BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Flat Tax

1. Pro says that the progressive tax punishes people for success, but I've already said success is rewarded even if the wealth gap is closed. The wealth gap today is exploding [A]. Rich people can afford to pay a progressive tax rate because their wealth is still so high above others. They are not being burdened into poverty, whereas the flat tax can burden the middle and lower class into poverty. Pro is correct that inequality exists, but that doesn't mean we should not take measures to help people which benefits society as a whole. It gives poor people more opportunities to contribute to the market and society. In Pro's example where getting a raise winds up getting the person less money, I would say employers need to make sure they are working in compliance with the tax code so as to not penalize their employees but actually reward them if that is the intention. 2. Point #2 is dropped. 3. I have said that the IRS should make the tax code as simple as possible, but still go by a progressive tax system. This will help reduce confusion and fraud. I don't see why it has to be the flat tax or something confusing and why it can't be understandable but progressive. 4. Crooked politicians should be held accountable for cheating with corporations. That is separate from the issue of progressive vs. flat tax rates. 5. Under the flat tax the rich still pay more, but not enough more. That is the point. 6. See point #5. 7. We should push for honesty, transparency and accountability under a progressive tax. There is no need to eliminate this idea just because some people are incentivized to cheat or scam the system. In that case almost any policy could be ignored or thrown out, because none are perfect. 8. Yes I believe people who can afford to do so have a social responsibility to foot the bill not only because it's the decent thing to do, but the practical thing to do. It allows for the advancement of ideas and opportunity for more people to be productive and contribute to the world in a positive way, rather than just struggle to get by. 9. Pro says she values things like innovation and yet does not want to take measures to ensure more people have opportunities to be useful and creative. 10. Pro cannot deny that a flat tax would burden the middle and lower class. If they are not exceeding now without it, then when they are expected to pay more in taxes they will clearly be doing worse off than they are now, no matter what. 11. I will concede that a majority of people want the flat tax, but a majority of people do not understand how it works and how it would affect them. This is not a compelling argument against the utility and moral value of a progressive tax. 12. Same thing for #12. 13. Pro finishes by saying there would be no burden on the middle class again. While more jobs might be available to the middle class, if they are taxed at higher rates then it doesn't translate to more wealth. They could break out even or even still wind up with less, depending on their end income and the tax rate. [A] http://equitablegrowth.org...
Flat Tax

Thanks Danielle. I'm looking forward to discussing this topic with one of the best debaters on the site.For those who don't know, a flat tax is a consistent rate that every citizen would be taxed. A progressive tax is a system in which people with more money pay a higher rate of taxes. For example, we could have 10 citizens taxed at a flat rate of 10% and collect $100. Or under a progressive tax system, those 10 citizens would pay according to their ability. The 4 poorest citizens could only afford to pay $2 in taxes each, the fifth and sixth could pay $8 each, the seventh and eighth could afford $12 each, the ninth could afford to pay $20 and the top earning citizen could pay $32 in taxes. Instead of the citizens paying an equal flat rate, they would foot the bill according to what they could contribute. I will be arguing that position.Thanks again for starting this up and good luck to you also.
Flat Tax

Many thanks to my opponent, East, for challenging me to this debate. Welcome to DDO! I accept and will affirm the resolution in favor of a flat tax over a progressive tax system. Please note that I am somewhat playing devil's advocate in this debate. In fact, as a (laymen's terms) libertarian I would I prefer NO tax (with voluntary fees in lieu of taxes for services) but I digress. I will keep the first round pretty straight forward and to the point, with bullet point numbers to separate and clarify arguments. I hope this is an interesting discussion . This will be a speedy debate as per your request :) Thanks again, and good luck! I will begin my arguments in Round 2.
Chocolate milk is bad for your health

Pro i hope this will be a learning session for you regarding the benefits of Chocolate Milk vs Milk (Normal Milk as you call it). First let me state that Milk can be 1%, 2%.3.7% fat or powedered. All of these affect the Nutrition Values. But for the sake of the argument we will use the Milk 1% and the Chocolate Milk (not reduced fat). Chocolate Milk Nutrition Values Calories 83 % Daily Value* Total Fat 3.4 g 5% Saturated fat 2.1 g 10% Polyunsaturated fat 0.1 g Monounsaturated fat 1 g Cholesterol 12 mg 4% Sodium 60 mg 2% Potassium 167 mg 4% Total Carbohydrate 10 g 3% Dietary fiber 0.8 g 3% Sugar 10 g Protein 3.2 g 6% Caffeine 2 mg Vitamin A 1% Vitamin C 1% Calcium 11% Iron 1% Vitamin D 12% Vitamin B-6 0% Vitamin B-12 5% Magnesium 3% Milk Nutrition Values Calories 42 % Daily Value* Total Fat 1 g 1% Saturated fat 0.6 g 3% Polyunsaturated fat 0 g Monounsaturated fat 0.3 g Cholesterol 5 mg 1% Sodium 44 mg 1% Potassium 150 mg 4% Total Carbohydrate 5 g 1% Dietary fiber 0 g 0% Sugar 5 g Protein 3.4 g 6% Vitamin A 0% Vitamin C 0% Calcium 12% Iron 0% Vitamin D 0% Vitamin B-6 0% Vitamin B-12 8% Magnesium 2% As you can see from the above tables taken from google (just google search Milk or Chocolate Milk) you can deduce that Chocolate Milk has more Vitamin C, More Iron, more Magnesium, more Vitamin D (12% more) and more Vitamin A. Milk has 5g less sugar than Chocolate Milk (has 10g) in a 100g sample. If fat is a problem for you then choose reduced-fat Chocolate Milk. Therefore Chocolate Milk is far more nutritious than Milk. Drink Chocolate Milk pro. Its good for you :)
Chocolate milk is bad for your health

Well chocolate milk has more sugars than cola, which is very surprising for, me. It says that this much sugar can be very bad for your health and could cause very bad health problems, inside your body. So I am guessing that this chocolate milk should be banned in school and also this chocolate milk has a very bad thing that it also makes you go fat and does not have that much nutrition such as vitamin C has only 4%. Does this tell you that chocolate milk is bad for your body? This milk also does say that it would be better to be buying or drinking this good old normal milk. They say that milk that is normal has a vitamin D and other good things for your body, which is I am thinking that this drink of the chocolate milk is just bad. I am also thinking that this choco milk also you will think, what this does not make sense. But I have a good backup for that. you can read that this chocolate milk can be a unhealthy drink that will only cover your body up with sugar. It can also be covering your body up with many calories. So please be kind and say yes and vote for me.
Runescape is better than World of Warcraft

Of course it is all opinion! Everything people debate is their opinion! It is the same as someone debating for or against abortion, it is their opinion. This whole site is based on people debating their opinions! Since my opponent hasn't given any reasons for how Runescape is better than WoW, and he hasn't refuted any of my arguments, I am not left with much to say. So, I'll post two videos showing the difference between Runescape raiding and World of Warcraft raiding. I'll let the audience decide which is the better game. *I ask the audience to please watch both videos now.* Clearly, World of Warcraft has FAR superior gameplay, graphics, and features. Honestly, WoW makes Runescape look pathetic. Hopefully my opponent will put up a decent argument this next round. As always, I wish him good luck. Vote CON! http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Runescape is better than World of Warcraft

Now, on to my argument: Having played both Runescape and World of Warcraft, I can honestly say that WoW is, without question, a MUCH better game than Runescape. I'll start my debate by rebutting my opponent. >"It's cheaper" Sure, Runescape is the cheaper game. Does that make it better? Of course not. For example, let's say you go to a burger joint. Would you expect a two-pound triple angus beef bacon cheeseburger to be the same price as a kids meal? Absolutely not! Why would a burger that is obviously of much better quality and value be worth the same as some dinky, tiny beef patty? It wouldn't, and the same theory applies to Runescape and WoW. World of Warcraft is simply of a higher calibur than Runescape; it's quality far surpasses that of Runescape. What proof have I of this? I will show you. >"a lot more features and things to do" Since you have failed to describe these features, I will describe some of the many features that WoW brings to the table. World of Warcraft provides its players with 10 playable races, 10 playable classes, over 70 dungeons/raids to take part in, 4 whole continents to explore and quest in, 5 different objective-based battlegrounds, multiple world-PvP zones, and a working arena system for dedicated PvPers, rideable ground and flying mounts, seige weapons/vehicles, detailed character customization, and achievements. And that's just a small list of the many things WoW has to offer. Runescape has nothing plausible to compete with this. >"But spending $20 a month for a game? ", "World of Warcraft costs $240 a year! " Check your facts before you post. World of Warcraft costs $15 a month, and $12.99 a month if you buy six months at a time. That's roughly between $156-$180 a year, so don't try making the price seem more than it is. Like I said before, the better the quality of a game, the more expensive it naturally will be. Although $15 a month is a tad pricey, WoW definitely gives you your money's worth. Besides, this debate isn't "Runescape is a better priced game than World of Warcraft", this is about which is simply the overall better game. I suggest that in order to determine which is truely OVERALL the better game, these five factors be considered: 1. Gameplay 2. Features 3. Cooperation 4. Player vs. Player 5. Overall Experience I encourage my opponent to hit these few important points, and I will do the same.
Runescape is better than World of Warcraft

Runescape is way better than World of Warcraft. It's cheaper a lot more features and things to do. Sure world of warcraft has extra things runescape doesn't have such as things like not losing items when you die. But spending $20 a month for a game? Outrageous. For a cheap $5 a month you can get a much better game with a lot more features and stuff to do. Runescape is better than World of Warcraft. Runescape only costs $60 a year. World of Warcraft costs $240 a year! You do the math. Overall. Runescape wins
Should Recycling be made compulsory for everyone

I will cover your arguments of land, contamination, and ability to reuse. I will also add three arguments of my own. 1.Land-We have plenty of land space right now. According to Discover Magazine, we can hold up to five times as many people so we are nowhere close to running out of the land. 2.Contamination-Even if contamination is a problem, recycling isn't the way to stop it because we can't recycle greenhouses gases. We need to cut down on CO2 emissions and other problems. Cutting down on the production of trash is more important than recycling it. 3.Reuse-Your saying we can so we should. We can recycle but it's not so bad that we need to make it mandatory. My reason four and five will describe why it shouldn't be mandatory. 4.Solvency-There is no possible way you could get every country from the United States to North Korea to be part of this program or follow this law. However you try, it won't work. 5.Liberty-The government needs fewer reasons to invade people's ability to do what they want and not more. You're opening an autocratic door that can lead to governments to limiting the number of resources you use, such as electricity or water. 6.Nationalism-We wants less global initiatives. This will start another one. Also since it hasn't been stated if it is going to be done through the United Nations, it makes this a slippery point. For the reason of liberty and the fact they can't solve the problem, I urge a neg vote.
Should Recycling be made compulsory for everyone

Groups need to reuse. Reusing is the place something is utilized once more or then again made into new items. This composition will demonstrate that we MUST reuse at home, school and in our condition. Initially, people group must reuse on the grounds that billions of huge amounts of waste are going to landfill. Every Australian produces 400kg of garbage every year. This implies the billions of huge amounts of waste will go into our condition on the grounds that there will be no more space for landfill. Another motivation behind why we have to reuse is that making new items utilizes vitality. Vitality, similar to power, makes contamination. That implies there will be a lot of contamination in our group. In the event that we reuse there will be less contamination in our water, air and nourishment. At last, it is fundamental for groups to reuse in light of the fact that we CAN reuse over a portion of our waste. We can reuse aluminium, nourishment scraps, a few plastics and paper. On the off chance that we reuse more there will be less contamination in our condition and we can make a considerable measure of supportive items. Taking everything into account, this article has demonstrated that groups must reuse. It stops garbage going to landfill, it decreases vitality waste and we get new items.
Abortion should remain legal, and anyone who says otherwise is a hypocrite.

Well, it just seemed like you repeated rape and I dismissed the overpopulation, as it is an insignificant number. Second, you say that men have no connection to the3 abortion process. Not true. Who made the baby? Both man and woman. And with all your fancy numbers, why couldn't I say "You're parents should have aborted you instead of paying all that money!"? And your points seem to say that no one should have a child in the first place. And you say effectively say that because children cost so much to foster, the kid should be aborted. If it's such a pain, why do they exist in the first place? And in the womb the child is technically alive. They are composed of cells and grow. They try to reject the needle, but are unable to. They silently scream. It's terrible. As for rape, less than one percent of abortions are due to rape,* so let's dismiss that. Even if you have had family members go through this, that still isn't first-hand experience. And you immediately assume that because I take the con position I haven't had any experience at all. You say your arguments are superior based on an assumption backed by nothing. You know nothing of my background, don't immediately assume I'm inexperienced. As for my arguments being unoriginal, I've heard all of yours before, too. Thank you. * http://www.operationrescue.org...
Abortion should remain legal, and anyone who says otherwise is a hypocrite.

I actually do have 5 arguments, Woman having rights to their own bodies, Rape, overpopulation, First-hand experience, and care of the child. please tell me how these are all the same. Yes, the declaration of independence gives the right to life, but in the womb, the child is not technically alive, the child is a developing fetus. Its brain is not fully developed, more specifically the hippocampus, the part of the brain responsible for memory, therefore the fetus has no mind. As I stated, and you so clearly ignored, If you were a woman to be raped, you would most likely attempt to get an abortion. That is what is hypocritical about pro-lifers, and if you're a man who is a pro-lifer, why ? How are you connected to a woman getting an abortion. My only clue would be you are the husband or man in relationship who has a wife who has been raped. Would you not want to get rid of a child who would not share your DNA, who would not share your blood? A Fathers pride in his offspring comes from the connection he has to it, and what connection does a father have to a child conceived through rape? Another thing, you so eloquently state "give it to an orphanage or a foster home". Do you actually know how much of our tax dollars go into foster care? as of today, over 500,000 children remain in foster homes. And mister "give'em to a foster home", children cost between 212,00 dollars and 490,00 dollars to raise a child to the age of 18, and that's bare necessities. Lets average those to numbers and say that it cost's 345,00 to raise a child to legal adulthood. 34500 times 50000, I wonder how many zeros are in that number? And remember, this is coming out of our wallets. Also, as I previously stated, children are more liable to crime without a father, lets just sink in how high the percentages would multiply with any parents at all. You also label me as a hypocrite. I've had family members go through this, I think I would know a bit more about this then you. I've countered all of con's arguments, and to be honest, there all unoriginal ones. Sources, American academy of Pediatrics, Globalpost
Abortion should remain legal, and anyone who says otherwise is a hypocrite.

You say you have five arguments, but really you only have 2- Women have a right to their own bodies, and the rape argument. Only the first has to do with the latter part of the topic. To your first argument- Yes, they have a right to their own bodies. But in the case of abortion, they are killing not their own bodies, but those of an innocent child. In the case of rape- instead of killing an innocent child, give birth to it and give it to an orphanage or or foster home. You say we're making decisions for someone else? Making murder, rape, and stealing illegal is also making decisions for someone else. Our Declaration of Independence states we have the right to life. Abortion takes that right away from innocent children. Also, I don't see how being pro-life is hypocritical. Please provide an explanation of that. YOU are the hypocrite, not because of being pro-choice, but because you "assume" this is what a women goes through. Yet your next sentence is "Don't talk the talk until you've walked the walk." Same thing goes for you. Thank you.
Abortion should remain legal, and anyone who says otherwise is a hypocrite.

Abortion, the removal of the human fetus during pregnancy. Why are people making such a fuss over it? I wouldn't know because I am not one, but others are not so keen to have a woman to her will. Reasons why it should remain legal? 1. A woman has a right to her own body. If you're advocating to make abortion illegal, you're indirectly making decisions for someone else. 2. Its literally accidental sometimes. Rape is the number one cause of unexpected children in the world, and think about it, would you want to mother a child of a man you did not know? Being married will be tough for both parents, because there will be the strain of another mouth to feed, and it will be even worse for a single mom for the same reasons. 3. The child would most likely be brought in a broken home(figuratively and literally). It is of my understanding that most rapes happen in poorer neighbourhoods, not saying that they don't happen in other areas. In poorer neighbourhoods, most people are poor. Who knows what the trauma is of a child going through this experience without a father. Mentoring a child requires two halves, a mother and a father, without a father in the equation, they will be more likely to be involved in crime, drugs, and jail. This is all coming from an actual survey, I will try to provide a link at the bottom. 4. Overpopulation, please, don't get me wrong, I am not a sadist or a misogyinist, I am merely a realist who can recognize that the amount of people in the world is unsustainable to the amount of food we can produce, and the oil that is left on earth, and space for housing. Abortion is a small thing helps control population. 5. If you're a woman who's advocating to make abortion illegal, what would you do if you got raped? Hmm? Yeah, that's what I thought, you wouldn't be so inclined to protest the removal of a child who you will have no emotional connection to, you will get an abortion for the sake of protecting your future. I would assume this is what a woman think's when she is thinking about getting an abortion. Don't talk the talk until you've walked the walk. Sources, World Health Organization, Canadian Public Health Organization. Sorry I couldn't supply the link to the survey, but it's on the website Health affairs. org
Abortion should remain legal, and anyone who says otherwise is a hypocrite.

I did not concede. I conceded on the first part of the topic, which is "Abortion should continue to be legal:, and not on "And anyone who thinks otherwise is a hypocrite". If one were to believe the fetus is self-conscious and has rights just like you and me,(I'm sorry, I meant to say this instead of alive last round) which many do. Even if they were raped and had a career/financial situation that would be seriously injured from raising a child, they still would not abort. Therefore they are not hypocritical, which proves the second clause of the topic wrong. This debate has been my favorite of my short time here. I truly look forward to debating more with you. Thank you.
Abortion should remain legal, and anyone who says otherwise is a hypocrite.

Of course the fetus of any organism is alive. The question is, is it self-conscious? Does it recognize it's existence? If not, what exactly is being murdered? You are beginning to ramble. I am un-hypocritical? Therefore what? If I truly believe what? How exactly would you win the argument? You made some relative points in the previous rounds, you are now making observations with justifications based on assumptions. You conceded, there is nothing left to debate about.
Abortion should remain legal, and anyone who says otherwise is a hypocrite.

Some people think abortion should be illegal because they believe the fetus is alive (which I still do, but I refuse to debate this, as for this debate we agree the fetus is not yet alive). Or they're a women, and have been through this. Or they haven't thought this through Or a variety of reasons, all making them unhypocritical. It boils down to this question. If beyond all reasonable doubt it could be proven the fetus was just as alive as you and me, would you still support abortion? Of course not. That would be murder. Therefore, if you truly believe the fetus was alive, and therefore believe it should be illegal, you are unhypocritical, and the Con position wind the argument. Thank you.
Abortion should remain legal, and anyone who says otherwise is a hypocrite.

It does not matter how many woman get raped in this world. If you are a pro-lifer, and you've even raped, and you conceived, good on you if you choose to take care of the child. You openly conceded the debate, and gave no explanation to why you're not a hypocrite. You're a male, I would assume. If you were somehow to be influenced, and you raped someone, or inseminated someone without consent, would you ask them to keep the baby? If so, you're a hypocrite, Don't know which part you're struggling to comprehend. I congratulate my opponent on sticking to his opinions, no matter what the conclusion, and for the record, Abortion is a personal choice, and no matter what the circumstances, denying abortion is such to denying access to school. Each hinder ones future in a negative way.