BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The "Fair Tax" isn't really fair but helps the rich and hurts the poor.

Ok, for my final rebuttal. First off, I should win by means of topicality. The Fair tax is supposed to be fair. I.e. the same for all. That is obviously being done because the government is not punishing someone for making more money. It's not a fault if someone has become rich. Next, I'll go through his last points: 1) Increases income gap. ---> No it doesn't, the trickle-down effect will eventually lead the money from the top to the bottom. 2) Not as many tax breaks as rich get. ---> That actually hasent been determined, it has been said that the upper and middle will get tax breaks, not sure yet. Your making an assumption. 3) Promotes market, only for the rich. ---> This is totally false. The trickle-down effect, plus the tax breaks will help stimulate the middle class to spend more into the system. Also, you have already conceded that the poor get "prebates" so its helping them too. 4) Eliminates all taxes for an outrageous one ---> Thats the point, its fair for all classes. It takes away the pointless ones. 5) The Fair tax helps corporations. ---> which therefore helps the middle class, and then the poor. 6) It stimulates corporations which higher middle class people, but doesn't stimulate the middle class economy. ---> you keep on saying this, but you are forgetting my TDE point,a and tax breaks. All of which stimulate both the upper and middle economies. ============================================================================== Voting Issues: 1) I win the topicality debate 2) Trickle-down effect helps all classes. 3) Fair Tax comes with many tax breaks 4) Overall the Fair tax is fair because it doesn't discriminate. Everyone is equal when it comes to paying taxes.
The "Fair Tax" isn't really fair but helps the rich and hurts the poor.

Ok first I will go through some extensions of my case: 1) He failed to attack my 3 rebuttal points, so you can extend that through the entire round. 2) He failed to throughly attack my trickle down effect point, so extend this. Now I'll make my responses: My opponent makes only 1 valid claim, which is warranted: His claim about people between the rich and poor, i.e. the middle class. H agrees that the poor would also get tax exemptions with the fair tax. My Response: I argue that the middle class are the ones most helped by the fair tax. The middle class are the ones who pay the most taxes. By implementing the fair tax then the government is taking the brunt off the middle class. The Fair tax is one straight tax, i.e. its not dependent on all the little necessities and buys here and there. The middle class stimulates the economy because they are the ones most active in the market. They would be spurred on too buy more because all the little taxes are gone. My opponent uses a lot of math to back his point up, but if u notice his math it is too narrow-minded. He is not looking at all the other factors. Plus, the fair tax also has tax breaks FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS. The deciding factor of this round is: who helps the middle class. Here is why the Fair Tax does: 1) Is in cohesion with the trickle-down effect, which has been proven true. 2) The Fair Tax includes tax breaks for the middle class. 3) The Fair Tax promotes a more healthy market, which leads to the Middle Class. 4) The Tax eliminates all the other taxes which hinder the middle class. I.e. estate, clothing, etc. 5) The Fair tax helps the family owned businesses. I.e. businesses owned by middle class people. 6) It stimulates corporations which hire middle class people.
The "Fair Tax" isn't really fair but helps the rich and hurts the poor.

Here is a quick link to inform anybody who wants to know more - http://en.wikipedia.org... But since most won't, I will give a brief summary of what the Fair Tax is. The Fair tax is a 23% sales tax that would replace the income, property, and estate tax and the act would also take a monthly payment from all households who earn incomes above the poverty level depending on family size. I would contend that this tax is in fact not fair and benefits the wealthy at the cost of the middle and lower classes. While the United States brags many stores with many items from many countries. However, the driving forces behind our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) are large and expensive appliances and cars and services. The Fair tax would affect both of these sectors. While most services are relatively inexpensive, imagine how much haircuts, entertainment, mail deliveries, or other simple services prices would rise only slightly, making the change tolerable. However, items that are already really expensive would become unaffordable to most Americans. Houses, cars, construction, would become 23% more expensive. Cars that cost $40,000 would become almost $50,000. This new tax would also be unfair to anyone other than rich americans compared to income taxes today. For example, Bill Gates and a middle class woman want to buy a washing machine that costs $5,000. Bill Gates with average 2 kids makes lets say for easy math one billion dollars a year. The middle class woman makes $50,000 with the average 2 kids again. Fair Tax: 1,000,000,000 - (5,000 + {5000 x .23})= 999993850 or .001% 50,000 - (5,000 + {5000 x .23})= 43,850 or 12.3% Compared to the income tax: 1,000,000,000 - 2% = 20,000,000 (2% is a made up number) $50,000 - 2% = $1000 While both people may be paying the same price, Bill Gates has a virtually untouched income while the middle class woman spent almost an entire years of grocery money ($7200 for a family of four with no pets). The income tax on the other hand took out the same percentages, leaving the middle class woman and Bill Gates with plenty of money left over. Now lets look at the family charge: Bill: 4 people = $28,000 a year or .01% again Woman: 4 people = $28,000 a year or 56% For property tax Mansion: lets say $5,000,000 2% is $100,000 Average Home: around $100,000 est. 2% or $2000 As you can see it makes more sense to base taxes on what one can afford to pay rather than a set price. The property tax is also better than the compared fair tax payments because (1) it should be based on how much the house is which relates to income and (2) normally poorer families tend to have more children, making thousands of families unable to afford the "Fair" Tax.
Veganism

Introduction of ArgumentsAnimal LivesA."Jane experienced all of that so that we humans can enjoy the taste of cheese or steak. This is the worst holocaust that has ever happened."B. Are we reducing Jews to the status of animals, or are we raising animals to status of human? Either way this argument is completely stupid. I hardly have to debunk Jews being equal to animals, because they aren't. Now lets dive into animals being equal to humans.C. Animals aren't equal to humans, humans are smarter. Animals don't have equal rights of humans. Animals don't live in houses, or have governments.D. Does the vegan diet save animals? The answer may seem obvious, but it really isn't. If we make all organisms with feeling are equal then agriculture may kill more animals then the meat business.E. "The animals in this case are mice and moles and rabbits and other creatures that are run over by tractors, or lose their habitat to make way for farming,"(1)F. "Millions of animals are killed every year, Davis says, to prepare land for growing crops, "like corn, soybean, wheat and barley, the staples of a vegan diet.""(1)G. Agriculture kills animals too, by being vegan animals die, and if these smaller animals are inferior to cows, then cows are inferior to humans.E. Animals are not equal to humans, and veganism may save some animals, but it also would raise animal deaths. And if this exchange is worth it then animals have to be inferior to humans, making the human consumption of animals justified.HealthA. An omnivorous diet is healthier then a vegan diet.B."Studies show that up to 83% of vegans are deficient in B12. Their vitamin D levels are also 74% lower, and Omega-3 levels 53-59% lower, compared to omnivores."(2)C. It is much healthier to be on an omnivorous diet, vegans have lower amounts of vitamins D3 and B12, as well as omega threes.Loss Of JobsA. In 2013 there were 482,100 workers in the meat industry(3). Animals also consume a lot of grain and hay, so the people working in these industries would also lose their jobs. This massive job loss isn't worth the lives of animals.Citations1.http://abcnews.go.com...2. https://authoritynutrition.com... 3.https://www.meatinstitute.org...
Veganism

Lets get something straight. There is something seriously wrong with our society. We have actually turned animals, that think and feel, into sandwiches and coats. What is wrong with us. Good people follow the golden rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Animals qualify as others. They do because they feel like we do. Pain, fear, grief etc. Meat, dairy and egg eaters don't care about animals. They don't care about what pain they cause on others. As long as they get their bacon, they are fine with animal abuse. They make the same excuses that Nazi's and slave owners made. They say that just because someone is different, they are inferior. That type of mentality is evil. pure evil. Nothing justifies the meat and dairy industry. The people who do this are not evil at heart. They have just been raised in an evil society. Think about the life of a dairy cow for example. Lets call her Jane. At birth, Jane is instantly taken from her mother, and imprisoned on a farm where she is fed a nutrition devoid diet. Eventually, she is tortured via branding. (Yes, applying hot metal to a living being is torture). She also has her ear clipped without painkiller for the sake of identification. Jane then lives an exhausting life. She is constantly milked for hours on end. She is also raped with bull semen to produce more calves that will be stolen from her. Stress takes a toll on her. After a few years, her productivity begins to decrease. She is then put on a cattle car and begins a miserable trip to a slaughterhouse. At the slaughterhouse, Jane and her friends are so scared they won't get off the truck. They know what's coming. The're not stupid. the slaughterhouse workers then use cattle prods to force them into the facility where they will each wait for their turn on the killing floor. Once there, Jane will receive a captive bolt to the head. It's supposed to render her nerves inert but almost always the cows are killed fully feeling and conscious. She is then hung upside down on a large machine and a slaughterhouse worked slashes her throat and waits for her to bleed to death. After that, Jane is sent to be butchered, packaged and shipped to a store or restaurant. Jane experienced all of that so that we humans can enjoy the taste of cheese or steak. This is the worst holocaust that has ever happened. We slaughter 150 BILLION animals every year. Veganism is the only compassionate way to live on this planet. Forget the lies and propaganda from the meat and dairy industry. They want money. They don't care about the animals. There is no excuse for this. Don't even get me started on the health and environmental damage from meat, dairy and eggs. http://www.adaptt.org......... Feel free to explore that site.
Veganism

On animal government: I never said that they would have a congress and a military budget. They do have a social structure. Especially wolves, lions and whales. Don't jump too conclusions. On crops: No, if everyone went vegan, the amount of crops being produced would decrease dramatically. We slaughter 90 billion land animals per year. It takes a lot of food to feed that many animals. Most of our crops go to livestock feed. If you don't believe me, look at the simple math: It takes more crops to feed 90 billion than 7 billion, and cows eat more than people. 90>7. On B12 deficiency: Yes many vegans are deficient, so are many meat eaters. My favorite part: Morality My opponent has spent a lot of time writing about evolution and superiority. They imply that animals are inferior to us. So what? Does that mean they deserve to be oppressed and cut up into little pieces?! Whether or not an animal is a person is irrelevant and an arrogant way to think. All animals are sentient, so there is no excuse to abuse them, any more than a Nazi had an excuse for the holocaust. It doesn't matter if it involves a dog, cow, rat, ant, or whale. Animal abuse is animal abuse. Just because it involves bacon, doesn't change that. Let me list off the things that we have done, and continue to do to animals. Then, it will be obvious about whether it is right or wrong. 1. We brand cows without painkiller. 2. We rape them with bull semen. 3. We clip their ears without painkiller. 4. We often keep them in horrible living conditions. 5. We milk them to exhaustion. 6. We hang them upside down and slash their throats till they bleed out in a slaughterhouse. 7. We cut the teeth off of baby pigs, so they don't bite each other. 8. We also rip off their testicles. 9. We kill pigs with a bolt gun. (yes, a fast death, but would you want that to happen to you?) 10. We cut the beaks off of chicks. 11. We shred the male chicks alive into dog food. 12. We decapitate chickens on a conveyor belt. 13. Other times we gas the animals we want to kill. 14. We go hunting, shoot innocent animals, and take pictures with their corpse as if it is something to be proud of. 15. Animals are handled with cattle prods. 16. Circus animals are slaves, as are dairy cows. 17. Minks are other animals have their necks snapped to be made into fur coats. 18. We test harmful products on animals. 19. We skin cows for leather. 20. We catch fish with painful hooks, drown them in the air and beat them against rocks. My opponent cannot justify a single one of the above points. It doesn't take a genius to realize that this is evil. We have an entire holiday dedicated to killing a turkey and shoving bread up its anus! Is that supposed to be a symbol of peace?! A tortured and murdered animal?! Really?! Eating meat never has been and never will be ethical. It's evil. Pure evil. You can vote for veganism or you can vote for animal abuse. It's obvious which one is morally right. [1]. http://www.news.cornell.edu... [2]. http://www.dailykos.com... [3]. https://www.ers.usda.gov...
Resolved: It is impossible for Pro to fully win this debate (a revision of two flawed resolutions.)

I must admit, this is a rather silly debate. But I digress... My opponent, Yraelz, seems to have misunderstood one fact... The resolution states that Pro cannot win (Rather that it is impossible for Pro to fully win.) Therefore, We see that my opponent's solutions are, invariably, situations in which the resolution would be proven and disproven all at the same time. My opponent states, "You can vote for Pro thereby affirming the resolution which my opponent has already stated would not make sense considering the resolution says it is impossible for him to fully win. " This has already been established, therefore my opponent has actually ADOPTED one of my contentions. Also, his second contention states, "You can vote for Con thereby negating the resolution which would mean that it is possible, which if my opponent manages to disprove my example will mean that the vote is equally non-sensible. " Fair enough but at the same time it would prove the resolution is correct as well, meaning that I have actually won. Either way you look at it, my opponent has taken on the same views as myself and hereby believes: "Thus if the debate does simply come down to this I urge for no vote at all. This will avoid an action that does not make logical sense and I believe the time spent voting could better be used for constructive criticism. " I believe you should vote. The resolution stands firm, Yraelz. Therefore, for them to vote would be an action of support to whomever had the best debate. Though, I am fairly certain all that needed to be said has been. Good luck in the next round, thank you to the judges for... judging, and, please, no flames about how this is a fallacy, I know it is and I wrote this resolution for fun and the sake of debate. Thanks again, -EG
Resolved: It is impossible for Pro to fully win this debate (a revision of two flawed resolutions.)

Its actually pretty possible for my opponent to fully win this debate. Unfortunately he doubtfully will do so. This is how it is going to run. In my opponents second round he will state, "I have seen the error of my argument and have decided to switch the resolution to something a little more choice. From here on out the resolution will be -Flag burning needs to be illegal-" This resolution of course my opponent has the ability to absolutely win thus proving the current resolution true. I of course will respond in my 2nd round stating that I agree to the change in resolution. Thus the new resolution will stand and we will continue this debate with our new topic. Sadly I doubt my opponent will actually do this, non-the-less I have proved how my opponent has the possibility of fully winning this debate. Perhaps he will even think of some amazing way to refute my point, at which point the voters will have two choices. 1. You can vote for Pro thereby affirming the resolution which my opponent has already stated would not make sense considering the resolution says it is impossible for him to fully win. 2. You can vote for Con thereby negating the resolution which would mean that it is possible, which if my opponent manages to disprove my example will mean that the vote is equally non-sensible. Thus if the debate does simply come down to this I urge for no vote at all. This will avoid an action that does not make logical sense and I believe the time spent voting could better be used for constructive criticism. Thank you. =)
Resolved: It is impossible for Pro to fully win this debate (a revision of two flawed resolutions.)

Good day to my opponent and to the judges. I would like you to vote on what you see before you and not what your own personal biases might be. Now that that's done, let's proceed with the debate, shall we? There is no possible way I can fully win this debate for the following reasons: 1) To win I must get the most votes. A) If that were to occur, I would not be proving the resolution. B) Therefore, though I have won in score, I haven't won the initial goal: prove the resolution. 2) If my opponent gets more votes, I will not have won. Therefore, Pro loses but upholds his purpose in this debate, winning in the proven category. For the reasons you see above, you must vote Pro. Or Con, either way I sort of win. -EG
Resolved: It is impossible for Pro to fully win this debate (a revision of two flawed resolutions.)

Hmmmmm... Well the only thing my opponent states about my case is quite simply, "I am not a witch." So considering my proof of him being a witch was only semi-logical I'm going to have to let the voters decide on this one. However my opponent has left every other logical point standing so I will be arguing each in turn. First off I have constantly extended the possibility of my opponent changing the debate topic mid round. I have furthermore consented to a change in topic on our wonderful debate. My opponent however seems pretty intent on forcing voters to vote for an illogical statement, one way or another. So let us examine the resolution, it states, "It is impossible for Pro to fully win this debate." however if my opponent has the possibility to simply change the debate topic at any point, as I have granted him, then this resolution is proved untrue. Thus I once again extend the invitation, I invite my opponent to change the resolution in the comment section so that we may continue our debate there. This means that my opponent still has the possibility of winning this round. Second I point out that my opponents case promotes a rejection of logic. However my opponent makes no comment what-so-ever thereby he agrees to the rejection of logic. I go on to point out that rejection of logic has the potential in modern day society to promote such events as anarchy and genocide, thereby his case on a pre-fiat level has the potential to promote such events through swaying the judges towards illogical acts. Finally I point out that should my opponent attain votes in this debate then it is likely he will attempt to make similar illogical debates again. Thus a vote in negation is not only an affirmation of logic but also a precedent against my opponent making these types of cases. Thank you everyone for this debate. --------------------------------------------------------------- As a side note. I presented the entire witch argument as a practical joke. As I pointed out it was a semi-logical proof. It should be noted that I completely understood the witch argument in its semi-logical way and that it had no complete logical intention behind it.
Resolved: It is impossible for Pro to fully win this debate (a revision of two flawed resolutions.)

My opponent is funny at best. I am not a witch. That is a plaintive and rather obvious rebuttal. The fact of the matter is, I wanted one paradoxical debate in which there is no winner. Is that so wrong? I truly hope not. I still decline the notion of changing the debate topic. If you wish to challenge me on that topic later, that would be fine. But for now, my opponent has not even attempted to find a semantics-based clause, loophole, or refutable point whatsoever. It is in this lack of rebuttals that I see no logical choice but to vote Pro. Thanks and I await your debate request posthaste. -EG
Poem about abortion

Abortion is legal. Abortion should be legal, Thank god it is. When a female is raped, Or protection doesn't work, She may have a baby. Lets say that female is poor and homeless. How would she care for her baby? In america, Healthcare costs money. How would she pay to have the baby in a hospital, Treat the baby if the baby has a serious condition. If abortion wasn't legal, This mother would have to suffer and the baby could die in pain and so could the mother. But, If the mother found an abortion clinic, She could get rid of the baby in her womb, And the baby wouldn't die in pain. The baby doesn't have nerves yet when you abort, So when a mother gets an abortion, The baby can't feel anything. And the mother could survive, Find food, Without having to deal with the problems in pregnancy. I've seen your account. You are disgusting. -Maddie
Poem about abortion

Poem about abortion I broke up with my girlfriend Because she had an abortion I was only with her so I could fu. Ck the baby But now the baby is killed before it was alive And I am not even allowed to fu. Ck it She is allowed to kill it but I am not allowed to fu. Ck it I may be a pedophile But you are the monsters You killed a perfectly fine baby The baby I could have fu. Cked Is now gone forever That baby will never taste a penis That baby will never have orgasm And it's all because of you I get hard when thinking about the baby The baby that I would have fu. Cked If you didn't decide to kill it You killed it and stopped me From fu. Cking the baby But the loser is still you I will find another baby to fu. Ck And this time, You will not stop me
Bag size

Ha ha I have about 6 seconds to type something before my computer freezes on this site. Anyway I think I have found away around this.I'm going to type in Microsoft word then copy/paste into my argument so there. I can only ask all your ex girlfriends, as I have slept with them all, who has the bigger bag. They will know for sure. But with out asking them I can assume the damage I did to all those girls chins that my bag not only larger than yours but is also heavier.