BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Negative Income Tax

With thanks to AncientWisdom for his reply, I did, of course, realise that the numbers my opponent gave in his opening argument were merely arbitrary but, nevertheless, the formula remains the same whatever figures are used. The net result of a flat tax is that middle income earners remain largely unaffected while the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Let's say my opponent suggested that if a pack of braying toffs (a group of exuberant aristocrats) were to walk into a three Michelin star restaurant and order plateaux de fruits de mer, Chateau Briand steaks, fois gras salads, white truffle risottos and a jeroboam of vintage Champagne, and that the restaurant owner should give them their meals for free and take the cost of them out of the waitress' wages because it is only right and proper that the rich should be subsidised by the poor, I think (and sincerely hope) that you'd say that was immoral. However, my opponent didn't suggest that, but he did argue in favour of flat taxes, which amounts to the very same thing. You see, the reality on the ground with flat taxes is that the wealthy pay less tax while the poor have the essential public services that they rely upon withdrawn - so the rich are better off and the underprivileged are the ones that suffer as a result. Now, to say that money could be saved by axing the IRS doesn't begin to address the resulting shortfall in tax receipts that would result from the introduction of a flat tax. Indeed, since rich people really, really hate paying taxes and can afford to hire expert accountants to help them avoid paying them, the IRS is the one department that needs to be expanded not downsized: after all, it is the only major department that fills the government's coffers rather than depletes them. To address the distinction between income and property taxes, they exist in Europe as well as America and are often much hated by posh people because they argue that one person living in a large house has to pay the same tax as a whole family living in the same sized house next door. In my opinion, if the posh don't like it, they can always move to a smaller property, but of course they don't see it that way. Finally, the minimum wage was introduced to defend vulnerable workers from greedy, exploitative employers and should be kept. At the end of the day, the US or the UK could abolish the minimum wage but, in the global economy in which we all now operate, American or British factory workers couldn't possibly compete with workers doing the same jobs in China or India. I mean, could you bring up a family on a dollar a day if you live in Europe or America? I don't think so. For these reasons, the flat tax system should remain the ideal preserve of the privileged few and should not be implemented in democratic capitalist countries. Thank you.
The Negative Income Tax

First and foremost: you've obviously missed the point in my second paragraph. Those numbers were merely examples. Aside from the fact that the government CAN, in fact, get rid of some of the things you've mentioned, and that not all of those things would need to be dropped in order to sustain a budget, the fixed government payment and flat tax rate could be adjusted accordingly to help. The other thing you need to consider is the massive bureaucratic costs that would be eliminated by implementing such a system, namely the IRS (it might actually still exist, but would only be a mere shadow of what it once was). You also seemed to have overlooked something: I don't know how it is out there in the UK, but at least in the United States, budgets for schools, police, fire stations, hospitals, garbage disposal, sewers, roads and sidewalks, etc., are usually funded by property taxes (i.e. property tax pays for pretty much anything at a local level). By saying that these things must be dropped from the budget for the system to work out, you're assuming that they're funded by the income tax; they're not. Finally, I've realized that I forgot to mention something in Round 1: the Negative Income Tax would provide a guaranteed income, just like minimum, but would have virtually none of the negative side affects of minimum wage. Minimum wage laws decrease job availability, cause outsourcing, and impose their own sort of inflation on currency, in the sense that employers have to raise the price of goods to compensate for the lost profit. http://www.heritage.org... (this covers the effects of minimum wage laws) http://www.econlib.org... (this provides further clarification on the Negative Income Tax)
The Negative Income Tax

As it happens, I've long been intrigued by the concept of flat taxes – I mean, on the face of it, what's not to like about them? As my opponent explained, the theory is that middle income earners are no worse off and low earners get a substantial annual lump sum. Meanwhile, the rich pay less tax than they had done previously so everyone's a winner, right? Well, unfortunately, things that seem too good to be true usually are, and that is the case with flat tax schemes, which is why they haven't been more widely introduced worldwide. Say you are installed as the leader of nation with 150,000 inhabitants. It's boring, I know, but let's do the maths {please refer to the ‘comments' section for details due to character limits}. So, the net deficit under this flat tax system would be $375 million. That means the government will have to cut expenditure by $375 million order to balance the books, but where will these cuts be made? The vast bulk of government expenditure in most Western countries goes on public services such as social security payments, pensions, health and education, even in the United States, where defence accounts for a much higher proportion of government spending than in other developed nations. . http://www.usgovernmentspending.com... So, unless you decide to leave your country utterly defenceless and abolish the army, navy and air force and also get rid of the police and do away with public infrastructure such as roads, trash collection and street lighting, the cuts are going to have to be made in public services that disproportionately affect the poor, since higher earners usually procure healthcare, pensions and education privately. Therefore, the low earners will have to pay for the education of their kids, all their medical bills and the pension provisions in addition to all their normal living expenses out of as little as $10,000 per annum. Meanwhile the high earners are coining it in. If they were paying 40% tax on $60,000 p. a. leaving them a net income of $36,000 p. a. , under a 25% flat tax system they will have a new net income of $45,000 – an increase of $9,000 per annum. In conclusion, since middle income earners are no better or worse off under a flat tax, what this model demonstrates is tha the government would take $9,000 from each low earner and hands it over to a high earner. It's like Robin Hood robbing from the poor and giving their money to the Sheriff of Nottingham - it's morally wrong and it shouldn't be implemented - vote Con! Thank you.
The Negative Income Tax

The Negative Income Tax is a little known system of taxation that can be used as an alternative to minimum wage laws, and would eliminate the need for welfare, food stamps, and potentially social security as well. In addition, outsourcing would virtually be eliminated as a problem. Here's how it works: the Negative Income Tax involves a yearly, fixed government payment to all working and disabled individuals, and is used in conjunction with a flat tax rate. For example, suppose there's a flat income tax rate of 25%, and the fixed government payment involved equals $10,000 a year. A person who earns $4,000 a year would pay $1,000 in taxes, which would reduce their earnings to $3,000 a year. However, after they're granted their fixed government payment of $10,000, their total earnings would add up to $13,000 a year. A person earning $40,000 a year would break even, because their $10,000 fixed government payment equals the 25% they pay in taxes ($10,000). In other words, they pay no taxes, yet they don't earn any extra money. And finally, a person earning next to nothing (e.g. a disabled person) would earn the full $10,000.
The Negative Income Tax

With many thanks to my opponent for his considered reply, I should like to point out that I did, in fact, acknowledge that a fixed income would be paid to the poor. I also pointed out that there would be no advantage in this if they then had to pay for their own public services such as healthcare and education. Consider the situation of a mother of a child whose father left them when the baby was born with severe physical and mental disabilities. She cannot work because she has to look after her child and so she is, therefore, totally dependent on the state for their housing and living expenses plus her child's special (and expensive) medical and educational needs. Now if the lump sum paid to all the poor was substantial enough to cover these types of costs, that would be fine. But then, wouldn't middle-income earners then complain that they would be better off financially if they gave up their jobs and sat at home doing nothing all day instead? And where would all the money to pay for these generous state handouts come from? Not the rich, that's for sure, they will be paying less, not more tax. My opponent then argued that IRS should go because it was full of loopholes. So close the loopholes. Just because a system is flawed doesn't mean it should be abolished. There are a lot of corrupt police officers who take bribes to overlook criminal activity, which is very corrosive to society as a whole. So what to do? Make more of an effort to investigate and prosecute bent cops or abolish the police force altogether? In other words, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. He then wrote: "Nowhere did I state anything about how property taxes should be distributed..." So do the poor still have to pay property taxes? If so, their cash allowances are going to have to be huge. Finally, he wrote: "Minimum wage has caused the outsourcing of most industrial jobs. The Negative Income Tax would do away with this, and all that would have to be done to prevent insourcing of jobs would be to tighten border security." The outsourcing of industrial jobs always happens as nations become wealthier and there are cheaper workforces abroad. Thirty years ago we used to buy goods that were "Made in Japan" because they were cheaper but then Japanese wages soared and we were buying products that were "Made in Korea" instead. Now it's "Made in China". The only measure than can inhibit this process is higher import duties and state subsidies to industry. Certainly a reform of the tax system will not prevent jobs from going where the labour is cheapest. In conclusion, by all means crackdown on people who take advantage of the social security system but let's not introduce a negative tax system that withraws the safety net that essential public services provide to the most disadvantaged in society, just so that the richest among us can get even richer than they already are. Thank you.
The Negative Income Tax

In your last argument, you're only really acknowledging the fact that the Negative Income Tax is a flat tax rate; you're failing to address the fact that the fixed government payment component covers the poor; anyone earning under a certain amount essentially pays no taxes. Ultimately, the effects of the Negative Income Tax are equivalent to the desired effects of a progressive tax system, except more effective. The example of the exuberant aristocrats you give is sort of an incoherent argument, even as an analogy. The Negative Income Tax does not subsidize the rich at the hands of the poor. Remember, the poor under such a system essentially pay no taxes. You say "since rich people really, really hate paying taxes and can afford to hire expert accountants to help them avoid paying them, the IRS is the one department that needs to be expanded not downsized." First of all, I hope that by saying that the rich "avoid" paying taxes, you're attempting to say that they do everything they can to get massive deductions. A can't imagine really anyone managing to avoid paying ALL their taxes. But the point is this: the IRS is the very thing that allows the rich (or anyone, for that matter), to reduce the taxes they pay. The reason there are so many opportunities to receive deductions is because the system is so complicated that it allows for loopholes. A flat tax rate would ensure that there's no way to get around paying full taxation. The paragraph in which you distinguish between income and property taxes doesn't really help or hurt either of us. The debate is about income taxes. Nowhere did I state anything about how property taxes should be distributed, and I most certainly didn't suggest that the rich deserve lower property taxes. You then proceed to say the following: "Finally, the minimum wage was introduced to defend vulnerable workers from greedy, exploitative employers and should be kept. At the end of the day, the US or the UK could abolish the minimum wage but, in the global economy in which we all now operate, American or British factory workers couldn't possibly compete with workers doing the same jobs in China or India. I mean, could you bring up a family on a dollar a day if you live in Europe or America? I don't think so." The Negative Income Tax would ensure that workers aren't exploited, as I've already explained. As far as China and India, you do realize that the reason they're doing so well is almost entirely BECAUSE of US minimum wage laws, don't you? Minimum wage has caused the outsourcing of most industrial jobs. The Negative Income Tax would do away with this, and all that would have to be done to prevent insourcing of jobs would be to tighten border security. The rest would work itself out, since illegal immigrants would not be eligible for government grants.
Religion - god may not exist

This sounds very much like Deism. The Bible has asserted itself to be a historical document, and archaeology has shown that virtually every ruler and figure in the Bible was an actual person, as well as Jesus. Secondly, there simply isn't any adequate theories that could explain the Resurrection story, as we know that there are 4 points. 1) Jesus died 2) the tomb was empty 3) the disciples said they saw him 4) the disciples were changed and went out and risked their lives there are so far no accurate theories other than the biblical narrative that can account for these 4 points. The literal account of the resurrection is technically the only thing that you need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, as everything else follows suit. P.S. Evolution doesn't account for the origin of life and how complex mechanism like the bacteria flagellum could develop blindly
Formal schools are required in a society

It seems that the foundation of the Con speaker's argument is that the current schooling is not doing well in educating the populous, and that experience would be better. The Con speaker did not say what kind of formal schooling we are debating so I will talk about all kinds. So what do schools do for us? They teach the basic understanding of mathematics that is necessary for life; they teach a logical process of solving everyday problems in science; they teach how to read and write; they teach the history of our people, which I would argue, is the most important thing to learn. The public school system is the foundation that experience builds off of. Education is the great equalizer that all people gain from. The Con's example of cars and bikes is also does not really apply. Education allows us to see connections in reality. We see how an engine in a car moves the tires on a bike, but we can still understand and learn that the person on the bike is that very engine. The Con speaker states that, "A well educated man should be able to survive in any situation he finds himself." But why? No one can do that even with education and/or experience.
Formal schools are required in a society

Schooling is suppose to be the foremost tool of educatiom, yet many today are schooled but uneducated. A well educated man should be able to survive in any situation he finds himself. This best acheived through inteligence and wisdom (book wise and street wise). A well educated man in the modern world however may be able to tell you all the parts of a car, but put him in a town with bikes and he becomes useless, and this is if he is an older citizen. The younger generation, will just be lost either way. Some time ago schools used to produce on book wise, now they even fail to do that
The Green Bay Packers are the Greatest Franchise in NFL History

I will start with rebuttals to my opponent's case. My opponent's only real argument here is that the Packers have the most championships in NFL history. His other arguments are all "the Packers have the second most of ________" or "The Packers are one of the best in terms of _____." Meanwhile, I've proven that the Bears are the best in each of these. My opponent goes on about how the Packers helped transformed the NFL, yet again, as I proved, the Bears were the single most influential franchise in gaining support for professional football using their "barnstorming tour." They also state that the Bears-Packers rivalry is the best in football, but this obviously would hold true for Chicago as well. In fact, Bears have an advantage in the rivalry, as the overall win loss record is 92-88-6 [1] (The article was posted in 2012, since then the Packers have won three match-ups and the Bears have won one, which totals the record mentioned above.) Now, to defend my case. Essentially, all his attacks were him restating his case. That means that his only argument is that the Packers have the most championships in history. If you look at my source [5] provided in my case, which will be referenced yet again, as [2], you will see that the Bears won 7 championships. (An eighth could be argued, but since both an NFL and AFL champion were crowned that year, I chose not to include it. Either way, my opponent's number of nine is inaccurate. Pro doesn't even know my argument well enough to rebut it. What we really need to focus on is not the championships, in which the Packers have the edge, or the Hall of Famers, where the Bears are better. The thing we need to vote on is which team, throughout history, which team is more likely to go out and win a football game on any given Sunday. That would be the Chicago Bears. Additionally, the Bears have won more when they went head-to-head against the Packers. [1] http://bleacherreport.com... [2] http://www.profootballhof.com... Thank you!
The Green Bay Packers are the Greatest Franchise in NFL History

The Packers have the 2nd most wins of all time (710) a combined regular and postseason winning % of .567 both which are very close to the Chicago Bears. Like i have stated before, the Packers also have some of the greatest players of all time including Don Hutson who is arguably the greatest WR and player of all time, Reggie White who is arguably the greatest defensive player of all time, and Forrest Gregg who is arguably the greatest Offensive Lineman of all time, and those are just a few of their all time greats. I would like to point out that the Bears in fact have not won 7 championships but that they have won 9 championships (8 pre super bowl and 1 super bowl). Where as the Packers have won an astonishing 13 championships!! The Packers are also the only NFL team to have ever won 3 straight championships which they have done TWICE!!! While yes the Bears are most likely the most important team in NFL history the Packers would definitely be 2nd and an argument can be made for them as first (but that's for another day). The Packers have also have more playoff appearances than the Bears (30 to 26). The Packers have also always been in Green Bay and have always been known as the Packers where as the Bears have not always been in Chicago (Decatur) and have not always been known as the Bears (Staleys). But when it comes all down to it the big number is 4. The Packers have 4 more championships than the Chicago Bears and that's a very large number especially when considering that the last Bears championships have come in a span of 71 years!!!!!
The Green Bay Packers are the Greatest Franchise in NFL History

My counter-plan, if you will, is to propose that the Chicago Bears are the greatest team in NFL history. The Bears have the most regular season wins of any NFL team (730), the most combined regular season/ postseason wins (747), the highest all-time regular season winning percentage (.575), and the highest all-time regular/postseason combined winning percentage (.573). [1] The Bears have 30 inductees into the Hall of Fame, whereas the Packers have produced 27 (Both of these numbers include coaches, which explains the difference between our numbers). [2] These Hall of Famers include, but are not limited to names including Mike Ditka, Dick Butkus, and Walter Payton, who is arguably the greatest RB in NFL history. At the time of Payton's retirement he held eight NFL records, and was tied for two more. [3] He won the NFL rushing title five consecutive years, and was named NFL MVP twice. He had 13 seasons in which he rushed for 1,000 or more yards. [4] Mike Ditka was also one of the greatest TEs of all time, and an iconic coach during the Bear's incredible 1985 Super Bowl winning season. Speaking of winning titles, the Bears have won seven, six in the pre-Super Bowl era, and the one Super Bowl in 1985. [5] Although the Packers outdo the Bears in this one category, both teams have a strong showing here. On top of all this, the Bears were essentially the founders of professional football. My opponent downplays the Bears' role in this, and makes the Packers sound more important than they were. Harold "Red" Grange was a college phenom, but in the 1910s and early 1920s, college players usually didn't go pro. Red turned that around, joining the Bears only ten days after his last college and instantly attracting about 36,000 fans to his debut game. Ten days later, this number nearly doubled, when 70,000 fans came to his second pro game against the New York Giants. Sensing that they could make something out of this, Bears management and Grange's manager scheduled a "barnstorming tour" where they traveled around the country, playing a mix of local professional, semi-pro, and college teams (which remember were often even better than pro teams). They dominated the competition and won thousands of fans for pro football in the process. [6] [1] http://www.profootballhof.com... [2] http://www.profootballhof.com... [3] http://www.profootballhof.com... [4] http://www.profootballhof.com... [5] http://www.profootballhof.com... [6] http://www.profootballhof.com... Back to you, Pro!
The Green Bay Packers are the Greatest Franchise in NFL History

The Green Bay Packers are the Greatest Franchise in NFL history due to some very simple reasons. They have the most championships in NFL history (13). The 2nd most NFL hall of famers (22). They have never had a very long drought of being a very bad teams. They have some of the greatest players in NFL history such as Don Hutson, Reggie White, and Brett Farve. They are possibly the most important team in NFL history due to the fact that they and the Bears helped transformed the NFL and the Packers helped make the NFL the most popular sport in America in the 1960s. The Packers have 2 of the greatest coaches of all time in Curly Lambeau and Vince Lombardi. The Super Bowl trophy is named after one of their coaches. They have one of the highest winning % in NFL history. They have one of the best rivalries in the NFL (Bears). And they have done all of this while being owned by the fans in the smallest city by a pro sports team.