BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Taxes should be wealth-based, not income-based

The point that I am trying to make with the rich and poor analogy is that the poor do not necessarily use up as much resources or services that the rich does. I understand that my words seemed a little bit harsh as I did not acknowledge the fact that the poor/homeless have their own lives, and may be killed by others (as you have stated in your argument), so I apologise if I have angered you or the ones reading the debate. Well, the thing is that, it may be true that having taxations based of wealth may cause people to go into poverty, or into homelessness. But, this is really extreme as the taxes are really not that high, considering the fact that if one do belong in a rich household, they should be able to pay the taxes due to their immense wealth (unless you tell me they bought 10 houses or something like that, then maybe yes). Furthermore, the rich or the middle-class would have been educated, so I think that they have the common sense and the knowledge to not to spend too much money, and thus would most definitely not lead to bankruptcy. Also, they would know/ acknowledge the fact that their money is not a bottomless hole, and it would run out sooner or later, so they would be concerned/aware of the things that they buy. Furthermore, based on statistics, the average American households has only one house/living space, and the Govt claimed that the taxes are "affordable by the middle-class onwards" so I do feel that it is relatively impossible to be taxed into poverty or homelessness. "They can hold the vast amount of their wealth within an off-shore account, and only keep what is necessary." Well, I personally think that when one set up a bank account, the government will have the access to one"s personal information. So even if one does create an additional account, I believe that the govt will be able to find it and imply the right taxations (I am not really sure about this as I could not find relevant articles, so I am not going to elaborate more. I might spread the wrong idea.).
Taxes should be wealth-based, not income-based

I am an anarchist, and thus believe that taxation is always theft, but I'm going to put that aside for this debate. "Consider a homeless person. Does he need a fire department? He"s living in a box, even if it got burnt up he can still find a new one. Does he need police protection? He has nothing on him worthy to be stolen, and any fights that he gets into are over before the police show up." - This is not true, he does have something of worth; His own life. In other (Eastern European) countries homeless are murdered a lot. "And what about the wealthy? They've got cars that might be stolen and a house that might burn. They have something worthy to lose.They may desire legal protection for his property and goods. Rich people use more services, both in an absolute and a relative sense. They need government more. They should pay more for it, both absolutely and relatively." - You're right about this, the richer the person the moral gov't services they will use. The problem with taxing people at a wealth-level is as follows; They can hold the vast amount of their wealth within an off-shore account, and only keep what is necessary. Moreover, if it is done by wealth, then people could be taxed into poverty or even homelessness.
Taxes should be wealth-based, not income-based

Consider a homeless person. Does he need a fire department? He"s living in a box, even if it got burnt up he can still find a new one. Does he need police protection? He has nothing on him worthy to be stolen, and any fights that he gets into are over before the police show up. What about the public transport system, or education? He would not be able to pay for these basic services, he might not even be able to get a decent meal. And what about the wealthy? They've got cars that might be stolen and a house that might burn. They have something worthy to lose.They may desire legal protection for his property and goods. Rich people use more services, both in an absolute and a relative sense. They need government more. They should pay more for it, both absolutely and relatively.
Abortion

A woman should be forced to give birth if the alternative is a fetus dying. It's better if the woman endures some pain then if a fetus's life is taken away. Many would say that a fetus can't feel pain, but neither can sleeping people, since they are onconchis. Is it justified to kill someone who is sleeping?Abstinence until marrage is an effective way to prevent pregnency. However, if your a sex addict, then you can use a copper IUD or only have sex with females that use Copper IUDs. https://www.plannedparenthood.org... that they are over 99.9% effective. They don't protect against STDs, but this won't be a problem if both partners get treated before the sex.Premarital sex doesn't cause cancer, but it still can cause the spread of STDs.
Abortion

Adoption is a common thing to rebuff abortion, however, abortion is mainly used when they don't want to give birth, so forcing them to give birth wouldn't make sense. Abstinence is not a good way to prevent children, while it works 100% of the time, people will eventually "quit", and have sex. I didn't say it couldn't cause STDs, what I said was that my doctor told me that oral and anal cause cancer, which they don't
Abortion

"sex is beautiful, it is a natural thing people do." It is only beautiful if it is for reproductive purposes with a married couple. Otherwise, it is dangerous for humanity because of the fear of pregnancy and the risk of STDs spreading. If condoms don't work all the time, then don't have sex. If you don't want STDs, or if you have an STD, then don't have sex until you and your partner get treated. Oral sex can cause STDs to spread (https://www.cdc.gov...). The site says that anal sex is even more likely to spread STDs. No abortion is necessary. If a woman does not want a kid, she can set the kid up for adoption.
Abortion

to start this off, I am going to take this a different route than I usually do, I am going to use background evidence, and it is about school(and the hospital) We all know about sex, but you could ask anyone, and they probably learned about it in school, and they said something like this "sex is beautiful, it is a natural thing people do." they also will probably say "always use a condom if you don't want to get someone pregnant." Condoms work 98% of the time, 2% percent may not seem like much, but that is only if it is put on correctly(which, by the way, does not start with oral.), it is actually more likely to be put on poorly, which causes pregnancy to happen more often, and yes, there are other ways of using birth control, but I will save those for next round. I remember when I got my first teenage physical, I also remember this conversation(in front of my mom) Doctor: Have you ever had sex Me(confused): no doctor:did you know that anal and oral cause cancer me(extra confused): really? later conversation repeats(without my mom) me: I already told you all of this I later googled it, and no, they don't cause cancer. My doctor was telling me the safest forms of sex, cause cancer. What teen wouldn't believe them? abortion is needed
Virus is alive

cjet79: We will not be able to engage in a valid debate if we toss our opiions at each other. I will however, endevour to make a point, and allow you to do likewise. Like you, I enjoy debating because it makes me think critically, and forces my opponents to chalenge me to my best. I have no interest in "winning" within the context of the voting by others who may or maynot even understand the issues. So to my point. There is a continuum to the issue of life. Ceertainly a grain of sand is not alive. Viruses range in complexity from random RNA to very complex molecules which include DNA. So far as the cloning methodolgy of reproduction, this is a very valid process. The second identical twin is a clone of its sibling. Doctors discuss using "live", "supressed", or dead/killed viruses' in vaccines. I don't argue that a virus is the ultimate - or even pentultimate - example of life. But to describe them as non-life, is to relegate them to the genre of a grain of silica. If NASA scientists were to retrieve an example of the most basic virus (as found on Earth), from Mars, scientists from around the world would join in a consensus that: "Life has been found on Mars!" As I said in my opening statement, scientists are divided on the issue. You and I will not - can not - resolve ths issue. You are, obviously, very bright and a worthy opponent. I will concede if I must, but would rather just end this as friends. Pls make a final comment.
Virus is alive

There is a criteria for what constitutes "life" in biological terms. 1. Homeostasis...or maintaining a stable internal environment. 2. Reproduction 3. Adaptation...responding to change over time (evolution) 4. Response to stimuli 5. Growth 6. Metabolism 7. Organization...being composed of one or more cells which are the basic unit's of life. A virus meets only two of these criteria outside of a cell (stimuli in some cases to enter the cell and adaptation...kinda). There are no other examples of any creature that only meets the definition of life on a condition. Even other parasites are still living because they all have those 7 basic characteristics. Even inside the cell...it does not "grow" it merely produces a lot of copies of itself. That isnt growth in any stretch of the word. As for homeostasis...a virus is a floating piece of protein and is best destroyed by a harsh environment (meaning no homeostasis). And even inside the cell where it might be considered to have homeostasis...the entire time it has infected the cell it does nothing but work towards destroying the host cell's homeostasis. A virus is more like a renegade peice of machinery. It has only part of the equipment needed to maintain life, and I dont see why Viruses should be classified as a living organism.
Virus is alive

"As humans, we like to classify things because it helps us understand the physical world. Viruses must have a host cell to live and reproduce. Outside of the host cell, viruses are pieces of genetic molecules that can do nothing by themselves. Viruses are right on the border between living and nonliving. Some biologists currently see the virus as a nonliving infectious particle. Other biologists disagree and suggest they are alive because of what happens inside the host cell. Getting a definite answer if viruses are alive or not may never happen." I'm with the bilogists who believe that a virus is alive inside of a host cell. This is not an unreasonable requirement of venu, given that not even organisms can be considered alive outside of their nurtuing environement. I do believe that this issue is excessively esoteric for this forum. The ammusing part of this debate is that even those scientists who deny the quality called life to viruses compare them to living cells that they call life, which backs my staements in the mother debate to this one. I lifted the above quote from the following URL, which I acknowledge for attribution. There are many others. http://www.beyondbooks.com...
Are kids being melodramatic

Alright, I admit, you pegged me a little when i was being overly dramatic in turn. And I dont hate kids, I am one. And Trust me when I say this, I know kids ahve problems. Its part of growing up. And There are a lot of cases when sadness and dramatic speeaches on the internet blogs are plausible. What Im argueing against is when kids do it for no reason, which is what I should have explained further, forgive me, like when their parents took away their ipod and now they hate everyone. This is the melodrama im talking about. And dont worry, I dont think these kids ares tupid in anyway, and im sure they're very nice people, but when they get sad, they just go over the top like they have a part in Les Miserables. Sure, it is said that misery loves company and your theory on how kids like to try to reach out to people in ways they couldn't before is pretty solid, but do they have to whine so much? They could have made it a video about happy stuff, not wanting to go all emo because their best friend hooked up with a guy or girl they liked. Sure, maybe these sad little videos will help them get over it eventually, whih is good for them, but they shouldn't have to feel that way in the first place. Even after they go through the motions a hundred times, some kids still dont learn their lesson and cry about their problems. Note again that this for dumb reasons only. They have very good reasons to do so if Abuse or Bullying is invlolved. But here i my philosophy on sadness. Its good for the soul, in small doses at least. If you go through hardship, and no life is without it, you can be prepared when it comes to find you again. That's the lesson I want to teach my fellow peers. You don't have to spend your childhood, for some, one of the happiest times of your life, in eternal sadness and rage because of boy or girl trouble. Sometimes, you just have to forgive and forget. Take it away oppent, and try to include as many pop culture references as you can. It can really bring some laughter into this depressing subject.
Are kids being melodramatic

Hey, looking forward to see your responses! One could say you were being a little melodramatic yourself by getting annoyed over a situation you had a choice to avoid (Assuming you live in a society where you're allowed to choose your own Youtube viewing :P) Anyhow, the argument we have been presented with is definitely quite tough for myself, as personally I don't partake in such emotional outlet, in fact I'm quite reserved and very able to handle my own emotions with humour and exercise. But this is only because I have been lucky enough to develop a somewhat healthy way of dealing with my emotions. Sadly this cannot be said for everyone , in particular kids. Kids are growingly exposed to more and more problems everyday, perhaps not third world problems but definitely things that can damage a child emotionally and permit them to behave in unusual ways. It's very easy to view someone else as being annoying or even stupid, in comparison to ourself and our own image of ourselves, but we have to remember that each and every person has a story and we can't ever assume that story because what happens behind closed doors still happens whether we see it or not. Kids develop emotional issues from many different things. Majority caused with parental issues, sexual abuse history and bullying. Again some of which aren't really anything in comparison to being an African family clinging to life and trying to struggle for clean water and food, but we shall remain in the area of more developed countries. With social media pretty much covering the majority of the world, kids and adults are finding a way to reach out and receive help in ways they couldn't dream of before, this can be through YouTube videos, forums and social networking posts. Though some of them may seem a little over the top or pointless, it can really help these people to get it off their chest and make their lives more bare-able, as one of the most dangerous things in the world is depression and feeling isolated, with these videos regardless of how stupid or how needless you think they are, they will definitely help relieve some stress of the young person and help them connect with others who can sympathise, support and promote progression. To conclude, It's definitely a blessing to be able to deal with your emotions correctly, to know what's socially acceptable and what isn't and to know that it's never really the end of the world. But some people just don't have the mental capacity or have the ability to set their mind straight to think of these things without guidance. And with this I feel kids aren't being melodramatic, I feel they're being reasonable in a sense, and avoiding true melodramatic conclusions such as suicide over a relationship. And to sound a little less serious in light of the tone you've set. WHYYYY MUSTTT YOUUUUU HATEEEE USSS KIDSSSSSS :CCCC /angst/angst/angst
Are kids being melodramatic

Have you ever watched thes annoying little kids on youtube where they cry their eyes out when their girlfriend or boyfriend broke up with them and now they will never move on? Its pretty friggin annoying, and Im sick and tired of these depressed little emo kids thinking they've got it rough when they don't know the first thing about pain! Forgive my rant, but it makes me mad. So, I invite someone to tell me this is completly plausible. Please, humor me, bring all ya got. Rules: This is supposed to be more entertaining than anything, so be a good sport and have fun. No innapropriate language or bashing, but a snarky remark is always fun. Really, you know the drill. Have fun!
Are kids being melodramatic

Thank you for this lovely debae. You have also kept an open mind and I agree with some of your points. However, there is something I noticed. It seems you and me have already gotten a grip on our emotions and how to handle them in a calm and fluent matter, and that most kids are just blanking out with this stuff. One thing I have noticed is that maybe they are not depressed at all. I find this interesting that they go to youtube of all places when they could scream at someone who actually tries to comfort tem to go away. Then why go to such a public place like Youtube? The answer is this, and almsot every kid wants it at least some point: Attention. One of the definitions os Melodrama is that someone is, like being overly sad, is being overly dramatic. Having thousands of people sympathize with you while your sad might be an ideal way of cheering someone up instintly, or maybe it is a desperate bid for attention. If I had to decide if it was actual sadness or attention with that "Cut's for Beieber" thing, it would have to be an attention scheme. Even so, kids can still be sad, and they can go cry on the internet or write deep poetry or stuff like that. And its true that every person sees something differently in his or her's individual way, all unique, and I agree with you that everyone is different. There are some people who just can't get a grip. But, that's why we are here. Fellows like you and me who already know how to handle it are here to teach others how to do the same. That way, everybody wins, and everybody is happy. So, back to the main point. Are kids being melodramatic? Well yes, but, they may not know it just yet. That's why we have to point it out so they can fix it before it haunts them for the rest of their lives. And yes, some things are out of their control, like say, a lost relative, but remember, Im just talking about the pointless stuff. We are all different when it comes to dealing with stuff, but that doesn't mean we can't offer help. No sir or madam, we can help the melodrama to become...not melodrama. Also, sorry about your bird. Thanks for making this a nice debate. Good luck with the votes.
Developed nations should not hold developing nations to the standards for environmental protection

It is the common assumption that developed nations are wiser than developing nations and need to guide these poorer nations towards future maturation. However,, the definition of what is or is not developed has been traditionally defined by the West. Granted wholesale exploitation of global natural resources without some regulation is unsustainable and impacts all the world's nations, but the nations dictating the parameters of the restrictions are not necessarily only considering the benefit to the planet. Developed nations have a vested interest in keeping developing nations as they are. Developing nations are ready marketplaces,moreover they consume but don't produce competing products. Developing nations not only provide a marketplace for developed nations' goods and services, they are also inexpensive sources for raw materials and man power. It is in the best interest of developing nations to keep the status quo and not encourage developing nations to find means of exploiting their natural resources and building their capacity to join the global economy with goods and services equal to those produced by the developed nations. Developing countries need to be producers and not merely consumers.
Developed nations should not hold developing nations to the standards for environmental protection

Even though natural resources are in abundance in developing nations but they are not for exploitation. developed nations have realised the consequences of the dearth of natural resources hence they came up with stringent environment rules to safeguard the environment. Like the job of elders is to guide the younger generation, similarly its the task of developed nations to guide the developing countried and prevent them from joining the reckless rat race of exploiting the resources for their benefit. Also, exploitation of natural resources not only affects the environment but also the people living in the nearby areas. Like in india the problem of maoists arose because they have been devoid of their homeland as the coal mines have been alloted to private bidders for using for monetary gains.
Developed nations should not hold developing nations to the standards for environmental protection

Developed nations should not hol developing nations to the same standards for environmental protection. Developed nations have set strict rules to safe guard the environment now that they have come to realize that exploitation of natural resources has dire consequences for the environment. Developing nations should not be held to these new rules because they are only now beginning their own industrial revolution, which requires exploitation of natural resources. Two things developing nations have in abundance are natural resources and people. They are beginning to become competitive with developed nations by exploiting both. Mining,logging and oil excavation are just a few examples of areas developing nations have explored in order to join the global economy. Many nations have also invested heavily in factories in order to enter the international manufacturing market. Factories logging ,mining and oil excavation all have a negative impact on the environment. Instead of the creation of punitive laws that restrict developing countries, the developed nations should try to work with developing nations on ways to maximize the exploitation of their resources in environmentally sound ways.
Developed nations should not hold developing nations to the standards for environmental protection

The question is who dictates the terms? As it stands, developed nations, because they have power, ie. money and ,have been able to call all the shots. Even developing nations realize that because of the balance of power on the planet they need protectionist rules regarding the environment. Poor countries have become the repository for the worlds' toxic waste. Developed nations are able to comply with strict laws regarding waste and pollution and save money by shipping their pollutants and excess waste to poor countries instead of developing the means of disposing of them. If developed nations spent resources on creating technology that would solve the problem of pollution and waste products rather than shipping them aboard, they might come up with a way for all countries to have an equal opportunity to develop without poisoning the planet.