BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
income tax is not unconstitutional

I apologize. I assumed you were talking about people who claim that our current income tax is unconstitutional, as it seems to be an opinion that many people have and that raises a lot of questions. Obviously the 16th amendment says what it says, the point is what exactly does it mean? The implications of the 16th amendment have still not been clarified, and the "income tax" has not being clearly categorized as one of the two taxes sanctioned by the constitution. So in this aspect, it's really tough to discern whether or not a tax on income is constitutional on the basis that nobody is defining what an income tax is. As I said, the constitution only allows for direct and indirect taxes – both of which must follow certain regulations. Unless the income tax is clearly defined by the courts and the intent of the 16th amendment clarified, you really can't say whether it's constitutional or not. So yes, an allowance for an income tax is stated in the constitution, but because of the vagueness and uncertainty surrounding this term, I don't think you can say whether or not it is constitutional. Basically it seems like your argument was that the constitution states that an income tax is allowed. Obviously, there really isn't much to debate there. It seems like it would make more sense to discuss what an income tax is or how this constitutional amendment affects us. However, it was your debate subject, not mine! Thanks for discussing, this was my first debate on the site :o)
income tax is not unconstitutional

"not necessarily unconst" I will not address the argument about it being unconst in practice. I responded in a way that reconciles that I was talking about theory, and you were talking about practice. There's not much more to be said. "not inherently unconst" The uncertainty in the article you post simply shows that the constitution is vague. The court must decide whether or not it's unconstitutional, with principles like who decides? the court or the congress, if the issue is reasonably disputed given flexibility inherent in the constitution such as described by yoru post of the article. It must decide based on that vagueness. So, it's not unconstitutional inherently, necessarily. I never said it was absolutely necessarily constitutional inherently. But if you step back and look at what the constitution says, inherently speaking, Congress can tax as it wishes, and that includes income tax. Remember, i'm only talking about theory that i can, not in practice when it might go overboard. so, just read the constitution, an income tax is not unconstitutioal. don't make it complicated unless you have to.
income tax is not unconstitutional

I appreciate your arguments, and I agree that an income tax can be unconstitutinoal, for the reasons you say. The problem then, is that I don't disagree that it can be... my whole premise is that it's constitutional gneerally speaking. I suppose in a sense you're right, because i should have qualifeid... income tax is not necessarily unconstitutional. for a close to home example. the constitution doesn't say congress can tax sometimes. it just says congress can tax. i'm more fully conforming to the contitutions principles as expressly stated than you are. the problem with putting the burden on me to qualify myself, is that I am speaking in normal terms. for another example. it's like the constitution says "you have a right to bear arms", and it didn't qualify that you only usually do. not if you're a psycho killer. it's just a way of speaking, naturally. you could always put a burden on a person to put more nauance into their speaking, but that's requiring an overly burdensome load on them to make an encyclopedia out of their statements, or the constitution as the case may be. So, I still conclude that income tax is constitutional, because it's says it is in the constitution. i acknowledge that i CAN be really, as far as me and you, it's all semantics.
income tax is not unconstitutional

Hello dairygirl, I would like to start by saying that I do not disagree with your statement "income tax is not unconstitutional." This will of course make you wonder why on earth I took this debate. However, while AN income tax may be constitutional, the income tax that is understood and implemented today is far from constitutional. So while I agree that the 16th amendment allows for an income tax, I am arguing that today's "income tax" as we know it goes far beyond the authority afforded by the 16th amendment. In other words, I assume you are wondering why people call today's income tax unconstitutional, when it seems to be clearly spelled out IN the constitution. By very nature, our income tax system violates the 5th amendment of the constitution. The fifth amendment states: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; NOR SHALL BE COMPELLED IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." I'm sure you've heard of the phrase "pleading the 5th" and what that basically means is that you are exercising your constitutional right to choose not to disclose evidence or testimony that may incriminate you. If you look at the federal income tax return, it is a direct violation of this amendment in that it requires you to "voluntarily" disclose a whole lot of information about yourself that can later be used to incriminate you. If you refuse to sign the document "under pains and penalties or perjury" your return will be rejected, but if you do sign it you are forfeiting your Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate yourself (in most cases unknowingly). It is obviously unconstitutional for them to FORCE you to give up one of your constitutional rights, and if the income tax system is not voluntary, then that's what they are doing.
income tax is not unconstitutional

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." The Constitution itself says it's constitutional. All I hear is rhetoric that says it's not constitutional, so I thought I'd see what actual arguments back the rhetoric up. Sadly, all I hear is rhetoric and not much actual facts or concrete argument on most topics, but that's an other issue. fyi, i am more against income taxation as opposed to other forms of taxation, but income taxation is still legit.
Godels theorem ends in meaninglessness

Since either a statement or its negation are true (law of excluded middle) and Godel's proof shows that neither the statement nor its negation can be proven to be true while remaining consistent with the axioms, what makes a mathematical statement true is irrelevant to Godel's proof. Hence Peter Smith's statement that Godel's incompleteness theorem does not concern itself with truth - truth is irrelevant to the system's incompleteness.Godel's incompleteness theorem shows that no consistent mathematical system capable of elementary arithmetic can prove either all statements or their negations to be true, thus all such systems are incomplete. Thus, Godel's first incompleteness theorem is meaningful.
Godels theorem ends in meaninglessness

Con answers "A statement is either true or false. If TRUTH (the set of all true statements) is a subset of PROVABLE (the set of all statements which can be proven by the axioms of a mathematical system) and PROVABLE contains statements which are not contained in TRUTH, then PROVABLE contains statements which are false - thus the system is inconsistent. "If PROVABLE is a subset of TRUTH and TRUTH contains statements which are not contained in PROVABLE, then PROVABLE does not contain all true statements - thus the system is incomplete. Godel's incompleteness theorem proves that any mathematical system capable of basic arithmetic is necessarily either inconsistent or incomplete. Since either a statement or its denial are true, Godel's incompleteness theorem shows that for any consistent mathematical system there exists true statements which cannot be proven to be true. We can flip the meaning of truth and this still holds - as long as a mathematical system is consistent and capable of basic arithmetic, the system is incomplete regardless of whether the axioms of the system are true." I have presented case- Godel's theorem is meaningless as he cant tell us what makes a mathematics statement true I have backed up my case by citing a Cambridge expert ie Godel did not use a notion of truth Con says "then PROVABLE does not contain all true statements" but she does not tell us what Godel says make a true mathematics statement thus her statement "then PROVABLE does not contain all true statements" is meaningless as we dont know what "true statements" are and Godel's theorem is meaningless as Godel cant tell us what make a true mathematics statement
Godels theorem ends in meaninglessness

A statement is either true or false. If TRUTH (the set of all true statements) is a subset of PROVABLE (the set of all statements which can be proven by the axioms of a mathematical system) and PROVABLE contains statements which are not contained in TRUTH, then PROVABLE contains statements which are false - thus the system is inconsistent.If PROVABLE is a subset of TRUTH and TRUTH contains statements which are not contained in PROVABLE, then PROVABLE does not contain all true statements - thus the system is incomplete.Godel's incompleteness theorem proves that any mathematical system capable of basic arithmetic is necessarily either inconsistent or incomplete. Since either a statement or its denial are true, Godel's incompleteness theorem shows that for any consistent mathematical system there exists true statements which cannot be proven to be true.We can flip the meaning of truth and this still holds - as long as a mathematical system is consistent and capable of basic arithmetic, the system is incomplete regardless of whether the axioms of the system are true.
Godels theorem ends in meaninglessness

Con Did not answer my question ie what Godel says makes a mathematical statement true you say "Why the meaning of truth is irrelevant: As my opponent's source Peter Smith says, Godel doesn't rely on the notion of truth, but rather the notion of proof. If a system cannot prove a statement nor its denial, then it is incomplete - regardless of whether the axioms of the system are true. Godel's proof shows that any consistent mathematical system capable of basic arithmetic cannot prove all statements nor their denials, therefor any such system is incomplete. Hence why it's called "Godel's incompleteness theorem"." Godels proof is about there being true statements which cant be proven ".... any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true... "(Kleene 1967, p. 250) if Godel cant tell us what makes a mathematical proof true then his theorem is meaningless do you accept this statement about what Godels theorem proved "Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true,[1] but not provable in the theory (Kleene 1967, p. 250) if yes then tell us what Godel says makes a mathematical statement true if you cant then Godels theorem is meaningless
Godels theorem ends in meaninglessness

Godel's incompleteness theorems are, perhaps, some of the most interesting proofs regarding the philosophy of mathematics (I think so, anyway). Unfortunately, my opponent clearly misunderstands what is proven. For clarity, I will be using a simpler, easier to read version of the proof.What the proof says:Given a computably generated set of axioms, let PROVABLE be the set of numbers which encode sentences which are provable from the given axioms.Thus for any sentence s,   (1) < s > is in PROVABLE iff s is provable. Since the set of axioms is computably generable, so is the set of proofs which use these axioms and so is the set of provable theorems and hence so is PROVABLE, the set of encodings of provable theorems. Since computable implies definable in adequate theories, PROVABLE is definable. Let s be the sentence "This sentence is unprovable". By Tarski, s exists since it is the solution of:   (2) s iff < s > is not in PROVABLE. Thus   (3) s iff < s > is not in PROVABLE iff s is not provable. Now (law of excluded middle) s is either true or false.If s is false, then by (3), s is provable. This is impossible since provable sentences are true.Thus s is true. Thus by (3), s is not provable. Hence s is true but unprovable.[http://www.math.hawaii.edu...]________________________________________________________PROVABLE is the set of all provable statements, and if a statement can be proven using the axioms of the system, then it is contained in the set PROVABLE. In mathematics, the axioms of the system are accepted to be true and if a mathematical statement can be proven using the axioms of the system then that mathematical statement is accepted to be true; hence PROVABLE is a subset of TRUTH (the set of all statements accepted to be true). The statement s, "s is not provable", is true if and only if it is not in PROVABLE and s is not in PROVABLE if and only if s is not provable (3).s is either true or false (law of excluded middle); if s is false, then s is in PROVABLE (3) thus s is provable - however since provable statements are accepted to be true, this is impossible - the system would be inconsistent. Thus s is true and therefor s is not provable, therefor PROVABLE is not the the equivalent of TRUTH; the system is incomplete.Why the meaning of truth is irrelevant:As my opponent's source Peter Smith says, Godel doesn't rely on the notion of truth, but rather the notion of proof. If a system cannot prove a statement nor its denial, then it is incomplete - regardless of whether the axioms of the system are true. Godel's proof shows that any consistent mathematical system capable of basic arithmetic cannot prove all statements nor their denials, therefor any such system is incomplete. Hence why it's called "Godel's incompleteness theorem".
Godels theorem ends in meaninglessness

This author points out http://www.scribd.com... GODEL CAN NOT TELL US WHAT MAKES A STATEMENT TRUE thus his incompleteness theorem ends in meaninglessness Now the syntactic version of Godels first completeness theorem reads Proposition VI: To every `9;-consistent recursive class c of formulae there correspond recursive class-signs r, such that neither v Gen r nor Neg (v Gen r) belongs to Flg(c) (where v is the free variable of r). But when this is put into plain words we get http://en.wikipedia.org... "Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true,[1] but not provable in the theory (Kleene 1967, p. 250) In other words there are true mathematical statements which cant be proven But the fact is Godel cant tell us what makes a mathematical statement true thus his theorem is meaningless Now Peter Smith the Cambridge expert on Godel admitts http://groups.google.com... Quote: Godel didn't rely on the notion of truth but truth is central to Godel's theorem ".... any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true... "(Kleene 1967, p. 250) you see Godel refers to true statements but Godel didn't rely on the notion as the Cambridge expert Peter Smith says now because Godel didn't rely on the notion of truth he cant tell us what true statements are thus his theorem is meaningless If Godels theorem said there were gibbly statements that cant be proven But if Godel cant tell us what a gibbly statement was then we would say his theorem was meaningless if you disagree then just tell us what Godel said makes a mathematical statement true
RESOLVED: The influence of the media is detrimental to the American political process.

The media controls what issues are important in the public"s mind. Laura Lane, Yahoo Contributor Network, The Influence of the Media in Politics, Campaigns and Elections, Yahoo News Nov 14, 2007, voices.yahoo.com/the-influence-media-politics-campaigns-and-651361.html Additionally, the media helps influence what issues voters should care about in elections and what criteria they should use to evaluate candidates. The media has a greater influence in communicating to voters what issues are important and less of an influence in convincing them what to think about those issues. The media works more effectively by placing a spotlight on certain issues they feel the public should be concerned with. I'm not arguing that were " mindless sub-human slaves". I'm arguing that the media controls the information we receive, and uses that to their advantage. Also my opponent failed to cite any sources , so his statistics, and facts are invalid.
RESOLVED: The influence of the media is detrimental to the American political process.

I choose to oppose your argument with this one single contention: 1) we are not mindless sub-human slaves we are people of choice. I believe it is folly to assume capable humans would surrender their own ideas for what the media spits out. Especially in these times moral objectivism has become extremely popular (the idea that we should live for ourselves and our own ideas) and with this growth of moral objectivism we are less subseptable than ever to be influenced by the media. Infact most of the population already have decided (about 90% of the populis always votes for the same party they did the year before) showing that only 10 percent is continually wavered on a number of issues. If the same people vote for the same party every year they are obviously not being affected by the media.
The death penalty should be abolished

I will be arguing for the removal of the death penalty, to be replaced by life imprisonment; my opponent will be arguing that it should remain a penalty for crimes. Maximum time to argue, three days; voting period, two weeks. 8,000 character argument length. Four rounds. Death penalty: a legal process whereby a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for a crime (Wikipedia). Life imprisonment: any sentence of imprisonment for a serious crime under which the convicted person is to remain in jail for the rest of his or her life or until paroled (Wikipedia).
Girls r hot

Girls aren't hot otherwise I would have died of burning right now because I kiss girls practically all day. They queue up to do it and t is a 23 month wait, but it's worth it. I am normal temperature.I think pro could be confused about what people mean when they say women are always in the kitchen they mean the women are in the kitchen but outside the oven, not in it. I could understand how somebody would think this, though, because cooking women would be sexist.Women always are in the kitchen. My sister makes regular trips and brings back souvenirs every time (the fridge magnets. They're what keep the lid of the fridge and the rest of it from separating).Thank you.
Hiroshima Was Not Nuked

Hello and welcome to my Outlaw Tournament Debate. Full Resolution: The city of Hiroshima was not hit with a nuclear bomb. BoP is clearly on me for this one. No semantics No "Kritiks" or however that's spelled. Con waives the right to any define any terms. Hiroshima - A city of southwest Honshu, Japan, on the Inland Sea west of Osaka Hit - for the purposes of this debate it will be "Directly or indirectly destroyed by object in question. Nuked - Hit by Nuclear Bomb Nuclear Bomb - A nuclear weapon is an explosive device that derives its destructive force from nuclear reactions, a combination of fission and fusion (thermonuclear weapon). First round is for acceptance and if you wish arguing. Good luck and may the odds be ever in your favor.
Hiroshima Was Not Nuked

1. Rule violations would appropriately award conduct points, not all 7 points inclusive of spelling and grammar, arguments, and sources. 2. Pro has advanced an intentionally inaccurate definition for the term "nuclear bomb". This is deception and it is a greater conduct violation than semantics. Pro should be penalized for this deception by awarding me conduct points. 3. The burden of proof is on Pro and Pro hasn't advanced any argument in support of the resolution. I should be awarded argument points unless Pro argues that the resolution is true without any convincing refutation from me.
Hiroshima Was Not Nuked

Pro thus far hasn't presented any argument in support of the resolution. The burden of proof is on Pro as Pro has brought the claim, and, additionally, Pro has explicitly stated that the burden is on him. Since Pro hasn't advanced any argument in support of the resolution and the BoP is on Pro, I am winning by default. What's in the comments section doesn't count for conduct purposes; It must be posted in the actual debate. Additionally, I didn't even break any rules, as Pro himself admits that what I posted in the comments merely indicates a plan to break the rules.Pro had plenty of time over to post an argument in support of the resolution, and he didn't do it. Pro has flaked.Since I don't have any argument to argue against, I'm going to have to get creative. When I accepted this debate I imagined that Pro's argument would go something like this:"An atomic bomb did detonate over Hiroshima, but this wasn't a 'nuclear bomb' as defined in round 1, because 'nuclear bomb' was defined to mean only nuclear weapons that use fusion."Pro's definition from round 1 is unsubstantiated, inaccurate, and there is no good reason for it to be accepted. The fact that it is inaccurate is a good reason for it to be rejected. Sure, it would be a rule violation for me to "define any terms", but my challenging of Pro's definition as inaccurate and unsubstantiated isn't exactly Con defining a term, now is it? Had Pro's rule been "Con accepts these definitions as binding for all debating purposes and waives any right to challenge them", then perhaps what I'm doing here would have been a rule violation. Lets see how others have defined the term "nuclear bomb" - Collins Dictionary - a bomb whose force is due to uncontrolled nuclear fusion or nuclear fissionhttp://goo.gl...Wiktionary - "A nuclear weapon". "Nuclear weapon" defined as "A weapon that derives its energy from the nuclear reactions of either fission or fusion."https://goo.gl... & https://goo.gl...I haven't defined anything, I have merely challenged Pro's definition as unsubstiated, inaccurate, and I have shown you how others have defined the term.
Hiroshima Was Not Nuked

Okay so before I start any arguing I would like to point out that my opponent is planning on breaking the rules as stated in the comments."Yeah, I saw that before I accepted the debate. However, his rule said "Con waives the right to any define any terms". I don't interpret that as preventing me from challenging his definition as inaccurate by showing how reputable sources have defined it. Showing how other people have defined it isn't the same as Con defining it. I also intend to advance a kritik argument against the stupidity of the whole thing."I am going to consider this as a break in the rules hereby forfeiting all 7 points to me.A new debate will be up shortly.