BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"Machine-Gun Farts" are better than "regular expected farts" UNLESS IN PUBLIC

I will start by saying the machine gun fart is much better for the following reasons, -The machine gun fart will startle the user, shake him up a bit, and explode leaving him in a sigh of relief. -pit pit pit pat pit ratatatatata pit pat pit- -Next he will nausiate the victim or victims nearby. -Once the victims(s) have been diagnosted with the disease, the user will slowly curve a smile of relief. -The user may feel Exilirated if he asked a following victim to "pull his finger" -Not only was the fart loud, it was also very stinky by this time. He has now claimed new territory, his victims heavily wounded, and sure to have escaped the scene just before the second burst of C02 finds its way into the matter. -By this point the user is completely satisfied! This is a very helpful way to get privacy, or even a bus seat on a crowded bus! Helpful tool tip- If you are enjoying yourself at a concert or such and those fat women next to you block your view, push, push and push, until the machine gun has fired at its victims. - So to the opponent who dares challenge the god of farts, your envy must be satisfied, and if it isn't lets think of all the posotiv thigns these farts do... -Relieve yourself: Confuse and dase your victims: get a laugh: claim territory: enjoy your aroma: get privacy: and lets not forget, getting respect of those who are older and have seen much more dangerous farts. (pttttpttttttptttttttttttttttttptttttttttttttttt)
We Should Create a New Tax Code

Okay, I just noticed this is a five-rounder, so I will keep my points as brief as possible. Again, my argument is that we do NOT need a new tax code. We need to abolish the current tax code along with the IRS and income tax. This does not necessarily have to mean one penny less funding for the federal government, which you're indicating it does. Yes, I would prefer to massively scale back the federal government, but there are other, less coercive and centralized means to collect government revenues than a unitary national income tax. The Constitution did not allow income taxation until the 16th amendment. Instead, you will notice that the Constitution talks about "direct" and "indirect" taxes, and "apportionment." If the 16th amendment were repealed, the federal government could continue getting the funding it needs by billing the states on the basis of population. Then, the states would tax their citizens through the means they saw fit. Now to briefly address your points: #1: I'm saying that the income tax (and fiat-money banking) make wars much more possible. It makes it possible to fight wars of convenience when people aren't really all that behind the war. In the absence of income taxation and fiat money, people would have to voluntarily support wars. The tax system should not make war "easy," and that's what national income taxation does. #2: You admit that your flat tax would not stay flat in the absence of severe campaign-finance reform. I do not think campaign-finance reform can ever work, but that's another subject. The point here is that you admit your flat tax would not stay flat and would soon have most/all of the same problems the current tax code has. #3: The personal income tax accounts for only 44.4% of government revenues, a large portion of which is used to pay interest on the national debt. #4: See my Paragraph 3 argument. So long as the same amount of income could be secured by the states and handed over to the federal government, then it is preferable for everyone's happiness to let the citizens of each state determine how the taxes should be collected. MY QUESTIONS TO YOU: A. If the people of Alaska want one kind of tax, but the people of Hawaii want another kind, why can't they both have their way, so long as the bills get paid? B. Don't you think the people would voluntarily support a legitimate war? Or is it only through involuntary taxation that people will defend their country? C. Do you admit that lobbyists would make the flat tax "un-flat" in short time in the absence of another solution (you say "campaign finance reform" -- but that's not the subject or a condition of this debate)? D. Why would there be no stock market if there was no income tax? That makes no sense at all. The New York Stock Exchange and the NASDAQ, etc., are not owned or funded by the government.
We Should Create a New Tax Code

.. Anyway, #1. I believe that your logic here is flawed. If I am reading this correctly, you insinuate that the institution of the income tax is why the wars were started, when in reality the tax was initially created to build and maintain the armed forces that we put into the field during those wars, as well as to help fund the immense number of government institutions that were created to help deal with the incredible workload that these taxes brought on. Without the income tax, the Red Cross, for example, would be nowhere near as large as it is today. There would be no VFW, there would be no Department to take care of Veteran's Affairs, all of which were, and still are, funded by the income tax. #2. You do have a point, and it indicates a bigger problem in this country than the tax code, which is the power of lobbyists and special interest groups here in America. Before we are able to rewrite the tax code, we will first need to decrease drastically, the power of these groups through campaign finance reform. Until then, the entire system of government under which we work might as well have a "For Sale" sign. But I digress. #3. The income tax is the main source of income for the Federal Government. Without it, they cannot provide the services that we so very much require. If the Federal Government had no money, there would be no national airwaves. There would be no Interstate, no Military, no Coast Guard, no Stock Market, just to name a few. The notion of the income tax is not that the government "owns our labor, and "generously" allows us to keep a portion of it," but rather that we, the private citizen, with no training in radio, transportation, war, sailing, or economics, pay the government to keep the things that we don't understand running. Also, the notion that economies are backed by gold and silver is fast becoming obsolete. Money is no longer a measurement of how much gold or silver a country has; rather it is a measurement of how much confidence the ordinary man has that said country will be able to protect their interests. It is a measurement of trust. The strength of the dollar is an indication of how much faith we have that the U. S. Government will continue to protect our shipping lanes so that oil can get here, that they will create favorable treaties that will make it easier to buy and ship goods into the country at favorable prices. This trust is indicated by the ratio of buying to selling that happens on the Stock Market, both international and domestic. #4. We already have this. Every state can create taxes as they see fit, with the exception of things like tariffs, and other taxes that would adversely affect interstate and international commerce. Some work, others don't. But unless they were willing to give money to the Federal government, we would be back to living under the Articles of Confederation, and that died after less than ten years. Unless there is a strong governing body, which has the ability to finance itself, nothing, and I mean literally nothing, would ever happen.
We Should Create a New Tax Code

We don't need a new tax code. We need to abolish the federal income tax. Point #1: Our most prosperous years as a nation were when we had a gold- and silver-backed monetary system, and no income tax. The first income tax was instituted to pay for the Civil War. The second income tax was essentially put in place for World War I. Any income taxation leads almost inevitably to war. Point #2: There's nothing, short of a constitutional amendment, that would ensure that a flat tax remained truly flat and remained low. Exemptions would make their way into the code. They always do. Even proposals I've seen for the flat tax would exempt various forms of income. What is "income" anyway? The very question of the definition leads to exemptions and loopholes that would constantly be lobbied for and fought over. In the end, the idle rich would still pay very little tax by shifting their "income" to non-taxable or tax-advantaged forms of income, while the hard-working productive class would face higher and higher taxes. Oh, and by the way: If we are going to have a constitutional amendment, it should be to repeal the 16th! Point #3: Any income taxation is immoral and establishes the notion that the government owns our labor, and "generously" allows us to keep a portion of it. It is, thus, akin to slavery. Why was our Constitution written in a manner in which income taxation was not permitted at the federal level? It took the 16th amendment to make income taxation legal. The founders knew that the income tax gave the government too much authority. For one, it empowers the federal government to manage a fiat-money currency, since our dollars have value (despite not being backed by gold or silver) because they are accepted as payment for taxes. Point #4: Why does there have to be just one taxation solution? If we accept that the federal government needs a source of income to fund its limited but necessary functions, then why can't it assess a population-based tax to the states (as the Constitution suggests), and then allow the states to determine their own methods of taxation? Some states may try a flat tax. Others, a progressive tax. Others, a sales tax or property tax, or combination of any or all. Even user fees and tolls could be tried out. The point is that if each state were allowed to raise its revenue its own way, this would increase the happiness of U.S. citizens, since they would be free to move to the state that had the most favorable tax system for their needs -- if their home-state's system was bad enough to justify the move. Furthermore, the "best" tax systems would win out, as businesses and productive citizens would move to the "best" states -- thereby encouraging other states to adopt the same tax program. A flat tax MIGHT be the best system -- I'm inclined to agree that it probably is -- but we should NOT have a national flat tax because we cannot know. This is the folly of central planning. For these reasons, I am against the flat tax.
We Should Create a New Tax Code

Every day we hear about the idea of tax cuts for the rich whenever the Republicans are in Congress, and more taxes on the rich whenever the Democrats are in Congress. Yet it never seems to make it into the public psyche that in both cases, the rich pay almost nothing. Hell, most people pay very little, and those that do get so worked over by the IRS that they go bankrupt. The biggest problem is that nobody really understands the entire Tax Code. It is just to long, drawn out, and so full of legal, economic and mathematical wording that nobody can really understand the entirety of it. So, obviously, we need to create a Tax Code that is simple enough for most people to understand it entirely. But that is not the only problem. Another big problem is that it does not work. We currently have a graduated income tax system, in which, the more money you make, the higher your taxes are. This is a terrible idea. And no, I am not rich. I am a broke college student going to Community College because it is cheap. This is a terrible idea because our current code has so many loopholes that they never end up paying as much as they theoretically should. Currently, if a person made enough money that they would be charged 25% on their income, they use half a law firm to read through this mountainous tax code and find those loopholes that they either qualify for, or might qualify for, so that in the end, they end up paying only about 3-4% on their income taxes, while the rest of us poor guys still end up paying 8-9% because we can't understand the stupid Code. What is the solution? Well, I say that we have a flat income tax regardless of how much you make, say 7%. Without all of the loopholes, the super rich will end up paying their 7%, and we poor people will also pay that, which, for the most part, is less than what we already pay.
The Jesus of History Probably Existed - D

Allow me to apologise in advance for the brevity and general inadequacy of my argument this round. Due to family matters, I am currently away from my computer and my home and am writing this from an internet cafï¿½ in Dublin. It is a shame that I am not able to provide full attention to this most interesting debate at present and I apologise to my opponent and to readers. Historical value of the gospels: At the risk of repeating myself, the only "historical model" I am using is the basic fact that sacred texts are not generally held to be historical and that texts which describe supernatural events would generally be disregarded by any historian worth the title. As I have shown in previous rounds there is no "uniform consensus" of regarding Jesus as historical. Traditional western academia has grown from within a Christian framework and as mentioned previously, criticising or questioning the Bible would have been regarded as heretical in past centuries. My opponent would do well to provide an example of a non Judeo-Christian sacred text being regarded as a historically accurate document. Tacitus: "It seems my opponents only remaining argument against Tacitus can be phrased thusly, "But some Christian scholars disregard Tacitus as evidence." This is not my only argument, the examples were provided in direct response to my opponent's request for more examples of Christian scholars with this opinion. His work contains errors, omissions and additions and even if accurate his description of the belief of Christians can not be counted as evidence for these beliefs being true. Josephus: "My opponent's reaming [sic] argument now focuses on the "so-called Christ" being a later addition." This has in fact been my (main) argument from the beginning as a re-reading of my 1st round argument will confirm. My opponent claims my source is "amateurish" while his is reliable but hopefully readers will examine both sources rather than taking him at his word. My opponent unsurprisingly favours the study conducted from a Christian perspective. _____________ I'm really sorry but I will have to stop here. My apologies again for compromising this fascinating debate. I will be flying home tomorrow and will be able to present a much more thorough round 5. If my opponent allows me I may respond to some of his other points in the comments section but of course he would be perfectly justified in not permitting this. My thanks and apologies again. Feverish.
Finish the sentence (level: HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARD)

decided to attempt to an assassination of Stalin by having Lavrentiy Beria put some rat poisoning into Comrade Stalin's tea... *NOTE: Con was supposed to continue the sentence, not start a new one. Anyway, I continued "His old comrades, Zinovieve and Kamenev..."
Rick Perry Should be elected President

I am challenging GodChoosesLife to a debate about whether or not Rick Perry should be elected as president of the United States. I am doing this primarily because of the fact that she is one of the only open supporters of him that I have ever seen on here. Basic rules apply. No new arguments shall be presented in the last round, it is meant for just rebuttals and re building your points. First round is for acceptance. FF shall result in lose of conduct points while multiples one can result in a full 7 point ff at the discretion of the voters.
Rick Perry Should be elected President

Thank you again for the debate. Again I am very sorry for not having a more thorough emphasis and broader refutes, but thank you for your patience and time. Best wishes to Con because he did an awesome job! :)For my final words, Rick Perry will either become president or he will not. Past things should not be overlooked, of course, but they also should not be used against him either. Everyone must learn one way or another even if it was intentional or not. Point is, when re-election occurs new things should be implemented by Rick Perry to avoid any attacks of past things. There is absolutely nothing wrong with clinging to the belief system to which Rick Perry believes or anyone else for that matter. Each new president always chooses what they believe is best whether by using the Bible, religion or not; something is chosen for the sake of what a president thinks is best. That is simply what Rick Perry does.
Percussion is the superior Musical section

I wish I knew a way how to listen to all my favorite tunes without any percussion like you have suggested, I can't. However, I can imagine that like it would probably lack the intensity that the percussion section gives. But theoretically if we were to do that take every section out of the texture of a piece, wouldn't every song or piece we hear just sound bland in comparison? What would be a march without the trumpet? An orchestra without a violin? Every musical instrument serves a function and adds a different color of sound into an ensemble. To say that all instruments are created equal would be a lie, but to say that percussion is superior to all of these sections is a bit much. Also, I'd like to point out that in classical music percussion was rarely used. The only percussion that was really used was the timpani (but even that was played continuously) and these pieces are regarded as masterpieces. Many orchestral pieces and even some band marches only use lower voices to give intensity to piece, (keep pulse) and an extra voice of color without using any percussion. By the way, Hey There Delilah, one of my favorite songs, is one of my favorite songs yet it lacks percussion. This debate was really fun and I would like to thank you for making my first debate an enjoyable and delightful memory. You were absolutely an amazing person to debate and I think a future debate on music would be fun. P.S. Despite all the things I said, percussion is one of my favorite sections :)
Percussion is the superior Musical section

While most (but certainly not every) musicians have a sense of internal pulse, who is to tell that one person's internal pulse is the exact same as the person next to them? While I will happily admit your argument about internal pulse was a well thought out one, it has flaws, as every argument does. The entire premise of internal pulse is just that; internal. The percussion section of any ensemble generates an external pulse, synchronizing each individuals internal pulse, and should someone accidentally fall out of time, they have an immediate resource to get back on track without looking at the conductor for a few counts, which is especially helpful when they are marching difficult drill or facing backfield. But enough about keeping time, I believe we've both milked that argument dry. As for your second argument, it seems completely focused on the fact that the method my band uses is not used wildly elsewhere. We do have a ballad in which we hide behind the prop (in this case being a large pirate ship) and the conductor is on her own, giving time to the band without the percussion section as a crutch. This portion of the show was always where we scored the lowest. Try listening to your favorite song without the drummer. Try listening to your band show without the percussion. The percussion section is what gives the band a sense of intensity, and conveys that to the audience. I do apologize if my former argument was rendered invalid because you have not seen it used. Lastly, I thank you for debating this with me. I do hope that if you ever want someone to proofread or otherwise give feedback on your work, please do contact me. I look forward to your final argument and the possibility of future musical debates.
Percussion is the superior Musical section

It is true that percussion plays a vital role in keeping time. However, they are not the only people with the ability to keep time in an ensemble. An important skill every musician must have is internal pulse. Internal pulse is the ability to keep time steady using your own mind. Even without percussion, it is completely possible for musicians to still play at the right pulse because of their own internal pulse. Percussion can not possibly the most superior musical section because, it is entirely possible to keep time in an ensemble without them there thanks to the ability of internal pulse. However, for argument's sake, let's just imagine that there was no such thing as internal pulse and every musician absolutely must have something to follow to be able keep time. What would they do? Is percussion the only way to keep time now? Of course not. Because we still have our best friends the conductor. Conductors are the people who unify and keep the pulse of the band together. Percussion just help to enhance the directions of the conductors. You may have said that in your marching band, the drum majors rely on the feet of a percussionist to keep time time for the entire band. Honestly, I've never heard of that being a thing. It could be possibly true for in your band, but everywhere else? I don't think so. Our drum major has a personal metronome that he listens to right before he conducts the show. Every band director I've known in the past has also done the same. This is the absolute first time I've heard of that. But regardless of what you said was true, I know for a fact that the drum majors do not rely solely around the percussion for time. I know this because in the ballad part in our marching show (where the drumline completely stops playing and hides behind the props), we are required to depend on our own counting abilities and the drum majors to keep time, not the percussion proving even further that we do not need percussion to keep time.
Percussion is the superior Musical section

Do not worry about your lack of experience, as I am relatively new as well, though this is not my first debate. In any sort of musical activity, including listening to music, the first thing anyone must attempt to hear is the pulse of the music. Without this pulse the song does not quite fit together correctly. The percussion section is at the heart of this pulse. What makes a percussionist unique from the other sections in a musical activity is the ability to generate pulse based off of separate rhythmical inputs from sections, conductors, and their own personal sense of time. In a Marching band field show rehearsal, while learning drill (the movements around the field) the percussion section still plays. this is so the band as a whole can time their feet to the pulse being generated by the percussion section. The drum major (conductor) does not generate the time his/herself, but instead watches the feet of a specified percussionist whose sense of time is trusted enough to guide the entire band. Furthermore, in a concert band setting, the ensemble relies less upon the percussion section for keeping time, but still listens back to them for a pulse. Even in a rock concert, the drummer has an earpiece that conveys a metronome so he can keep appropriate time and pulse and lead the rest of the band. I sincerely hope I can make this an exciting debate for both me and my opponent, and if my opponent should need any help in his endeavors in this debate or any other, do not hesitate to call on The Masked Gentleman.