www.ncpa.org...
There are proofs supporting the belief that the Quran is from Allah

Definition challengeI'd like to provide my own definitions for "proof. " I define "proof" as support for a proposition. In this case, the proposition that the Qur'an is from Allah. ClarificationI agree with my partner's five criterian: 1. Luck/ Chance/ Coincidence 2. Author was very intelligent and figured it out(research, tests etc), a genius 3. Already existing information, nothing new 4. Common sense/observable (anyone can figure this out) 5. A source beyond all the capabilities of man at the time was involved (Allah in this case). I'd like to request to add to this list:6. Context - The context of the Qur'an or the Hadith must support the scientific or prophetic claim. 7. Truth - It must be truth in its entirety With those 2 items added, I have nothing more to say. Good luck.
There are proofs supporting the belief that the Quran is from Allah

proof: to produce belief in its truth. Belief: Confidence in the truth or existence of something The rest of the resolution is straightforward and means exactly what anyone would first think it means, no semantics please. = = = = = What is this Debate about? What is each side arguing? = = = = = This debate will be about the proof supporting the divine nature of the Quran. Are there any good arguments and reasons to believe the Quran is a divine message revealed to Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him)? Or is the proof weak and not enough to warrant it divinity? Pro will be arguing that there are good reasons to believe the Quran is a divine message revealed to Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). Con will only be arguing that the proof supporting the Quran is weak and not enough to warrant it divinity. = = = = = Debate structure for each round = = = = = 1. Acceptance 2. Opening Arguments 3. Rebuttals/Arguments 4. Closing Statements/Rebuttals No side can present new arguments in the last round only rebuttals and closing statements. = = = = = Clarifications = = = = = I would like to present a small system that my opponent and I have to use, I encourage the audience to use this method as well. This is without any bias and is what one should be thinking whenever a truth in about anything is presented. 1. Luck/ Chance/ Coincidence 2. Author was very intelligent and figured it out(research, tests etc), a genius 3. Already existing information, nothing new 4. Common sense/observable (anyone can figure this out) 5. A source beyond all the capabilities of man at the time was involved (Allah in this case). When there is a prophecy or a fact that is discovered later not only in Islam but in any religion, one must realize that this does not make it miraculous based on one occurrence and I realize this. However if there are numerous occurrences where the only explanation that applies is number 5 and number 1 is not viable anymore, then one should believe it has strong proofs supporting it. Also the verses of the Quran I and my opponent have to use is from Abdullah Yusuf Ali's interpretation. One can find all the chapters of the Quran by changing the number in the URL. For example the URL for chapter 2 of the Quran is: http://scholaris.com... and the URL is for Chapter 7 of the Quran is: http://scholaris.com... The only difference between the chapters are the numbers, one is 002 (for chapter 2) and the other 007 (for chapter 7). With these clarifications, introductions, and conditions, this debate is ready to begin.
Mitt Romney would make a horrible a president of the USA

is there some rule that says that when i did not respond to a point means that it is dropped for all time and eternity? using this rule my opponent admits that his first arguments were contradictory in that he was not offensive but short sighted because he ran harsh and offensive political adds. this is my response to the hypocrite accusation. mccain's jab was personal. attacking his integrity. romney's adds and attacks were all attacking the history and stance on issues, not their personal integrity. he complemented and stated how much he supported mccain as an individual on several occasions. on offensive did he not call al sharpton a bigot? Short sighted. i do not know where my opponent gets this evidence that Romney is short sighted. his record in the private sector disproves any accusation of lack of foresight. my opponent claims that romney is not fir for emergencies. Is not the largest state deficit in 60 years a emergency? is not a corrupt plagued, under financed, understaffed and 2 years away Olympics an emergency? If yes he fixed them all. without raising taxes while simultaneously creating the best public education system in the nation. on foreign policy did not he suggest a military campaign in Iran. did he not suggest that we should approach N. korea's claim of nuclear disarmament with suspicion? did he not criticize nancy pelocie's trip to syria? he has shown his ability to get in people's faces by running the negative adds. my weak debate argument is not that he is polite. it is that he answers questions, speaks clearly, forcefully and respectfully. just a question i thought Ayatollah was not president anymore. notice my opponent believes that rude, arrogant, stiff and intolerant people make the best presidents, and his support for john mccain is strongly based on this characteristic. also notice how by his own logic my opponent admits that his arguments are contradictory and hypocritical. but let 'em argue his points as i did.
Mitt Romney would make a horrible a president of the USA

Your rebuttal said two things 1. interrupting is rude 2. good track record First, let's see what you ignored. 1. Hypocrite 2. Short-sighted on issues You did not attack these two points, you can not attack them after dropping them, so you agree that Romney is a hypocrite and short-sighted. So already we have two reasons why Romney would make a bad president. Your only case about his weak debate is he is polite. And I really do not give a **** if our president is polite. He needs to get in the face of problems and solve them. If faced with a crisis, he would let Bin Laden walk all over him. He would not be able to fare up against Chavez or Ayatollah of Iran. He would not be able to get North Korea to back down or China to stay in it's place. He would not be able to tell Mexico to stop immigration. Rather rude and effective, than polite and ineffective. If faced with a national crisis, Mitt Romney would be the worst candidate to solve the problem. The only good qualities is the fact he can be like Donald Trump and has a good record. So ask yourselves, Donald Trump wanna be who has a good record, who is a hypocrite, who is short-sighted, and who can not solve foreign problems? I think not. Vote No for Romney for '08 nominee
Mitt Romney would make a horrible a president of the USA

My opponent insists that Romney should of interrupted his opponents during debates. interrupting is a sign a weakness. it states that your arguments are too strong for me to defend so i will prevent you from making them. it states that i do not respect you as a person nor your ideas. he allows his opponents to make their point then responds when it is the right time and place. my opponent believes that Romney because the debate did not allow defenders to defend, should of interrupted and disrespected the opponents. that is not profesional, courteous or polite. my opponent believes that rude, arrogant, stiff and intolerant people make the best presidents. he did have the best record. his state had the highest reading and math scores at the same time in the whole nation. He erased a huge deficit without raising taxes. that is the best record of any governor running for president. he also ran the most successful consulting firm of our time.
Mitt Romney would make a horrible a president of the USA

1. Hypocritical Romney's attack ads did not portray the whole truth. They mentioned some statistics to mislead the people. McCain and Huckabee did not whine and complain, they attacked back. Then Romney calls for a stop on personal attacks. Both are lies, or both are partial lies. Either way, all three parties were using negative attacks. Romney dished it out, but he couldn't take it. That's what I call a hypocrite. 2. Bad debater The first three do not prove Romney is a good debater. They prove he can spout rhetoric well. The last one proves he is a bad debater. He was walked all over. He tried to interrupt, but failed. Everyone else interrupts him and he lets them. He has no strength when debating. Do not give me, it's rude, crap. He does not have the force to get what needs to be done, done. 3. Short-sighted When I say short-sighted, I also mean his flip-flopping. Anyone can youtube it and fins hundreds of videos. HE changes his stance because he does not think about what he supports far enough in the future. He ran a company. So what! A company does not equal a country. His multiple stances on abortion, gun-rights, immigration prove he does not have the ability to rationalize his actions. _--------------------------------------------------------------------- you give me two reasons why he is good 1. he erased the largest defecit in mass. since WWII without raising taxes. (the fee raising was 3% of the total) 2. he lowered takes while at the same time leading massacusets to the highest reading and math scores in the nation. a first time for any state. These all fall under the issues what I mean is, what he supports. he supports lowing taxes and cutting spending (so does every republican) He supports education. So does everyone. If you look at track record, he does not have the best. You did not prove one thing that Romney does well that should make him president. I have proved he is hypocritical, weak, and short-sighted.
Mitt Romney would make a horrible a president of the USA

i think leaving the issues out of it is a very good idea. i encourage all the voters to choose based on the skills of the opponents not on personal preference. 1. hypocritical. the adds that romney ran were attacking the issues and positions of his opponents. mcain was attacking his personal integrity and honesty. 2. weak debater. i assume that the most recent debate was the only one you saw. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... these are clips from debates that show his ability to fight opponents and win. some are clips from news casts and experts that talk about his skill as a debater. my opponent calls romney week for allowing other canidates to walk all over him. the debating format was different in this case because it did not allow the victims of attacks to respond. so the only was that romney could stop his opponents was to interupt and be rude. e.g. robin williams in man of the year. He has stated that if his faith dooms his canpaign then so be it. using the above evidence romney is an excelent debater and stedfast in his policies. 3.My opponents arguments are contradictory. the arguments are that he is week because he does not go on the offensive but a hypocrite because he runs negative adds. I an quite shire that running negaitive adds are extremely offensive. the argument is that the after shock of the negative adds almost destroyed him but i will say it again the debating rules did not allow for counter arguments. If you look at his record as buisness man he is anything but short seighted. his rule for investing was allways long term. that is how he made 1/4 billion personal dollars and founded arguably the most sucsessful investment and consulting firm in out generation. his foresight and long term planning made this possible. why romney is a good canidate. 1. he erased the largest defecit in mass. since WWII without raising taxes. (the fee raising was 3% of the total) 2. he lowered takes while at the same time leading massacusets to the highest reading and math scores in the nation. a first time for any state. these two issues are universaly accepted and unless my opponent thinks that getting better education is bad and having a large defecit is good, there should be no problem. he was able to do this with only one term as governor. an equally short time period he was abel to turn around the 2002 winter games in SLC. that is why my opponents arguments are flawed and romney is the best republican canidate for president.
Mitt Romney would make a horrible a president of the USA

There are many reasons why I believe Mitt Romney would make a horrible president But to begin, we will not debate issues. Why? Because it seems everyone dis-agrees with the issues. So we will be debating his personality. 1.) Hypocritical We all have seen Mitt Romney's negative campaign ads against McCain and Huckabee. In last nights debate, McCain made some funny remarks about Romney having many different positions. Mitt Romney replied that we should try to keep personal attacks out of things. ***I don't know about you, but I don't want a president that would move against China and then tell China that they can't do the same thing to the US. 2.) Weak debater In times of crisis, American needs a president that can take a stand and fight. Go on the offensive. Not only with military but with words. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy went on the offensive in debates with the USSR. He told them he would not back down. Our ambassador to the UN said he would wait "till Hell freezes over" to hear the response of the USSR and Cuba. Mitt Romney showed last night that he would not be able to do the same thing. He rolled over last night and let McCain talk all over him. He was not able to make one candidate stop talking and let him speak. 3.) Short-sighted Romney does look far enough into the future to make a decision. The negative campaign ads before Iowa is proof. Did he not expect to be attacked from McCain and Huckabee? Apparently not, because he had nothing to say in response. He does not think far enough head with his action and consider all the outcomes. Because of this, he was unprepared and utterly destroyed. I find these 3 qualities make up the qualities of someone I would most definitively NOT want to be president of the United States .
i will get the fewest votes in this debate

Pro has seemed to overlook one glaring hole in her argument:Not all votes have the same weight.Pro takes only of votes, not points.Thus, it is perfectly possible to receive a greater number of votes, yet lose the debate due to lack of points. Consider: 5 single point votes for Pro against 1 six point vote for Con.With this in mind, Pro can no longer rely on logical paradox to determine a future outcome and Pro must provide some other argument or reason for somehow knowing the future outcome of this debate.Indeed, vote wisely.
i will get the fewest votes in this debate

i will get the fewest votes in this debate. when the poll shows that i got the fewest votes.... my affirmation will be affirmed. that means that i really won this debate even if i got the fewest votes. when most people are voting against me, that could only mean that the voter participating in voting against me, is contradicting himself. that is, i will have won the debate so how can you be voting agaisnt me? the only way to ensure that you are in the right as a voter, is to vote "pro". vote wisely.
It is right to kill animals to save human life

In Round one it says clearly that if you forfeit, points will go to your opponent. Contentions1. Animals Have the right not to be killed. Why do animals have the right to be killed? Humans are animals. It is the same thing as some kind of animal can kill us to save their lives. Animals have the right to not be killed and move freely around. My arguments will be in the next round because our arguments and rounds can only have 500 charecters in length. Thank you.
It is right to kill animals to save human life

god created lacs of living being,among them human being are superior.qura'an reffers human being as ashraful makhlukaat(best of living beings)now comming to your debate,yes we can kill a animal to save a life of human beings as human being is precious,superior to animal.for example if some one tries to kill the prime minister of your country but his bodyguard comes forward and kills himself to save the life of pm.now a question for you,what happend is right or wrong?
Cloverfield was a great movie.

This movie was great. I am so tred of hearing people complain about it, and I am especially tired of hearing why they didn't like. Anyone who went to this movie thinking it was going to be a Godzilla meets youtube movie obviously was clueless. This movie was meant to feel realistic and it did. Ask yourself, what would you do in the same situation? Maybe you would have said **** the one person you love but I might of done the same as Rob (the main character). The monster was just awesome and definently worth more than I expected. Everyone should of known that this was going to be similar to the Blair Witch Project but it is obvious that people who hated that movie went to see this one. If you didn't like Cloverfield I would really like to hear real reasons why. Not, "The camera made me dizzy!" or "OMG!, SO MANY QUESTIONS WHERE LEFT UNANSWERED!" or any other stupid reason, you should have had a pretty good idea about what this movie was going to be before you went to see it. It was after all produced by J.J. Abrams...
Cloverfield was a great movie.

"Remember, This movie was supposed to have a real feel to it. We weren't supposed to think that we were watching actors, we were supposed to think we were watching a home-made video of real people and that is how it felt. If you think about it, criticizing the acting is kind of like criticizing the "acting" in your friends vacation video from Florida because he or she did something stupid that you personally would not have said or done." It's not that. It's that the acting was so bad, you could tell they were trying to act natural. Kind of like how a friend pretends to act normal when something is bothering him, do you know what I mean? It's a forced kind of natural. "Ok, this I actually agree with you on but she was hardly actually in the movie anyways. She was the only actor that felt like a reality TV one." Okay, I'm glad we agree. "Imagine how crazy your emotions would be going in the same situation. Her wounds weren't really that bad when she was first bitten, I've experienced worse in real life. The part where she exploded was simply brilliant." Exactly. If she were that emotionally unstable, she wouldn't have gone from being consoled by Lily to consoling Lily within 15 minutes. She would be too shocked to even care about other people. "I would have loved to seen something like a collection of videos gathered of the monster from all around the city but whatever. The story wasn't the most original but what is original now a days? This movie took a fresh, new approach on the genre. The movie was far more original than other recent movies that people have labeled great like Juno, I am Legend and SAW4. I hope we see more from the Cloverfield world from Abrams." It's true, but think of it this way. In a stale old room, you open the window for fresh air and get a face full of more hot, dry air. Cloverfield was supposed to be THE original movie amidst a bunch of typical ones, but the plot was just as cliche. It didn't live up to people's expectations. If it were "great", it would have been great in nearly every way. The fact that the plot was mediocre deprives it of "great" status. "I guess if you compare this movie to Star Wars and Lord of the Rings it is just good. However, compared to all the movies released within the last year, this film was great. Also, I think it is an outstanding monster movie." I can't really find any genre in which Cloverfield can be called "great". It's a really good monster movie compared to most monster movies, and the style was really unique. But it did leave me asking "is that...it?" I would look forward to a sequel though.