BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Fair Tax

Thanks for accepting, MayorCheeseburger. I'd like to point out that I do not oppose the Flat Tax, I just have a preference for the Fair Tax over any income tax. If the Flat Tax makes it to the Floor before the Fair Tax, I would not oppose it. Advantages Fair and pure Flat taxes have in common: Do not “require a bloated agency to monitor [them]” Reduce the burden of tax preparation on the tax payer Easier compliance Both encourage investment by not directly taxing dividends, interest, etc. Both only tax individuals. The ultimate goal of any corporation, company, business venture, etc., is to provide profit in the form of income to an individual or group of individuals, so only the end collectors of wealth are taxed, reducing burden and cost of tax compliance on investment tools (businesses). Taxes rates are not a secret. Rather than all the costs of taxes on the production of goods being silently passed on to you, you would see ALL of what you're being taxed on your pay stub or sales receipt. Advantages of Fair over Flat tax: Only household size, not income, needs to be reported to the Feds (which is already done during the Census). Your paycheck goes to you first. The government doesn't get the first 10-50% cut. If you make at or under the poverty line, you get all you theoretically paid in taxes back. Your income and what you do for a living is now none of the government's business, increasing privacy. Businesses you work for don't have all the extra paperwork with income tax withholding, freeing up resources. (Raises? New positions opened, better supply budgets. At least more office parties.) Less government resources are needed than even the Flat Tax for compliance investigation, as only businesses reporting sales tax would need investigating, rather than individuals. And there are far fewer businesses than individuals in the U.S. [1] Less opportunity to revert the Flat Tax into a complicated multi-tiered system like we have now. An elimination of the income tax and government income data collection would end the ability of Congress to slip in additional tiers into the tax system. If you're making $25k, you get charged the same amount of tax on your $7 burrito as the guy behind you who makes $250k, but also the same amount in monthly prebate per household size. Taxes on illegal immigrants will be levied if they buy anything here, even if we can't track them, eliminating one incentive for them to sneak in. NO INDIVIDUAL WILL EVER BE AUDITED AGAIN. April 15 will just be another spring day. [1] http://www.census.gov...
Fair Tax

The Flat Tax A Flat tax on income has a comprehensive measure of income without any exception based on the source of income and a single tax rate is applied to all who are taxed. In short, a flat rate tax is a proportional tax on total income. Most so called "Flat Taxes" proposed to date have modifications which often offer deductions for certain behaviors and often have variable tax rates as well. These modified flat rate taxes, although far less complicated than the travesty of a system which exists today, are still complicated enough to require a bloated agency to monitor it. This simplicity would make taxes simple enough that we could slash the Billions, 11.8 billion was the estimated cost in 2008 [1], spent on the IRS and personal cost of doing taxes. While most people (63%) use software, while some are free, most cost around $20, and with only 5% of people doing their own taxes, 32% of people have to pay someone else. [2] Obviously the cost varies tremendously based on the services, but it can be very expensive, especially if a tax attorney or CPA is involved. With a single tax rate with no deductions, getting taxes done would take no more than a few minutes and cost nothing. Flat tax systems are fair because everyone is taxed at same rate and they "eliminate deductions, tax credits, and most exemptions, thereby eliminating biases towards certain behaviors and activities. Eliminating deductions, tax credits, and complex tax brackets also simplifies the tax code, making compliance easier. Things like dividends, interest on savings, or capital gains that result from investment or increases in asset value would not be taxed under a pure flat tax system. This is seen as increasing the fairness and simplicity of the system, as well as encouraging investment." [4] Such a system encourages growth by allowing those who invest in our economy and work hard to keep their money, which they will probably reinvest into our economy one way or the other. The flat tax also only taxes gained income and not investments, another measure which helps encourage investment. [1] http://www.gao.gov... [2] http://www.getrichslowly.org... [3] http://www.cato.org... [4] http://taxes.about.com... [5] http://www.investopedia.com...
Fair Tax

This will be a short debate between myself, a fair tax supporter, and someone who opposes it. I am not opposed to a flat tax over our current tax code, I just prefer the fair tax.First round will be acceptance and details of your tax plan. Debate will commence in the 2nd round.The Fair Tax, as I understand it:The Fair Tax would replace our current complicated and multi-tiered tax system, including all corporate, individual income, and other taxes. There would also be no more loopholes, exemptions, or need for an IRS as we know it. This is a hard concept for some I've talked to since they're so used to what we have. It would not affect individual State tax codes, just Federal taxes.The Fair Tax is a flat SALES TAX, proposed to be about 21%, applied to all new goods sold. Used goods and services, I believe are exempt to avoid double taxation.21% is high, but with no income tax, or withholding, the average person recieves an immediate ~30% raise on every paycheck. So that's 9% more money for the average person already, assuming they spend 100% of thier earnings. Also, there would be virtually no paperwork for the average person. No income tax, no filing, no chance of being audited.Illegal aliens would have no choice but to pay taxes if they buy goods in the US. That would be an added federal revenue stream that is mostly unexploited now.What about the unemployed and poor? Isn't that a lot more taxes for them, % wise, since they pay little or nothing now? The fair tax has that covered. You can't do anything about someone else's spending habits, but there is an income level for a given household size that makes it so exactly 100% of the income is spent on nesscessities, and no luxuries are afforded. The poverty line should be about there. If you can afford luxuries, you shouldn't be considered impoverished. 21% of that income figure would be spent on the national sales tax. Since your paycheck should first go to providing nesseccities for yourself and your family, rather than trips to Martha's Vineyard, you would get 21% of that annual poverty line income figure back on a debit card, spilt up into 12 monthly payments. Everyone gets that prebate, your income is none of the US buisness, and no one can't afford nesseccities because of taxes.IRS would be phased out, and retailers would calculate and collect the Fair Tax just like any other sales tax.The elimination of corporate taxation would mean all the added costs of taxes you don't know about that manufacturers pass on to the customer in the price of the final good wouldn't be there. Corporations wouldn't have the added cost of CPAs or tax compliance, and goods prices would decline, while still increasing profits.Competition from start ups would increase choice, as smaller mom and pop companies can't afford compliance departments, CPA's, and handle the government paper work as easily as a company big enough to throw an entire department at the issue.
Fair Tax

It seems to be the case that illegal aliens aren't high-rollers. No means of getting money from them would ever yield much. The point of taxing illegals would be to put economic pressure on them by making them pay at least some taxes, not extract large amounts for the treasury. Why should crime pay? (Crossing the border ILLEGALLY is a crime. DNC and GOP, I'm looking at you.) No, they don't generally buy big items, and they could find ways around some sales taxes, but they still buy food, gas, and other common goods at the supermarket and other common stores. If they aren't legal, they wouldn't have a way to collect the prebate. “Here"s an analogy, I own a house (America) and you currently pay rent (income tax). One day a little birdy says to me, don"t make them pay rent, instead make them buy all their goods from you and make a profit by jacking up prices (fair tax).” I like your analogy. As I said before, I'm more interested in discovering a better tax plan than pushing a particular one, so I will request that you lay your math out in more detail in the last round for the above point. I want to see the numbers work. “So going broke isn"t a bad thing?”“Your assuming that government spending will be reduced, and considering that currently we only have Neo-Cons and Democrats, we are screwed.” Of course going broke is a bad thing. There are two ways of going broke, and two different parties that can go broke in this scenario we live in. You go broke by spending more than you make. You can either spend too much, or not make enough. The government certainly makes enough. They spend WAY too much. It's like millionaires Michael Jackson or Mike Tyson, who had no good excuse to go broke. Both tax plans, as they stand, take less from the American people than our current system, and in a fairer manner. No tax plan can fix government spending, that's a separate debate, and you're right, we are screwed. The way the government spends now, it would still go broke under the Flat Tax, as well. The two parties that can go broke are the government, and the governed. The government can go broke and governed can reform it. The governed go broke, we go hungry, we get kicked out onto the street or move back with Mom and Dad, then the government goes broke too from a dwindling tax base. Yes, in a government collapse people lose their jobs, but it's not the constant oppression of an over-burdensome Sheriff of Nottingham. I'd much rather see most of the federal government shut down than 35% taken from my paycheck, plus who knows how much in hidden corporate taxes on goods. “What makes you think that the government wouldn't change your fair-tax proposal to favor the poor? Government is known to take a simple idea and make it ten times more complicated.” The price of freedom is constant vigilance. At least one avenue of taxation is shut down with the repeal of the 16th Amendment, and that's a bigger step in the right direction than a Flat Tax alone.
Most likely, God does not exist.

The first thing I like to say, My special congratulations to you, because most of the people who believe in God are doing blind belief - he is a Christian, because his father is a Christian; he is a Hindu, because his father is a Hindu; the majority of the people in the world are blindly following the religion of their fathers. An atheist/agnostic on the other hand, even though he may belong to a religious family, uses his intellect to deny the existence of God; whatever concept or qualities of God he may have learnt in his religion may not seem to be logical to him. Hence I congratulate you as you come one step closer to success. My first question to the you will be: "What is the definition of God?" For a person to say there is no God, he should know what the meaning of God is. If I hold a book and say that "this is a pen", for the opposite person to say, "it is not a pen", he should know what is the definition of a pen, even if he does not know nor is able to recognize or identify the object I am holding in my hand. For him to say this is not a pen, he should at least know what a pen means. Similarly for you to say "there is no God"; you should at least know the concept of God. So Kindly Do explains me the Following: 1.What is the Definition and brief concept of God According to you? 2.Why do you believe God Probably does not exist?
Most likely, God does not exist.

Hello, Gabe1e here. This is a planned debate with a new user named Syed. Him and I are happy to debate this topic together. Here's how our debate will go.Round 1: Pro: RulesCon: Con can accept or bring his arguments out right away.Round 2:Pro: Rebuttal/Arguments or just arguments depending on what Con does in the first roundCon: Rebuttal/ArgumentsRound 3:Pro: Rebuttal/ArgumentsCon: Rebuttal/ArgumentsRound 4:Pro: Rebuttal/ConclusionCon: ConclusionI hope Syed accepts this setup, if there is a problem, just message me and I will change them up.Rules:1. Try to use reliable sources in your debate.2. Spelling and grammar count.3. 4 rounds, 72 hours to argue, 10,000 characters, and the audience votes a 7 point system with 10 days voting period.4. No swearing, be respectful, I don't think that will be a problem with both of us.5. I will not insult Christianity in any way, I expect the same for atheism/agnosticism.\6. Pro and Con must not debate in the comments, but the audience may.Good luck and lets have a good debate!
Impossible isn't impossible

Here is the ignorance of the scientific world you are still talking in science every excuse you've given me has been based on science. This should obviously be handled in philosophical terms. Every thing you have stated is based on the science as we know it here and now and as I stated before and you have stated in the past we are working with a science built from scratch. But I never said our science is wrong but I never it was right and that is because of the infinitely expanding nature of the universe. So in an infinitely expanding universe there are infinite possibilities. And don't forget about the possibility of an infinite number of parallel universes all with there own infinite number of possibilities. And with all of this there can be no impossible or right and wrong because anything is possible. But if you just want to talk about our universe the same still goes until our universe stops expanding possibilities are endless.
Impossible isn't impossible

In the world of science the really big shots of the science community tend to use the word impossible a lot when they think they've figured things out. Like when they say you can't find a way to move through the galaxy faster than light this is fact of so we think. No matter how many numbers you show me saying that you can't get from one star to another in days instead of years, and the reason I say this is because we're building our science from scratch so it cannot be a perfect science. Every thing up to now that we have said is impossible may in fact be possible we just don't have the science to discover that it is possible.
Does light have color

Thanks Con for this wonderful instigation.I will briefly outline my argument, and it should help Con with being "tired of winning this debate by default," but first...Let's agree on some definitions 1st round.visible light - electromagnetic radiation whose wavelength falls within the range to which the human retina responds, i.e., between about 390 nm (violet light) and 740 nm (red).http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...color - one, or any mixture, of the constituents into which light can be separated in a spectrum or rainbow.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...I affirm that light has color, because the visible light spectrum has color.The visible light spectrum is completely comprised of light.This visible light spectrum has colors.Light has colors.Here's an example: http://www.physicsclassroom.com...If the image doesn't work, just click the link and look at the "Visible Light Spectrum" portion that shows the spectrum.According to physics,"light shining through a prism will be separated into its different wavelengths and will thus show the various colors that visible light is comprised of."http://www.physicsclassroom.com...If visible light is comprised of colors, then light has colors.How can light be the source of color, but not have color?The answer?Light actually has color, from violet light to red light.Con?
Does light have color

Thanks for this debate Con. With respects to Con's yellow soaked image of a hand with a grey pill and a blue soaked image of a hand with a grey pill, I encourage everyone to take their computer's/smartphone's/tablet's screen and place it roughly 10 to 15 feet (3 to 4.5 meters) away from your viewing location... The pills from this distance are not victim to the optical illusion, instead they look grey or dark grey. This is the distance from which I saw Con's image, and why I'm not colorblind, though I did not see a red or blue pill; my distance eliminated the saturation effect that distorts colors. Regardless, Con agrees that there is a correct color of the pills irrespective of what we claim to see, and as far as I can tell, all of the colors of Con's image, including the optically-illusory red and blue, are contingent on and derived from light. Con did not show light without colors or colors without light. So, just because our brains can be tricked by interfering wavelengths (the saturated colors from Con's image), doesn't mean that these wavelengths aren't comprised of colors, especially if there's a correct color of the wavelengths. Without any optical illusions, dreams, or other hallucinations, there is no REAL red without wavelengths in the 740 nm range or REAL wavelengths in the 740 nm range without red. Light has colors. Con gets errant: "Does anything actually exist outside of our perceptions? No one can really say for sure. But color definitely does not." My response: How about the rest of the electromagnetic light spectrum that isn't visible? Those waves are by definition outside of our perception, and they actually exist. One could argue that those wavelengths are just colors that we can't see. Con mentions: "What we see is a internal mental image created by our minds based on input from our sense organs." My response: But you agree that this image cannot be created without "input" as you stated, so this mental image is CONTINGENT on input's existence outside of the mind. Con continues: "What exists is light. Light is real...you can measure it, hold it and count it (well " sort-of). But colour is not light. Colour is wholly manufactured by your brain." My response: Wait, what happened to input? If color is wholly manufactured by your brain, then why do we need "input" to generate images of color, as Con clearly stated is the case? Which is it Con? Is color WHOLLY manufactured by the brain, or is it "an internal mental image...based on input" as you stated? If it's wholly created by the brain then it CAN'T be based on input. Dispersion is the separation of white light into its constituent colors, therefore, light has colors, even if scientists regard that as "speaking inappropriately." I affirm that light has colors, because one can separate light into colors (dispersion), and Con never really addressed that.
Does light have color

Most people just give up when faced by the word of Newton himself that the waves themselves are not coloured. It's always better to see proof of something rather than to just take someones word for it. So do this yourself. Save the picture i displayed in my last argument and using ms paint or a similar program, remove everything else besides the two pills. You will discover that although the two pills appear 2 different colors, namely blue and red, they are in fact both grey. I did it myself and you are welcome to view the results in my album. What this means is that light can take on any color, irrespective of its wavelength. This is of course impossible if color is a property of light itself. But if color is a product of the mind, then it makes perfect sense. Optical illusions prove that color is a creation of the mind. The mistake Pro and many others make is believing that what they see is reality. Blue skies, green grass, red fire trucks and beautiful rainbows that hang in the air and move away when you try to get closer. Its a nice place to live but its not reality. What we see is a internal mental image created by our minds based on input from our sense organs. Does anything actually exist outside of our perceptions? No one can really say for sure. But color definitely does not. I'll finish off with a few lines out of a BBC science article. . http://www.bbc.co.uk... The first thing to remember is that colour does not actually exist" at least not in any literal sense. Apples and fire engines are not red, the sky and sea are not blue, and no person is objectively "black" or "white". What exists is light. Light is real. You can measure it, hold it and count it (well " sort-of). But colour is not light. Colour is wholly manufactured by your brain. How do we know this? Because one light can take on any colour" in our mind Thank you for taking the time to read this debate. I hope it has opened a few more eyes to how exactly light and colors work and even if you don't fully agree, at least you do have a different point of view to consider.
Does light have color

So let me get this straight, Newton says the rays are not coloured. But you don't care what scientists say. Newton discovered dispersion and this proves Newton is wrong because dispersion is white light being broken up into different colors. Newton says that if he ever talks about light and rays as coloured or endued with color, he is not talking philosophically or properly. But you don't care what scientists say! Am I the only one who sees the contradiction in this statement? The reason I chose Newton is who better to hear it from than the very man who discovered dispersion? When I visit a fruit stand I ask for green apples. That does not mean to say I believe the apples are green. It is merely simpler than asking for the deciduous fruit which reflects light between 495 and 570nm. For convenience sake we say green apples. Scientists do the same thing when they talk about green light or red light. They are referring to light of a certain wavelength which triggers the sensation in our mind of one particular color. I list world renowned experts in the field who all agree by this sentiment, not as an appeal but to show how unanimously this is accepted. Con is mistaken about the neccesity of wavelength to see color. When we dream, we see blue skies, green grass and red cars. Where do those wavelengths come from? People with synestesia see sounds as colors and even different letters have colors. This has nothing to do with light and its wavelength. It's a sensation that occurs in the mind. Now to the crux of pro's argument. How can dispersion occur if light is not coloured? When light passes through a prism, different wavelengths are bent to different angles. Short wavelengths bend more than long wavelengths and this separated the light into various different wavelengths. Each wavelength creates a different sensation when it triggers a different cone on our iris. This cone then sends an electrical impulse to our brain which interprets the signal into a color. When science says the prism breaks white light into its various colors they are speaking conveniently. What they mean is that light which appears white, passes through a prism, it is split into light that appears red or appears blue, etc. The light itself is not colored and neither are objects. They merely appear to have color in our minds view. Perhaps now pro will understand the difference between red light and light which is red making! Unlike cars, blood, oxygen and light, colors, sounds, heat, cold, happiness, anger, pain and fear exist only in the mind. They do not exist outside of our perceptions.