BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Equality of opportunity cannot be the leading principle in deciding upon inheritance in our society

Proposition argues that an inheritance tax is wrong because it infringes on a right to property they think is absolute. Firstly, it is unclear that they hold this view in general if they are not opposed to other kinds of taxes as well. More importantly, it is important to realize that no right is absolute. Property is better viewed as an instrumental right to make society function in a useful way - for example, money is a way to incentivize work effort and provide a mechanism for trade. It is obviously not the case that the government can never infringe on one's property rights - the government does it all the time for social outcomes it thinks is good, from implementing other taxes to fund welfare and unemployment insurance to exercising their right of eminent domain to build a highway.
Caring for children and relatives is a driving force in our societies

It is extremely disingenuous to argue that inheritance tax reduces work effort. People are terrible about future planning, and thinking about inheritance taxes is a far less important factor that immediate factors, like consumption desires, as to be negligible. The second part of prop's argument is an extension of the freedom of property point - that if you want to look after your offspring, this is an end for which you should be allowed to use your wealth. Again, we think it reasonnable that the government be allowed to tax inheritances for social good, just like it taxes everything else.
Efforts to reduce tax

This is an argument about implementation of the tax, and not the tax itself. Prop argues that the tax is bad because people will try and break the rules, however, this can be corrected for by closing loopholes surrounding inheritance taxes. For example, most countries include all gifts made in a certain period before your death as part of your estate and tax them accordingly. It is inconceivable to us that an inheritance tax (at an "arbitrary level" just like every other tax) cannot be regulated in the same way as every other tax.
A Just Tax

We do believe in the principle of redistributive justice on side opposition. What is the point of an inheritance? We think to ensure that our children and more generally our inheritors, have a good life. It ultimately is a guarantee of security. Most inheritance taxes in most countries are targeted at the richest segments of their society. While the occasional farmer with a lot of highly valued land will also be affected, usually it is the richest quartile. Why does this matter? Because the security that proposition is fighting hard to secure is that of the most well off. This is distinct from a general security that all individuals need and have. This is not of necessity but of privilege. This is for a sector of the population that is already "well-off". Furthermore, a tax is not a 100% tax, so money will always still reach those inheritors of their family's aristrocratic history and estate. However, what we achieve on opposition is a greater redistributory effect. By having more money from the richest going towards coffers we can better ensure the quality of state-provided security to all individuals will rise. In a crude sense, it is imposing a little inconvenience on the top quartile of society to make the other 3 much better off.
Argument 1

In this opening argument of our case we are going to establish why engaging into free transactions between individuals especially in the form of inheritance is a fundamental freedom people should enjoy and how inheritance taxation infringes on it. To begin with we want to emphasise that we regard leaving inheritance as not different from any other transaction between individuals happening in the form of giving gifts, such as giving an engagement ring to ones lover.. We don't tax such things not only because it would be practically almost impossible to control all such micro level actions but, more importantly, because, we value the freedom of individuals in deciding who should benefit from ones wealth. There are several reasons why we regard this freedom of fundamental importance. First and foremost, individuals should be able to choose the way of life they deem to be the most appropriate to them and thus bringing the most happiness. Choosing the way of life means deciding on where to live, what activity to undertake, whom to identify with, whom to help and many other things. All these choices are inseparable from the ability to freely use the wealth that belongs to an individual through property rights, because material things are most often the means through which the realisation of people's choices is enabled. Second, people are social beings and pursue happiness not only satisfying their own needs but also by helping others. This is particularly true about care that parent provide to their children or other relatives, with whom they share a special bond not only biologically but also emotionally. Free transactions enables individuals to guarantee prosperous and secure life for those who they care about. If exercising such right is restricted or lessened through taxation, a substantial harm is imposed to an individual, who feels less capable to and thus suffers emotionally Third, what particularly concerns leaving inheritance, is that individuals self-actualize not only through actions made while being alive but also thinking of how the things they have created through out their lives are going to be treated in the future. Their emotional well being is lessened if they feel insecurity, for example, about whether the company they have created is going to be taken care by his children or will rather be sold and closed down because the inheritance taxes are to be paid. Inheritance tax infringes on all those freedoms in two ways. First,by physically reducing the wealth the individuals could and may want to transfer to other. Second, by disincentives people to pursue actions they deem to be right, thus imposing emotianl harms.
Equality of opportunity cannot be the leading principle in deciding upon inheritance in our society

It is usually contended that equality of opportunity is an admirable objective and should be pursued in our society. The proponents of inheritance tax tend to claim that the tax will make the situation among people more just and equitable, because your odds of success in the society will depend less on pure luck (the wealth of your parents) and more on your skill and talent. Why should you be wealthier just because you were lucky enough to be born in a prosperous family? – That is the rhetoric that usually comes from proponents of inheritance tax. Although we hold in esteem equality and we believe that it is valuable per se, we strongly condemn the atrocious attempts to limit opportunities for some people just for the sake of achieving equality. Taking away person’s inherited wealth to achieve equality of opportunity in comparison with others is equivalent to putting out all newborns’ eyes just because there was one who was born blind. We declaim against such acts of social engineering and find them unacceptable in a free and open society. Another popular notion is that the heirs do not deserve the inheritance, because they did not earn it by themselves. But we definitely do not see the government as the worthy one to get a share of deceased’s property. In our society we generally accept the notion that a man is free, he has a free will and the ability to dispose his private property in a way he wishes to. This includes choosing who will get his property after his death. We believe that government is here to protect our fundamental rights. We do not see in what way taking away a share of inheritance is protecting rights. It is nothing less but an arbitrary act of coercion against the will of the deceased.
Caring for children and relatives is a driving force in our societies

One of the fundamental powers driving human behavior is the care for relatives. Throughout life, individual tries to earn a fortune not only because he wants to have a shelter and some food, but also because there is a social circle of other people around him – a social circle that he cares about. Most of the people assert that family is something that is of higher importance than anything else in their life. A person devotes time to his family, helps in various situations; finally, he wants them to inherit his wealth after death. In a way, a child is a continuity of one’s life and a person is happy to leave his property the children or other relatives. We believe that if individual was to care only for himself he would never want to work as much (and by this, create value for society as well). Ability to generate value not only for him but also for his children gives more incentives for an individual to work harder. This is beneficial for the whole society, because more work creates more value overall. However, by imposing an inheritance tax we reduce the incentives for a behavior which is beneficial for society. We discourage people from doing it. When tax is taken, money will end up somewhere else. But it is certain that people will never be as motivated to work for unknown person’s good as much as for their own relative’s good. To sum up, by taking away a share of person’s property after his death, we are indirectly preventing him from creating value for the society, because he will know that what he earns will be spread over many strangers instead of relatives after his death.
The ESSA and Virtual academies are perfect examples of how television, specifically can prove useful to students of all ages

"We can learn a lot from innovators such as the Essa Academy, the learning centre in Great Lever that has started giving advice to Eton College. They provide iPods to motivate and empower pupils."-[[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/8675609/Television-is-not-to-blame-for-childrens-lack-of-education.html]] The Virtual university in Pakistan has it's own T.V channel and broadcasts lectures on college courses from Econ 101 to Bio 502.[[http://www.vulectures.com/]] The virtual academy covers school courses as well [[http://www.pen.com.pk/]] . Many students have graduated from the virtual academy&university taking online exams and watching T.V( or alternatively you-tube videos). Stanford among other prestigious U.S universities also gives out online degrees, course lectures for which are available on you-tube. Where would most of us be without T.V shows like sesame street, Dr. Seuss and Rainbow? Let's not forget that for most of us, our childhood almost entirely revolved around Disney movies, P.G Hollywood films and cartoons. Big bird taught us the alphabet, long before kindergarten. The count taught us to count and there were life lessons on cooperation, kindness and communication in entertaining songs, parables and sing-alongs. The relevance of the television set as an educational tool has been known, used and exploited for a very long time.
rebuttal to first yes point

Most schools do not operate in a virtual environment. And while many good and great colleges and schools have used the t>v or internet to supplement education, their standard 'attend classes' and clear examination papers approach has not been debunked. The T.V and the world wide web have thus in no way replaced the very human, tangible and existing education system. The harmful effects of the cathode ray tube/oscilloscope on vision are ubiquitously known. Add to that the degenerate decadent and detrimental effects of a couch-potato/computer-chair lifestyle and the importance of learning hands on, while sitting in a classroom, play ground or anywhere where a teacher is close enough to observe his/her pupils and help them out becomes all the more important. [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwKoCXq2Pw4]]
Demands too much self discipline

Children are at a stage in life where they cannot be trusted to independently find their way across a curriculum. To sit a child in front of a T.V with no one stopping and making sure s/he understands the lesson is asking for trouble. Children cannot sit still and won't if there's no one there to watch them and ensure that they are paying attention, they aren't lost and they are taking notes. Sesame street is not and never can be a substitute for school. Teenagers and adults face similar issues, the T.V is not interactive. You cannot raise your hand and ask the instructor to clarify a concept. The instructor cannot test your understanding of the subject either. The motivation that comes from being probed and tested is therefore absent. Virtual universities demand a lot of self discipline, self motivation and self reliance, most people will and do have a hard time attempting to get degrees via such programs. [[http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060824113354AAbGC40]] [[http://www.uncommon-knowledge.co.uk/self_help/courses.html]]
Dehumanizes education

When students sit in a classroom, they have other students around and the teacher is also a living breathing organism. Group synergy motivates people to pay attention, communicate ideas and st in the classroom. Sitting alone in front of a T.V watching a lecturer drone on, indefinitely is even worse than sleeping through a lecture where talking is prohibited and asking the lecturer questions, implausible. [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UT4lA85bhHY]]
Spaced out in front of the T.V: Story of a slacker

"The study of 1,300 children by Michigan and Montreal universities found negative effects on older children rose with every hour of toddler TV."- [[http://newworldorderreport.com/News/tabid/266/ID/3447/The-more-TV-a-toddler-watches-the-higher-the-likelihood-they-will-do-badly-at-school-and-have-poor-health-at-the-age-of-10-researchers-warn.aspx]] "The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends that kids under 2 years old not watch any TV and that those older than 2 watch no more than 1 to 2 hours a day of quality programming. The first 2 years of life are considered a critical time for brain development. TV and other electronic media can get in the way of exploring, playing, and interacting with parents and others, which encourages learning and healthy physical and social development. As kids get older, too much screen time can interfere with activities such as being physically active, reading, doing homework, playing with friends, and spending time with family" [[http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/tv.htm]]
Demands too much self discipline

College courses in general demand self discipline. A lot of lecture halls seat more than three hundred people, so that only a few select students will be verbally tested; f tested after/during the lecture. Any questions that students have, are answered either in the professor's office or after class in the same lecture hall. watching a lecture on T.V or n your computer, does not mean you cannot email your queries lecturers or that you cannot cal them up, have a Skype conversation nor visit them. Just as a traditional education is not confined to the classroom; neither is a virtual one.[[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCR/is_2_42/ai_n25454150/]]
Spaced out in front of the T.V: Story of a slacker

Even eating is bad for you if you go overboard. That doesn't mean you should stop eating entirely and starve yourself to death. Kids who don't want television, cannot join the conversation when other kids are talking about sitcoms or cartoons or other T.V shows. Shows on National geographic and other educational channels are very informative and help expand a person's general knowledge. [[http://www.der.org/?gclid=CMuU9e3_t6oCFQUb6wodF0Aa5Q]]
Schools have a duty to care for their students. This responsibility is placed upon schools because ...

Schools have a duty to care for their students. This responsibility is placed upon schools because the students in their charge are minors - children in the eyes of the law - who need more protection than adults. This same legal status also explains why constitutional rights to privacy, etc. cannot be applied absolutely to school students. Schools' duty of care applies both morally and legally – and they may be open to lawsuits if they don't take reasonable measures to prevent other students from bringing drugs or weapons into school, or to recover stolen property. In both these cases, searching lockers is an obvious and reasonable response to a threat to student welfare.
In addition to general searches of lockers, particular individuals are often suspected of activity, ...

In addition to general searches of lockers, particular individuals are often suspected of activity, often quite serious, that mean teachers need to inspect their property. Without the ability to inspect lockers, young criminals will know that they can hide forbidden things there without fear. On the other hand, the possibility of a search means that students will think twice before bringing things in to school. Students may indeed find other hiding places – but this doesn’t mean that they should be given total control over the most obvious hiding place in school. Other safety techniques – such as metal detectors, sniffer dogs, security guards – may be useful too, but they are not mutually exclusive to locker searches. All these things can be used in addition to, not instead of, locker searches – and indeed, a combination of all of them may yield the most secure results.
The magnitude of the problem should be the basis for this debate. In the USA, every school day, at ...

The magnitude of the problem should be the basis for this debate. In the USA, every school day, at least 100,000 students bring guns to school; 160,000 students skip classes because they fear physical harm; 40 students are hurt or killed by firearms; 6,250 teachers are threatened with bodily injury; 260 teachers are physically assaulted. Is searching someone’s locker really a step too far in trying to stop this?
Lockers are school property; students are merely allowed to use them as they do with sports equipmen...

A sense of alienation and isolation in the school environment has been at the forefront of the rise of psychological problems amongst students – resulting in tragedies like Columbine. Denying students the security of a secure anchor in this environment, a known reference point without risk of removal or meddling, means they are more likely to be adrift and insecure.
In addition to general searches of lockers, particular individuals are often suspected of activity, ...

It is obvious that if students are faced with the prospect of locker searches, they will just find another hiding place, or keep things on their person. The thrust of policy should not be about finding things once they are in school – it should be about stopping them getting there in the first place. Metal detectors, for example, are fair – because they check everyone (rather than singling people out) without intruding on them. Students who are singled out for searches are effectively and publicly accused of a crime. Occasionally, something incriminating may be found; almost always it won't be, but any bond of trust between school/teacher and student will be broken, and disaffection is likely to follow.
The magnitude of the problem should be the basis for this debate. In the USA, every school day, at ...

There’s no doubt that there are grave problems in schools. but we should send a message to children that we trust them – making them feel like adults. Always suspecting them of something widens the gulf between the generations that has caused so much harm in society. In any case, how often are lockers directly implicated in the crimes listed opposite? Most weapons are hidden on the person, and lockers are hardly involved in assaults on teachers.
Lockers are school property; students are merely allowed to use them as they do with sports equipmen...

Lockers are school property; students are merely allowed to use them as they do with sports equipment, library books, school computers, etc. Lockers can be taken back without notice, for example if they are vandalised or become smelly with rotting food. Students are or should be told that schools have the right to search their lockers - it is a part of being in a school community where you have to accept its rules and responsibilities.
Hegemony/Overstretch

The bases in Japan prove an exceptional location to monitor and saber rattle against the forces of North Korea and China should such occasion be required (seems childish but saber rattling is a way of defusing potentially violent situations and the primary purpose of nuclear weaponry is just this). While the US should be closing many of it's extraneous bases in Europe, the one in Japan is tactically useful in much the same way that the one in Israel is useful as a striking platform for hitting anywhere in the middle east quickly as well as launching surveillance drones on the region. In the modern war, intelligence is key to victory and the money spent at home would do little to give the US an advantage in the event of a surprise strike.
East Asian stability

The USA uses the same argument to justify keeping troops in Europe. Is Europe really likely to self combust as it has in the past? No. Is East Asia? Given articles like ‘Will Europe’s past be Asia’s future?’[[A. Friedberg, Survival, Volume 42, Issue 3 January 2000 , pages 147 - 160, http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a713869438%5D%5D (Referring to continual cycles of conflict between European powers through much of history) one would think the answer would be yes. But as the USA is one of the major competing powers it is equally possible that the USA being in the region will spark a conflict. This is shown by the increasing tensions between China and the USA as the two dominant powers in the region. China has shown itself to be a responsible rising power.[[Sujian Guo, China's 'Peaceful Rise' in the 21st Century, 2006]] Although it probably doesn't meet western standards it has talked down North Korea and acted as a buffer between the North and South. It is unlikely to create or allow a conflict to be sparked in the region as it threatens its own stability, prosperity and security. Indeed the presence of US troops in Japan as well as the DMZ paints a picture of a China that is indeed surrounded. Such behavior on China's part vis. the USA would not be tolerated, much in the same way the placement of USSR missiles on Cuban soil was unacceptable to JFK's government. Ultimately, the reality on the ground does not resemble 1945, but the presence of US troops on Japanese soil, as well as in Germany and other European countries is a policy better suited to the Cold War, where protection from the USSR was perhaps necessary. It perpetuates reliance on US military power (and thus its perception as an imperial power), while arguably threatening the regional powerhouse of China.