BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
logic is cause and effect

bad apple=memory of a good appleAgain, this is a bare assertion, and it's not clear how this is related to the resolution or even the present argument.how do you reason correctly about if its right or wrong to eat the non existent apple in your hand?Again, how is this related to equating to logic and cause and effect?so its logical to eat a black apple?There's nothing illogical about eating a black apple. For example:P1) If I want to kill myself, I should eat a bad apple.P2) I want to kill myself.C) I should eat a bad apple.This is a valid syllogism.apple=healthy(logic)logical=eat applesillogical=eat black deadly appleMy opponent seems to misunderstand what it means for something to be 'logical'. An action itself cannot be logical or illogical. Logic does not study what to do in the situation. It studies the principles of reasoning that apply to every situation.Modifying the above syllogism, I get this:P1) If I want to kill myself, I should eat a black deadly apple.P2) I want to kill myself.C) I should eat a black deadly apple. This is still a logically valid syllogism.ConclusionMy opponent misunderstands the very concept of 'logic'. His arguments are either irrelevant to the resolution (or never shown to be relevant), or deductively invalid and inductively weak. He has not made a sound argument to counter my points, and has not fulfilled his BOP. Therefore, the motion must not stand.
Theism v Atheism

Theism v Atheism Theism is the view that a supreme being who possess great making properties (the three omni's) exists and is the personal cause of the cosmos. Atheism is the denial of this view and it assumes that the basic reality is materialistic until proven otherwise. The historic definition of “atheist” is one who “maintains that there is no God, that is, that the sentence God exists expresses a false proposition.” [1] Atheism is “extremely simple to define.” It is “the belief that there is no God or gods.” [2] For the purposes of this debate I'd like to stick with this definition, despite the controversey that atheism is a "lack of belief." I think we genuinely want to know whether or not God exists. Burden of Proofs Con must sufficiently defend why it’s more probable that God doesn't exist. Pro must sufficiently defend why it’s more probable that God does exist. Certainty isn't required for knowledge here. Rules Round one for acceptance and definitions and final rounds for objective summaries of arguments, no rebuttals or new arguments. The principle of charity is to be exemplified as well as adherence to the cannons of logic and facts of experience. These are our common ground. [3] Sources 1.Paul Edwards, ed., “Atheism,” Encyclopedia of Philosophy (New York: Macmillan, 1967), 1:175 2. Julian Baggini, Atheism: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) 3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Capitalism vs Socialism (Economically) Dbt 2

The argument presented here is against the Progressive Income Tax, there are some countries in Europe that have this and I am 100% not for it. From the other debate: "Okay to start, I am going to put Socialism on the stand. Allow me to be the plaintiff, and I will start my testimony by asking the witness to please explain why he continually steals money from the people, and why he wishes for the rich to pay so much more than the poor (Graduated Income Tax). He will say that the rich have such a disproportionate about of wealth that they, and everyone else, should pay taxes to help those less fortunate in the national round of affairs. In this way, there will be less people who are poor, and more people who are happy. Here is the thing that is not clicking for Socialism. When you take away more money from the rich, including those who are big business owners, what do you think will happen? Do you think that there will be a sudden influx of workers? Well no, I am assuming not, they will actually fire workers, and diminish jobs from the economy. Now this sounds evil and treacherous to say for I am saying that these wealthy people should have such power over people who are equal to them in almost all terms except money; but consider it, they were successful enough to reach that position, and if you do tax away their money, they will reduce jobs, and those in need will not have a job. With much contemplation though, I gave myself a temporal excuse for this: these people will find jobs in entrepreneurship. But here's the thing, this is not the case, in a matter of fact, only a small percentage of them will do so, otherwise the 6.7% of Americans who do not have a job now would be doing so. Let us talk now about increasing the tax on middle classmen. Every business that is owned by the middle class is going to have to reduce their workers or raise prices to compensate. If they reduce workers, that will counter the effect; if they raise prices, inflation occurs. And as they raise prices, it takes more money to pay for things that the consumer wants, and now things are less so being transferred from people who value them less to people who value them more. If we do not print money, prices going up would actually affect those who are poor a lot more than you might think. Think of it like this, you give a million dollars to a lot of people, if you make things cost a lot more, there is less stuff to go around for everyone--production goes down to meet the reduced demand, and now that not that many people are buying, standard of living goes down, and entrepreneurship levels go way down. These sorts of taxes lead to less jobs, less innovation, and a reduction in the standard of living. Do remember that I advocate the basic needs of all American citizens to be taken care of for those who cannot afford them, but by no means should they ever be given luxury. A one room apartment with 3 small meals a day, water, and sufficient healthcare is all they need."
Capitalism vs Socialism (Economically) Dbt 2

The first debate of this sort ended in a forfeit, and thus I am going to re-up it. I will post my opening again. "I will argue for the advocation of pure capitalism with the only socialism being in the providing of very minimal needs to those who need it (i.e. Education, Food, Water, Shelter, Healthcare, etc)." And on acceptance, I will likely repost my first round, in hopes of founding a counter-argument. 3000 character limit.
Flat tax is more fair than progressive tax is

"The example of the NBA players is specious because it applies to every aspect of life. It's not only the NBA players but also doctors and teachers like you brought up. Every person has a different job that dictates their salary but that's just the inevitable reality, flat tax is not to blame here as with progressive tax it would exactly the same." My argument is Why is it fair "the inevitable reality" for my job to dictate my salary but not the percentage of tax that I pay. In other words why is it OK "fair" to say person A will make 10,000 a year for there job and person B will make 50,000, but not OK "fair" to say person A will be responsible for 2% tax on that 10,000 and person B 5% on the 50,000. The only reply I seem to gather is that You may argue that person B worked harder/smart then person A and they should not have to pay "more" tax then person A and instead be rewarded for there hard work. I believe your answer or reply to my question shows that work ethic has little to nothing to do with how much we earn, supply and demand as you pointed out is a much bigger factor, so who is to say that person A is not smarter or a harder worker then person B, maybe person A just just not in demand at the moment. The reason I believe progressive tax is more fair is because it is based on the world as we know it and live it. We are not created equal, we have different taste and desires, and we are apart of societies that have many different needs, just as doctors Can be in high demand today McDonald's workers can be in high demand tomorrow. For flat tax to be more fair I believe it has to be one hundred percent true that each and everyone is on an equal playing field and that your work ethic alone determines what your are worth and what you should be rewarded. But again as pointed out in response to my question we see that this is not the case. "Flat tax is fair towards everyone because everyone's efforst are rewarded. In progressive tax the lower paying jobs are favoured due to the fact they simply have to play less taxes." This made me laugh a bit. I do not think you could ever find one person who would prefer a lower paying job to a high paying one because of taxes, at the end of the day the person with the higher paying job is still coming home with more money, so to say that with progressive tax people would choose a lower paying job because of taxes is comical.
Flat tax is more fair than progressive tax is

The example of the NBA players is specious because it applies to every aspect of life. It's not only the NBA players but also doctors and teachers like you brought up. Every person has a different job that dictates their salary but that's just the inevitable reality, flat tax is not to blame here as with progressive tax it would exactly the same. I am unable to answer your question directly as it is somewhat misleading. I do not believe that a doctor is inherently "smarter" than a teacher BUT they have spent more time studying. Some doctors spend over 10 years acquiring their qualifications to work in their position whereas a teacher just has to complete the teacher certification program and they're good to go. The reason why doctors are paid so much is because there are so few of them, as it is with every other profession. Rest assured that if everyone was a doctor or a lawyer (your example) then the rarer labour would pay more, a teacher for instance. Here is a picture that explains supply and demand of labour more simply: http://www.tutor2u.net... The same applies to the store worker and the lawyer. Anyone can be a store worker (well, almost anyone) but it takes time to become a lawyer. Why would anyone spend countless years of their lives just to make slightly more than someone who didn't? Count in the years spent in university when the store worker can already start making a salary. Long story short, there NEEDS to be a reward for hard work and by hard work I mean university because a university doesn't pay, on the contrary it costs you which means a lot of people need to work and study at the same time. But this applies to everything, achieving a higher quantity of labour should result in a higher salary in my view. The difference between a 7 foot tall man and a 5 foot tall woman. Let me put it this way, if YOU were the employer and YOU had to choose the salary of your workers, would you share it evenly or give more to those who are more efficient? Yes, men are born stronger, faster and frankly smarter, it's the harsh inevitable reality. Let's not be so naive to think that we can reward people for equal efforts but unequal results. Even though it sounds very noble theoretically, it is impossible to achieve. Anyway, I already touched the equality issue in my opening statement. A doctor and a teacher don't pay the same amount of taxes, they merely give the same amount of % away from their total salary, which is completely different. Flat tax is fair towards everyone because everyone's efforst are rewarded. In progressive tax the lower paying jobs are favoured due to the fact they simply have to play less taxes. Let me ask you this: why would someone even want to be a member of a society when their hard work and talent are not being recognised?
Flat tax is more fair than progressive tax is

Working harder/smarter only goes so far, we as people are different, we have different ability's, different interest and different talents. The #1 professional women basketball player no matter how hard she works will not make even close to the worst men professional player (WNBA max salary $105,000 , NBA Min salary $507,336). No matter how smart a person is there job dictates what they will/can earn. I pose these questions. Is a doctor automatically smarter because they earn more then a teacher? Is it fair to expect everyone to be a doctor? Do men and women working in the same job earn the same? you can argue that most of the time they do, but if it is not 100% percent of the time is that fair? If a person works there butt off as a stocker at a dept. store working the hardest that they can, working as many hours as possible, should they earn more then a lawyer who slacks at there job? do they earn more? I think not, is that fair? You may say well the lawyer made a smarter choice in becoming a lawyer, but then I ask again should we all try to become lawyers? I argue that fair is about giving everybody a fair fight, and to do that you have to match people who are similar a 7 foot tall man in a fist fight with a 5 foot tall women I would argue is not fair. Asking a teacher to pay the same amount of tax as a doctor is not fair, to say it is, is to say that if a teacher works just as hard and as smart as a doctor they will earn the same, but there is no proof to that and if that is not happening universally then how can it be fair. Until society says that for sure you will be rewarded for how hard you work no matter what you do, you can not say a flat tax is more fair. Society decides what a job is worth, if we as a society paid more attention to women basketball maybe they would make the same as a man. Until society as we know it changes we have to base what is fair on what we have. What we have right now is a society that says a doctor earns up here, and a teacher earns down here no matter the work ethic, no matter how smart the individual is. So what is fair is for doctors to have a tax % that is up here and for teachers to have a % that is down here and that is progressive tax.
Flat tax is more fair than progressive tax is

Even though a society is a group of people working towards a mutual goal, you can't treat it as a single unit. Some people in that society work more, some work less, which means they deserve to be rewarded respectively. By saying that progressive tax is more fair on the basis that it's more fair for the whole you're forgetting the fact that a society still consists of individuals, it's the fundement of a society and you can't just ignore that. Secondly, I already said that the prosperity of a society is not under question in this debate, so your argument of progressive tax creating a "better" society is irrelevant and besides the point. I'm arguing that EVEN IF progressive tax is "better" it's simply more unfair as you're essentially taking from those who do and giving to those who don't (this is just one point of my whole plea).
Flat tax is more fair than progressive tax is

When it comes to the individual I do believe flat tax is completely more fair than progressive tax. When we talk society though, progressive tax is more fair. We are not all born equal and there is diversity in every society, we all come from different backgrounds and have different interest and in many jobs gender is a huge hurdle. If we lived in a perfect world where our work ethic alone determined our "status" flat tax would ideal, but we do not. So if we were to take work ethic out of the question, again if we were talking about individually, I would agree flat tax is more fair, but in this case progressive tax is more fair because it creates a better society for the whole. The biggest different between a flat tax and progressive tax is determining what is a reasonable % a person should have to contribute. With a flat tax we are forced to look at the lowest income within the society to find that number, with progressive tax we are able to take like people and group them together to better the society.
Flat tax is more fair than progressive tax is

Hello everyone, I would like to argue that flat tax is more fair towards society as a whole than progressive tax is. Con will argue that, on the contrary, progressive tax is fairer. Society - An organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes. Fair - Legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules: a fair fight. PLEASE NOTE The definition of "fair" is subjective. As such, a conclusive resolution will likely never be found. Con's mission is to argue why their definition of "fair" is superior to mine. This is purely philosophical (as seen from the category: philosophy rather than economy). Prosperity of the society is irrelevant. References from reality will be disregarded, use the definitions given or your own ideas, general truths, quotes instead, if needed. The debate is in free form, meaning that statements and rebuttals are mixed in all rounds. I will start with my opening statement: As we know, nothing in life is given for free and has to be worked for. Those who work harder/more/smarter receive more, it's a simple concept and a universal truth (most of the time, anyway). "You reap what you sow" as they say. Now, if we consider the result of our hard work an award for it, then we can deduce that people who work harder deserve to be rewarded more. In a society which practices progressive tax, however, this is not the case. Those who work more are taken from to promote those who don't. I believe such a concept of fairness is inherently false because of a number of reasons: 1) Fairness =/= equality. Frankly, people are born unequal. If one man works harder to survive the winter and the other one doesn't then that's just Darwinism. If we convert this metaphor into a society - if one man spends more time working/studying to reach a desirable position then he deserves to be awarded more. 2) Equal opportunities Although people aren't equal, we are (and should be) given equal opportunities to succeed in a society. It's not like people in progressive tax are deliberately handicapped to perform worse. Everyone is given the freedom and rights to succeed in their own right. 3) Treating people equally If we want to give people equal rights and treatment then we should all receive the same % of taxes regardless of the salary. In fact, if we didn't know people's salaries progressive tax would not even be a thing. The fact that we tax by % means that those who make more still have to pay more away. 4) Diminishment of labour Not to be mistaken with how this affects the prosperity of a society. Diminishment of labour is also inherently unfair as those who work less are fundamentally favoured due to the fact that they have to pay less taxes by %.
Sex Education Should Be Taught In Schools

Thank you to harrytruman for your interest in the debate. Here are my rules.Structure:Round 1 - Opening Statements from ConRound 2 - Rebuttals from Pro, Defense from ConRound 3 - Opening Statements from Pro, Rebuttals from ConRound 4 - Defense from Pro, Con Must WaiveRules:1) No hate speech/ slander2) No kritkiks3) No plagiarism4) No new arguments in final round5) Please use citations6) No forfeiture7) No troll arguments8) BoP is sharedVoting Rules:1) Vote Convincing Arguments2) Only vote conduct if plagiarism, forfeiture, and/or slander is present3) Only vote spelling and grammar if it's so poor it detracts from the arguments at handTerms:Sex Education - education in schools on the subject of sexual activity and sexual relationshipsShould - must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, orexpediency)Be - occur; take place.Taught - to impart knowledge of or skill in; give instruction inIn - (used to indicate inclusion within space, a place, or limits)Schools - an institution where instruction is given, especially to persons under college age
Sex Education Should Be Taught In Schools

Last I checked you had to be 18 for your choices with your body to count, i.. that's why you have to be 18 to have sex otherwise it's considered statuatory rape. So people have rights over their bodies, but this doesn't apply. This is what I meant by "just not," and "just not," isn't a sighn of shame in ones "sexuality." Enable or sex o be legal, it has to be consentual, and you have to be an audult to engage in a contrat. {1}Wouldn't it just be easier to pass a law saying "don't have sex before you are 18 under penalty of death." {1}. http://blogs.findlaw.com...
Sex Education Should Be Taught In Schools

Thank you for your defense. Here are my opening statements. Typically, in sex education, you learn how to put on a condom, tips on safe sex, the risks of getting infected, and much more, according to the current curriculum. [1] This is definitely necessary when you look at the statistics of STDs and STIs. "More than half of all people will have an STD/STI at some point in their lifetime....About half of all new STDs/STIs in 2000 occurred among youth ages 15 to 24." With sexual education, we can reduce the harm and possibly deaths of young people due to sexually transmitted diseases. Thousands die every year from diseases such as AIDS and HIV. "In the classroom setting, high quality sex education curricula that have been shown to be effective in delaying sex, reducing the frequency of sex or the number of sexual partners, increasing condom and contraceptive use, and reducing the number of STDs in youth are those that not only discuss the dangers of high-risk sexual activity, but also address multiple factors affecting sexual behavior, such as perceived risk (i.e. the personâ€™s belief that he or she is at risk for a STD), social norms (i.e. the attitudes and behaviors around condom use within the personâ€™s social circle), and self-efficacy (i.e. the personâ€™s confidence in their ability to insist on using condoms with their partner)." As proven before, condoms are made to prevent pregnancy and disease. If used correctly, they work 98% of the time. [6] Obviously, if high quality sexual education is taught, then STDs will go down, particularly in youth. B. Teen Pregnancy "In 2014, a total of 249,078 babies were born to women aged 15â€"19 years, for a birth rate of 24.2 per 1,000 women in this age group." Apparently, this is supposed to be the low! Yes, while the rates have gone down, teen pregnancy is still an issue. It affects the teens, the children, and families involved. "In 2010, teen pregnancy and childbirth accounted for at least $9.4 billion in costs to U.S. taxpayers for increased health care and foster care, increased incarceration rates among children of teen parents, and lost tax revenue because of lower educational attainment and income among teen mothers. "Pregnancy and birth are significant contributors to high school dropout rates among girls. Only about 50% of teen mothers receive a high school diploma by 22 years of age, whereas approximately 90% of women who do not give birth during adolescence graduate from high school. "The children of teenage mothers are more likely to have lower school achievement and to drop out of high school, have more health problems, be incarcerated at some time during adolescence, give birth as a teenager, and face unemployment as a young adult." Like the quote said before in my last point, high quality sex education reportedly can increase the use of contraceptives and condoms which, in turn, can reduce teen pregnancy. This can improve the futures of many teen girls and boys, as most teens may not be ready for a child, especially when most of them are still living at home and are in the care of their own parents.
Sex Education Should Be Taught In Schools

Actually, this is very self evident, if you went up to someone in 1958 and asked them "would you want your children to be taught about sex by the GOVERNMENT," they'd say "ob course not, why would I do that?" And you can see how much better of a generation that was. Another point to bring up, I have to learn sex education in class- and I can tell you it is really unnecessary, first of all, I learned the same old crap in 6th, 7th, and 8th grade, now 9th grade too? Give me a break. It's ridiculous, everyone knows this stuff by 15, the thingy goes in the thingy and that's it, why should we have to do it all over again? If children don't have parents, then their guardian can tell them, or they can just go look it up.