BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Federal Income Tax Should be Abolished

Ouch, there goes Pro's conduct points. "you have only tried to debunk all my statements with your own words yet have said nothing on why we need the federal income tax which proves my point that it's just the government robbing Americans of money. "I'll let Pro in on a little secret: I don't even have to use the words "income tax" if I don't have to. My job is to refute claims made by the one with the burden of proof, which in this case is Pro. I never have to prove anything. It is sufficient to disprove. "Social security was created in that idea you mentioned but has failed as it is running out" Did I not literally just give a way to fix that? "many people "Who? "The income is not needed anymore"I don't think Pro actually gave a reason why it's unnecessary. All he did was try to prove that Social Security is bad, and that the country has debt. I didn't even see how banning the income tax would improve things. "our government must stop spending more than it has"Pro's solution to fixing a spending problem is to just take money away. This would hugely injure the entire country, and probably the entire world if it was done all at once. Pro never even said how this plan would be implemented. Is this an all at once thing? Is it a gradual shift away? I don't know, and neither do potential voters.
The Federal Income Tax Should be Abolished

If you'd like sources then instead of being lazy go and look it up for yourself. In conclusion, you have only tried to debunk all my statements with your own words yet have said nothing on why we need the federal income tax which proves my point that it's just the government robbing Americans of money. Social security was created in that idea you mentioned but has failed as it is running out, personalized social security would be better. The income is not needed anymore and we must remove it, many people agree and have and will continue to push for it and our government must stop spending more than it has.
The Federal Income Tax Should be Abolished

"The federal income tax accounts for less than 1/3 of the federal governments revenue."I'd like a source for this. Even if it's true, why is this bad? No information is used to explain why this is so wrong. "Social security is an invalid argument since many would agree like me it needs to be removed as its running out and it's a horrible idea." Insolvency of Social Security could easily be solved by eliminating the income cap [1]. Also, Social Security is not a horrible idea. It was created so that people would not die if they ran out of money after retirement, or after being injured at their job. Not everybody is rich, and some people would not have the means to save money without social security [2]. Taking care of the elderly was a state matter before the SS act, but the Great Depression proved that the states were not prepared to adequately take care of them [2]. "...after the war we lived without the income tax all the way till they needed it for the coming WWI."If what Pro is insinuating is that we don't need it outside of impeding wartime, then I'd like to point something out. The geopolitical setting we currently have is so fragile that there could very well be another war in the next ten years. As an example, there's the conflict in Ukraine [3], a country that's requested NATO support [4], nobody knows how it will turn out. "We were able to survive without it for such a long time."Survive is such a terrible baseline expectation. You should never accept less than "prosper". Of course we survived without the federal income tax, but we would also survive if an asteroid 2 km long hit new mexico. We'd be in terrible shape, but we would still "survive"."After the government implemented it, we saw a huge increase in not needed spending"Proof? What does Pro define as "not needed"? That phrase is completely subjective. Pro may not think that subsidies for parks are necessary, but a father may feel like parks are necessary because he goes to one every other day with his daughter. "All the extra tax does is give the government an incentive to spend more, and spend more then it has, for too long the government has been throwing us into debt with spending more then we have and this tax helps them."How would more money fail to incentivise more spending? Also, how would taking 1/3 of someby's paycheck help them get their debt under control. That's exactly what Pro is suggesting here. "It would be better to simply increase sales tax since that is a voluntary one."I've seen this argument, and it makes me sad every time without fail. The sales tax is a regressive tax. This means that people with less money pay proportionately more than those with more money. If I have $50,000 to spend, and Joe Shmoe has $5,000,000 to spend, whatever I pay will be proportionately higher than what he pays. Unless he buys one hundred times as much as I do, which he likely will not, this is an unfair system. [1] http://www.npr.org...;[2] http://www.ourdocuments.gov...;[3] http://www.summer.harvard.edu...;[4] http://www.nato.int...;
The Federal Income Tax Should be Abolished

"It's not like our tax dollars go towards ensuring social security and the military. " The federal income tax accounts for less than 1/3 of the federal governments revenue. Social security is an invalid argument since many would agree like me it needs to be removed as its running out and it's a horrible idea. You argue that we fought for taxation without representation which was what they said back then. However, after the war we lived without the income tax all the way till they needed it for the coming WWI. We were able to survive without it for such a long time. After the government implemented it, we saw a huge increase in not needed spending. All the extra tax does is give the government an incentive to spend more, and spend more then it has, for too long the government has been throwing us into debt with spending more then we have and this tax helps them. It would be better to simply increase sales tax since that is a voluntary one. You have failed to present any reasonable arguments and really back up your statements against me.
The Federal Income Tax Should be Abolished

"In 1776 America fought for freedom from a power that was over taxing the people of America."This is not true. The United States revolted against the British due to the fact that the colonies had no say in which taxes were levied on them. Not because they were being overtaxed. In fact, people in Britain were being more heavily taxed than those on the colonies. Though to be fair, it was only 10x the rate of taxes on the colonists. [1]"The federal income tax does nothing but take away the fruits of all Americans labor and give the government more money to waste fully spend."You heard it here first folks. The federal income tax does literally nothing except for rob Americans. It's not like our tax dollars go towards ensuring social security and the military. ---I don't believe that Pro has provided any reasonable arguments in favor of his position thus far. [1] http://foreignpolicy.com...;
The Federal Income Tax Should be Abolished

The federal income tax should be abolished. In 1776 America fought for freedom from a power that was over taxing the people of America. Our country was created out of a hatred for taxation and after living for so long without it we brought its creation in the 1900s. The federal income tax does nothing but take away the fruits of all Americans labor and give the government more money to waste fully spend. We must end this complicated, horrible system and save the American people money.
Are mystical theology and science similar

you say "No, theyre not related. Science is based on logic and fact. Mystical theology isn't." they are still saying thing Zajak notes "particles and waves are macroscopic concepts which gradually lose their relevance as we approach the submicroscopic domain." Bohr quoted in A, Wick, The Infamous Boundary, Birkhauser Berlin, 1995, p.33. "The very words physicists use to describe reality constrains their knowledge of it and scientists in every field will one day encounter this barrier to human understanding" "In regard to the paradoxes and contradictions of quantum theory Wick state the orthodox view when he says "here my opinion of the orthodox quantum mechanics, like Bohr, comes down to the meaning of words. "Classical" and "complementarity", insult and commendation, are euphemisms; the belief concealed is that Nature has been found in a contradiction. But quantum physicists are not simpletons. In their hearts they know such a claim is philosophically unacceptable and would be rejected in other sciences." Wick notes " I believe orthodox quantum theorists [slates] reason, consciously or unconsciously, something like this. The microscopic world exhibits paradoxes or contradictions and this fact is reflected in the best theory describing it.""A. Wick, The Infamous Boundary, Birkhauser, Berlin, 1995, p.183. "Nicholas of Cusa states "" needful to enter the darkness and to admit the coincidence of opposites beyond all grasp of reason " [God] art found unveiled is girt around with the coincidence of contradictories " the door whereof is guarded by the most proud spirit if reason and unless he be vanquished the way in will not lie open""F. C. Happold, Mysticism, Penguin, 1984, p. 336 Pseudo-Dionysius: sates "As we climb higher we say [The supreme Cause] is not soul or mind nor does it possess imagination conviction speech or understanding. Nor is it speech per se understanding per se. It cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding.C, Luibhed & P, Rorem ( ed and trans) Mystical Theology 1045D-1048A in Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, New York, Paulist Press, 1987, p.106.
Are mystical theology and science similar

This work argues Are mystical theology and science similar http://www.scribd.com... quote " For the physicist Bohr language is a barrier to understanding reality Dante like Lao Tzu, Pseudo-Dionysius St Augustine (354-430), St Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) Zen and many forms of Eastern mysticism knew the simultaneous inapplicability and inevitability of human language when talking of reality or God and his attributes and domains. "
Carmelo Anthony should have won the 2012-2013 MVP award over Lebron James

As my opponent mention so accurately noted I did miss my round 2. I had personal matters to handle. Luckily my opponent didnt used his round 3 to his advantage just to make note of the obvious. My opponent made a compelling argument but sorry it still doesnt make him be the deserving mvp to a team that lost 12 more games than the Heat. My opponent states: "However while lebron might have better stats the MVP stands for most valuable player and melo is more valuable to the Knicks then James is to the heat" My response: The Knicks had 6 players avg in the double digits last year the Heat had 5. Also, Lebron James led the Heat in Points, Rebounds, Steals, Assist, 2nd in blocks and minutes played Carmelo Antony led the Knicks only in points, he didn't even play the most minutes, the guy you said that cause them problems played the most, JR Smith. http://www.basketball-reference.com... http://www.basketball-reference.com... So in closing as my opponent said himself, the MVP is for most valuable player. I would think the player that led his team in minutes played, points, steals, rebounds, assist, 2nd in blk, and the best record in the NBA would be more valuable than a player who just led him team in points and lost 12 more games than Lebron. Also ,my opponent noted that Lebron did have better over stats than Carmelo. Lastly my opponent didn't use any punctuation in any of his rounds.... Good battle but Case is closed...
Carmelo Anthony should have won the 2012-2013 MVP award over Lebron James

However while lebron might have better stats the MVP stands for most valuable player and melo is more valuable to the Knicks then James is to the heat lebron James played with 2 all stars the leagues best three point shooter in Ray Allen while Carmelo Anthony played with a inconsistent center and a sixth man of the year who causes problems for the Knicks and a injured power forward who doesn't play with melo wellclearly even without lebron the heat would still be a playoff team maybe a division winner while the Knicks would have been nowhere near the division title without Carmelo therefore Carmelo Anthony is more valuable to the Knicks the lebron James is to the heat therefore Carmelo Anthony is the most valuable player and should have won the MVP award
Carmelo Anthony should have won the 2012-2013 MVP award over Lebron James

Good debate my opponent is bringing up as these two players have been compared to each other their entire career. I disagree completely and heres why. Lets look at there stats for the 2012-13 season, Carmelo Anthony 28.7 ppg 6.9 rebounds 2.6 assist 44.9 fg % 37.9 3pt% .8 steals and .05 blocks Lebron James 26.8 ppg 8.0 rebounds 7.3 assist 56.5 fg% 40.6 3pt% 1.7 steals .09 blocks The only category in which Carmelo is leading him is scoring and thats only because he shot the ball on avg 5 times more. And even with Carmelo taking an average of 5 more shots than Lebron, Lebron still made more shots per game than Carmelo!! http://stats.nba.com... http://stats.nba.com...
God Chooses Life

Con's last post was correct...but for only the first two sentences.Con has attempted to substitute fantasy for a theory. A theory is not pure imagination, it relies on modest amounts of reason and some evidence. Speculation is the best description offered for what Con has provided, and that description is generous. Con's "theory" is not rationally satisfying, whereas the cosmological, teleological, moral, and philosophical arguments that have historically been provided for the existence of God are rationally satisfying.(i.e. there is no rational reason to conclude that God and His consciousness are seperated).Invoking an intelligent cause (God) is not arbitrary, whereas Con's "theory" is.Con has proposed a "theory" that is tantamount to the analogy offered Bertrand Russell's teapot [1] ( i say proposed instead of plagiarized, because Con likely is unaware of this analogy). Basically, Con is repeating his/her previous error of personal incedulity - or arguing from ignorance.While i appreciate Con's veracity, one must consider this debate not on the grounds of possible, but on the grounds of probable. Which position has more evidence, more scholarship, more opinion, more rationale, and more reason than the other? Sure it may be possible that a teapot is flying around in space, but is it probable?While Pro may not have proven the existence of God beyond the shadow of a doubt, Con has certainy not proven anything with regards to Con's "theory". Are we to assume that God's consciousness exists ouside of and possible in conflict with God? huh?Nevertheless, Con's attempt to distinguish God from God's consciouness falls short and really just affirms that the original premise is true - that God chooses life.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_teapot
God Chooses Life

Oh god this is a difficult debate. My points are much too flimsy and you countered them all.It looks like you win....except...I will give one. Last. Point. One word: Glimbozonous.Glimbozonous is the name of my religion: I believe....approximately 15 billion years ago...there was nothing. Nothing at all. But as the environment cannot be forever like this, based on the quantum mechanics that "if something can happen, no matter how unlikely the chances are, it is bound to happen sometime." So, something happened, something of such a small chance of happening that it took a billion years for it to happen--energy was somehow created from "nothing." (string and quantum foam, or whatever keeps the universe hanging and not dropping down) A billion years passed, and because so much potential energy was made, This energy is not normal--it has a sense of consciousness within it. It took the shape and form of what Christians know as "God". Because of its consciousness it created earth, (basic) life, and etc. etc. in merely six planck time similar to how god created earth in six days.However, because each reaction has an equal reaction, this glimbo energy lost most of its consciousness, and became pure energy.A billion years passed, and the pure energy became very very massive within a condensed space, and because such, it collapsed upon itself and created....THE BIG BANG.However, not all of its consciousness is lost. It is spread around the universe, and the energy explains "good luck", and how there are so many unique species and animals in the world. That is my theory. It manages to explain where the Big Bang came from, why our planet Earth is the only planet Earth around, and how humans have a unique balance and choice.It also explains why god is so cruel--even if god tried to stop the wars, diseases, famine, and etc. etc., he cannot, because he has not enough energy.What is keeping us from assuming it is not God himself, but God's consciousness that has helped us all? What if, God doesn't choose life or death, rather, his consciousness helps us decide? Nothing has yet to prove that my belief in Glimbozonous in incorrect.In conclusion it is not god who chooses life, but God's left consciousness from creating the earth. I'm sorry if you think it's too late to come up with this point, but I just thought of this. Terribly sorry about the fact that you only have one round to rebut and conclude.Good debate anyways.
God Chooses Life

1. "Feeling" is either completely biochemical or something else. If it is the former then my previous conclusion stands. If you accept the latter then my point is valid in as much as you recognize that the supernatural exists, thus making God more probable than not.2. It is a common perception that God took 6 days to create the "world" in order to teach by example. As was proposed in such a famous debate known as the Scopes monkey trial [1], we learn that it is reasonable to assume that since "light" was not created until the second day [2] that any amount of finite time could have passed between the first day and the second day - as there was no solar orbit to measure an actual day. This idea is further supported by the notion that God rested on the 7th day. Since the source for this story recognizes that God surely would not need to "rest", it is reasonable to conlcude that God was setting an example to His creation - thus the sabbath, a day of rest.3. The claim of God having "one or more" of the omni-qualities is supported by the Biblical text(s) which describe His nature and character [3].4. God was present when the apple was eaten. His allowing this to happen is an affirmation of the "free-will" or ability to choose that He bestowed upon us. As much as it may have disappointed Him, He considered our ability to "choose" to be more important than His own preference. This is the basis for all commandments - they are opportunities for choice. Satan would otherwise prefer that everyone just be in a forced state of obedience with no ability to choose.[4]5. Ironically, your sense of what is cruel and what is not cruel is based upon a Christian tradition that has permeated western civilization. Nevertheless, God is not beholden to your sense of justice [5] so to assume that His "cruelty" has any implication on His (or your) ability to choose is erroneous. God may well be considered cruel and still choose life.6. While war and crime are certainly tragedies among men, they are a consequence of men's ability to choose...of men's ability to have life. Ultimately this is what God has chosen, He has chosen for us to have life, to have the choice. Much like a parent that instructs their child and eventually allows for them to "make their own decisions", God has given us this same experience - even when it disappoints Him, but like a parent He welcomes the child into His arms and would never take away that freedom of life away.God chooses life, because life is freedom...it is the freedom to choose, to make decisions for onesself, to have options. In death there is no choice, there is only bondage - it is an inescapable prison. This is consistent with the nature and character of God as described by countless scholars and laymen; and as supported by the Bible.Not only can God choose...but time and time again, He chooses life.[1] http://www.themonkeytrial.com...[2] http://biblehub.com...;[3] http://www.openbible.info...;[4] https://www.lds.org...;[5] http://biblehub.com...;
God Chooses Life

"feeling would be bound to the natural laws of chemistry and thus be inevitable, making choice impossible..." What? What do you mean? Feeling would be bound to...chemistry? Chemistry has almost NOTHING to do with feeling, except perhaps the brain releases a chemical that makes you feel a certain emotion. How can he perform miracles? You have yet to give any evidence. If God is truly "omnipotent"-- http://dictionary.reference.com... "almighty or infinite in power" --then he does not have to create earth in 6 days. What? Six days? Six plank time is more like the correct calculation. --then he does not have to rest for 24 hours. Seriously, that's an awful lot of time for a being who is "infinite in power". Futhermore, God cannot be omnipresent, as you claim he is. --if he was, why is he not present when Adam and Eve are just about to eat the apple? --again, back to omnipotent, why does he have an evil snake in his garden? Can't he have a tree of wisdom that's pure good and all that stuff? --He's ominipotent....which leads to the eventual conclusion that he's cruel, very cruel. He let the Civil War...okay, that's understandable. He let the Belgium-Congo Free State....8 million people died! Is he really that cruel to let so much people die? World War I-- 20 million....He's gotta stop now! World War II (55 million) including holocaust and Chinese revolution ....nope. He's cruel. And I was only listing the Wars and Casualties of the 20th and 21st Centuries! from http://www.scaruffi.com.... All in all, even if God can choose life, he ultimately let the world die even if the causalities are extremely high. It's the sad truth. (These are only wars, man, these are only wars! I'm not even scratching poverty, hunger, disease, or any other kind of death!)
God Chooses Life

I accept and state that God does choose life.1. God is necessarily supernatural and therefore transcends the laws of nature. This is evidenced by His ability to perform miracles and have one or more of what are commonly known as "omni" qualities (i.e. omnipresent, omnipotent..).2. The ability to choose is a supernatural ability and is therefore part of God's character. Human beings express this same supernatural ability as bestowed upon them by God. Otherwise, human beings could not choose otherwise because every action, thought, and feeling would be bound to the natural laws of chemistry and thus be inevitable, making choice impossible (for example, a plant does not choose to bend its leaves towards the sun - it has no choice but to bend its leaves towards the sun). Yet sufficient evidence exists that concludes with human beings performing this ability.3. When accepting the fact that God is making a "decision" then by default His supernatural ability exists and thus He is able to perform whatever is His will. A human being's inability to observe God does not mean that God does not exist.So as God has the option between life and "not-life" (death), as is implied by the Debate proposition, it becomes apparent that God would choose life. For it only through life that expression and choice may exist.