BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Estate Tax Should Be Abolished.

Love a contentious debater. None of that "thank you for taking this debate" garbage. And about my "making up facts", you wish. Let's begin with my second unchallenged argument: The Estate Tax is vital for democracy. "after a few generations, we would begin having dynasties" "wealthy families that last for generations will necessarily exert undue and tremendous influence on the government." Clearly my explanation was not transparent enough for you. And out of the generosity of my heart, I'm willing to indulge the vacuum that is your mind and go at it again. Let's imagine a number of families that are exceptionally wealthy. And then let's imagine there is no estate tax. What happens to the wealth? Well basically it stays within that family. Over the course of generations, WITHOUT THE ESTATE TAX, WEALTH INCREASE. The family grows more wealthy and more powerful. The increased political clout of course results in again more wealth and more political influence. America being one of the countries with a relatively low Estate tax (for a Western Democracy and I dare you to claim I made this up) already has the beginnings of Oligarchy for example the Bush Family. You would think the ramifications of wholesale family transfer of wealth over generations would be obvious, but since it is not (to you) I tried to make it more obvious. Hope it helps. Now as to the so called detrimental effects of the estate tax (the one where I supposedly made up figures): 1. The Estate Tax only applies to estates of $4 Million for couples according to the almighty Wikipedia. (I <3 Wiki) 2. Corporations allow you to escape the Estate Tax because unlike sole proprietorships, you can legally and gradually transfer ownership through the transfer of shares while still alive. 3. Don't give me "the fabric of this Country" BS. They are not the "fabric" of this country. It's a stupid phrase with all these pleasant connotations without any serious underpinnings. Calling it "the fabric of this country" is basically making nice sounding phrases to support an empty point 4. If you think the Estate Tax is too onerous then the appropriate solution is to raise the minimum point to estates of 8 or 9 million and raising the amount taxed to compensate. Not the wholesale elimination. I hope you paid especially close attention to 4. Your entire argument, digested, is advocating estate tax reform to exempt small businesses and farmers. Not one argument you've made so far could better be applied to estate tax elimination than to estate tax reform.
The Estate Tax Should Be Abolished.

Its good you know what the Estate Tax is meant to do. Which makes this much simpler. There are two reasons why the Estate Tax should be preserved, if not increased. 1) The Estate Tax does not apply universally 2) It is critical to the health and success of Democracy 1) Despite your alarming statements warning of the horrible estate tax which destroys small business everywhere, the Estate tax only applies when someone tries to pass on an estate of something around 4 or 5 million dollar net worth. So no, the Estate tax does not wreck small business nationwide. Secondly, the Estate tax does not apply to the passing of property from husband to wife. (this also nullifies your second point about the "breadwinner") So once again, if someone dies, the business does not necessarily get taxed. And third, it does not apply to corporations. Corporations do not have to be publicly traded or engage in multi million dollar transactions. Any two or three individuals can establish a corporation wherefore the estate tax no longer applies. So small business would only have to incorporate. 2) Even if the estate tax wrecks a few small businesses, the vitality of a democracy depends heavily on the estate tax. If there was no estate tax, wealth stays within the family. Nothing generates money quite like money and without an estate tax, after a few generations, we would begin having dynasties. Wealthy families that last for generations will necessarily exert undue and tremendous influence on the government. This then transforms America slowly from a democracy into an oligarchy of a few rich families that marry to unite wealth which then remains in the family. Only by redistributing tremendous amounts of their vast wealth could we ensure some kind of equality and maintain the equilibrium of power.
The Estate Tax Should Be Abolished.

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU VOTE. The Estate Tax is a tax at the point of a person's death when the person's assets are transferred to family members. It should be abolished for the following reasons: 1) If someone owns a family business and dies, that family business will be transferred to family members. However, at the point of the transfer, the government taxes the assets at close to 50%. Like most small family businesses, they do not have half of their assets in cash. This has the result of the family having to sell the family business, fire all the workers who were formerly employed, and use the proceeds to pay the tax. No reasonable person could possible want this to happen; 2) Many people work hard even in the last few years of their life with the hope of passing what they earned to their loved ones. This has the effect of consoling those who are often left with a huge financial loss if the "breadwinner" dies; 3) The only argument against the Estate Tax is that rich people can give a ton of money to their little rich kids. The truth is that this is the exception to the rule. Reducing the number of Paris Hiltons in the world is not worth the number of family-owned businesses destroyed by the Estate Tax.
Battlefield is a better game than Call of Duty

You see, I was a Call of Duty fan, until the Zombie epidemic that in my opinion ruined the whole franchise. World At War everything was great even the zombies thing was cool, but when I started hearing "Zombies" in CoD conversations more than "Multiplayer" I knw something was bad. Then MW2 came out loved it, all the while more and more of my friends stayed behind to play ZOMBIES. When MW3 some time between Black Ops and Black Ops 2 I was introduced to the Battlefield franchise. I instantly fell in love with its gameplay features and story. As well as Multiplayer. I soon became drawn away from Call of Duty. When I started hearing" hey Jacob, did you get Black Ops 2's new zombie map pack?" I would always answer" no, I no longer play CoD, nor do I have the desire to play CoD." We would always get into arguments, I would always stated that, Russia is too featured as an American ally, showing up in every game after WaW as an enemy. Id also say that Zombie game mode is too big in the game!!
Battlefield is a better game than Call of Duty

battlefield sucks its boring the maps are too big zombie is awesume i get a lot of fun playing zombies and zombies is its own package of entertainemnt me and my friends always play cakl of duty affffffffffffffff how can u even compare bf to cod lol i mean ppl have more hours playing cod than playing bf3 thats means cod is better right? source: everyone cod owns lol and battlefield drools
All Felonies should be treated equally

Felonies, decribed in lawinfo. com as "any crime punishable by more than one year in prison or by death for capital offenses". In this debate, it should be argued wether or not all Felonies including, but not limited to Assult, Rape, Murder, and Illegal Possesion of Narcotic Paraphernalia should be "treated" equally. Meaning that they should recieve the same attention in court, and that no matter the size of the felony, it should be looked as the same as the worst felony. For example, if a entity is found guilty of Murder, asn is sentenced to 50 years prison, someone whom has commieted aggravated assault should recieve the same penalty. In order to participate in this debate, you must understand and comnform to a group of variables, which are established to avoid any "what if" situation, and to best avoid biased or personal argument. they are as follow: 1. Any entity which isused in the debate by either the Contender or Instigator must not be looked at or treated differentl because of Race or Sex, therefore, the debaters should not look at the accused or condemned as different type of people, but simply as a human beings. 2. The debaters MUST assume that any entity used in teh debate is guilty of whatever crime it is being accused of. No exceptions. 3. The debaters CANNOT try to justify a felony by stating that it was a matter of honor or passion, or that it was an unintentional action. therefore, the debaters MUST assume that the entities which commited the felonies did so in a intentional, concious, and malicious manner. No Exceptions. This being said, i will officially begin the debate. Being the Pro in the topic, i shall present my argument first. Over 54% of crimes in the U. S. are felonies. Felonies include a wide spectrum of crimes from assault to Murder. Many felonies are treated quite differently and most have differencces in priority and in the punishment presented to the felon which commited the felony. I believe that all felonies, no matter their size or graveness, should be treated in the same way, as a serious crime with malicious intent. There are several reasons to why I argue this point. 1. Equal and sistematic punishment will discourage people from commiting crimes other than murder and rape, as they will fear life imprisoment or the death penalty as a result for their actions. this is just how the death penalty affects the community. It has been proven that countries which use the death penalty have less criminals than countries whom do not use the death penalty. 2. Treating all felonies as equal will make the justice system more swift and efficient. In trials, most of the time, Judges must determine how much penalty should be given to a felon, and how. If all felons were given the same penalty for commiting a felony, the "Justice sytem would not have to waste so much time questioning what penalty to impose on the felon. In conclusion, treating all felonies as the same will not only discourage possible felons, but will help the justice system to more efficiently deal with current felons.
Atheism vs Anything

Then if the topic is Does God exist, with the criteria set per definition and in place with my stance on deism. My argument is as follows: 1: Things move from potentiality to actuality. 2: Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion. 3: Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another). 4: Therefore nothing can move itself. 5: Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else. 6: The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum. Therefore, it is necessary to arrive at a first mover. By your definition of "God" indicating deity and my usage of deity meaning nature. Than I assert that the term "God" means Universe. Therefore, the first mover is the Universe, which uses dark energy and matter to create finite planets and galaxies.
Atheism vs Anything

I accept. Although you posted Atheism vs Anything,. You didn't specify exactly what we were debating. I will be arguing from a viewpoint of Deism. Deism - the acknowledgment of the existence of a god upon the testimony of reason and of nature and its laws, and the rejection of the possibility of supernatural intervention in human affairs and of special revelation. Your definition of God also encompasses deity, I will then define my use accordingly. Deity - divine status, quality, or nature.
Best general of WWII.

Inspector General of Armored Troops: After the German defeat at Stalingrad Hitler realized he was in need of Guderian's expertise. He asked Guderian to take a new position as "Inspector General of Armored Troops". On 1 March 1943 Guderian was appointed to the newly created position. His responsibilities were to oversee the rebuilding of the greatly weakened panzer arm, to oversee tank design and production, and the training of Germany's panzer forces, and he was to advise Hitler on their use. The Battle of Kursk completely destroyed the tanks that Guderian was trying to rebuild. In a conversation with Hitler Guderian pointed out the failure of the operation: "My Fuhrer, why do you want to attack in the East at all this year?" To this Hitler responded: "You are quite right. Whenever I think of this attack my stomach turns over." Guderian concluded, "In that case your reaction to the problem is the correct one. Leave it alone." [1] When the head of the OKW General Wilhelm Keitel explained the political importance of the offensive, Guderian said: "How many people do you think even know where Kursk is? It's a matter of profound indifference to the world whether we hold Kursk or not..." "In his role as Inspector General of Armored Troops, Guderian observed that Hitler was prone to experiment with too many designs, rather than finding an effective design and produce it in large numbers. He believed this resulted in supply-, logistical-, and repair problems for German forces in Russia. Guderian would have preferred the production of larger numbers of Panzer IVs and Panthers, and less energy and engineering effort spent on such projects as the Jagdtiger, the super tank Panzer VIII Maus, and the 800 mm railway gun the Schwerer Gustav. Chief of Staff of the Army" [1] On 21 July 1944 Guderian was appointed Chief of Staff of the Army succeeding Kurt Zeitzler who had departed on 1 July after multiple conflicts with Adolf Hitler. Comparisons: Like Patton, Guderian never really suffered a defeat. Guderian lost at Moscow, however that was not really a defeat for him. It was a defeat for Hitler. While Patton almost always had a numerical advantage, Rommel was almost always outnumbered. Guderian developed the Blitzkrieg tactics, many of which were used not only by the Germans, but by the Soviets, British, and Americans. Guderian had much more combat experience than Patton did. Guderian fought in WWI. He helped protect the German borders from the Bolshevik threat. Guderian fought throughout WWII while America only entered WWII in 1941 and began combate in 1942. Guderian's victories had more worth since he was constantly outnumbered and was almost always at a disadvantage. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Best general of WWII.

While their were plenty of skilled generals involved with World War 2, Patton was among the best of the best. You stated he only came into play in 1942. America came into play in 1942, so that's the same year that any American general came into play. However, just because a general has three less years of experience than another doesn't mean anything about skill. In the course of three years (two and a half if you really think about it), Patton was involved in North Africa, Sicily, Normandy, the Lorraine Campaign, the Battle of the Bulge, and Germany. That's a lot of fighting in that much time. However, Patton was involved with the war before then. After the invasion of Poland, America began mobilizing for war (despite its neutrality). Patton was, along with Adna R. Chaffee, Jr., responsible for the development of the US's armored forces, which would have a huge impact on the outcome of the war. [2] "May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't."-Patton Patton was the most driven general. He showed this through his relentless push through France. He also showed this in Germany when he and the 3rd Army captured 10,000 miles in the matter of 10 days. [1] Patton begged to be a part of the Pacific Theater after the conclusion of the War in Europe. However, he would have only been a part of it if an entry point was secured for him by the Chinese, which didn't end up happening. More information on Patton and his campaigns in the next round. Concerning Guderian, I will also discuss him in later rounds. http://www.biography.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Indians Should be Banned from Colleges and Universities

indian people are stinky; most people complain about indian roommates also they party too much, making studying a distraction and hindering the people who want to get good grades and learn stuff https://answers.yahoo.com... again, what50 and masterful said that reggee was their college roommate; reggee cooked curry every day and stunk up the room. he also walked around naked http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org...
The broken window fallacy always hold true

Now, I would like to take the time to rebut your arguments:1. Total Spending in an economy is equal to total income:I would like to argue other wise, Americans as well as our fellow people in other developed countries spend more than they earn a 2010 study (1. ) by the Bureau of Economic Analysis and a 2012 Commerce Department report (2.1. (. http://articles.businessinsider.com... )2. (. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... show that the figures for total income as well as for total spending may have risen at the same time, but not equally. Both studies show that these two figures are not equal, but indirectly related. The reality is that as income has risen, spending has risen even faster. Thus spending in an economy is not necessarily linked to income.2. A broken window causes spending to increase It is true that if a window is broken that spending will increase, this holds true with anything. For example, if your phone breaks what do you do? You buy a new phone this increases spending, the company that makes that makes your phone to turn a profit thus enabling them to buy more materials to make the phone's leading to an increase in production as well as in employment, thus allowing more people to buy goods and services, thus stimulating the economy. I do admit that there is the problem of the insurers possibly losing money on insuring people's stuff if it breaks . 3. In a recession or depression, resources are underutilizedI wouldn't say that the resources are being underutilized. I would say that they are just used more efficiently over the course of the recession our economy is actually bigger today than it was in 2008 when the recession began. http://forecast-chart.com...I would also like to repeat my previous argument that even in a recession savings/incomes are outweighed by personal spending.4. Prices are "Sticky" so inflation does not necessarily occur. The increase in spending would only cause inflation if the economy is producing near maximum capacityPrices may be sticky in some areas, but in many commodities such as gold or wheat they are driven by supply and demand. According to a Cato Report economic growth/increase in spending has been shown to actually drive inflation down. http://www.cato.org...as long as you have supply slightly outpacing demand. Conclusion:While the Broken Window Fallacy may be a bit off it can be very close to reality under most circumstances.
The broken window fallacy always hold true

The broken window fallacy is the idea that events that cause destruction (ex: breaking windows) can have economically positive effects. Economically positive - This can mean reducing unemployment, increasing gross domestic production, or increasing economic growth. These effects can be short-term or long-term. Rules:1. No semantics2. First round is for acceptence and clearification of terms. 3. No new arguments in the last round.4. Text-only debate.5. All source material must be easily accessable
My Pokemon team is superior to yours.

Just to clarify we're gonna do a OU singles match at round four so Greninja, Aegislash, Mega Gengar and Mega Mawile are banned. But afterwards we're gonna do an Ubers match. Name your Ubers team next round I will too. My Pokemon team: 1. Ninetails 2.Slowbro 3. Victini 4. Thundurous 5. Metagross 6. Treveant 7. Togekiss 8. Garchomp Reason my team is stronger is because we have been in a winning streak for the past 17 days straight and my team is a good counter to your team.
My Pokemon team is superior to yours.

My Pok"mon team is superior to yours. Rules: Con must say his Pokemon team before Pro. (Don't worry I already have a Pokemon team I'm just afraid you'll just make a counter team.) No foul words No changing your Pokemon in your team. Round 1. Acceptance and naming of your Pokemon team Round 2. Arguments Round 3. Pok"mon Showdown battle Round 4. Closing statements.
Rap battle

Was that his first verse? Or was it just his voice through? Because Bill_Henley, a youngster just destroyed you You old man doesn't know the things these boys do And NDECD will kill until his boys thru Drive thru, walk up to KFC with boys who, Improve his powers, eventually his voice grew Point one spoken, now let's skip point two Because Bill_Henley lays on the floor with the gash NDECD's boys drew However we battle online so that came to rescue you But now you are trapped in the detroit zoo Waken up the beast and somehow draw it's joy through But don't let this noobish rapping shjt spoil you Im not doing my best, this is only a test This way I will see if your strength is just jest Whip out knives and literally open your chest Im the eagle you're the rat, waiting to be lunch in my nest.
There is no meaning of life

sorry I had a computer problem. Even though you found meaning in education and decide to continue it, all events from that are random. (I must be fun at partys). What if a man said to never come back to school again and pointed a gun to your face. You would no longer find meaning in education. This is the same with anything. Fear can overpower most emotions. Although i do like the idea of making your own, I still see the world as the randomist place in the universe. You therefore have no idea of whats coming.
There is no meaning of life

Im going to go all happy and sunshine-y for a second Youre right, there is no meaning to life with that attitude. There, got that over with. But it is the truth, life has a meaning. You just have to find it. Now, you could go scientific on the argument and say the meaning to life is reproduction, to spread your genes and find a mate if not multiple. But id rather not go with that because that seems barbaric and mostly a crude assessment. But, i find that it is true that life's meaning is dictated by what you see fit. An example: I was severely depressed before, i found absolutely no joy in anything and found no meaning in life. But, after i got help, after I searched for something to put my life into. I found that life had meaning. I found meaning in education. I found a meaning in what i want my future career might be. I found meaning in my current relationship. To sum up, life and the meaning of it is what you make of it. Life has no set definition on what it's meaning is. It's different for everyone.
There is no meaning of life

great point. I still believe that there is no meaning of life. You can't make your meaning by different decisions. You also said that there are random moments. well isn't the outcome of all situations random. There is no sure way for someone to predict what the outcome of a situation is. You can't tell what someone will say if you ask them anything. To sum my argument up: all happenings in someones life are random so there is no meaning of life.
There is no meaning of life

An idea i was thinking about recently is how diverse and random life really is. Think of life as the frame of a house. This is not even a house but the wooden planks and concrete foundation. And the things you use to build it, the bricks, pipes, wires, drywall, paint, and furniture is all you fill your house with. These could be people, art, music, dreams, inspirations, books, anything. Doing so you give that life meaning. And in the same way you give that nearly useless foundation a purpose, you make it useful and give it purpose