BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Euthanasia should be legalised

Pro is correct that he did state in Round 1 that the second round was to be used for opening arguments only. I simply forgot about the format. I apologize for this mistake. However, I consider it utterly unreasonable for Pro to call for an automatic forfeit for placing arguments in the wrong round. Because I am obviously not going to use this round to post even more rebuttals, my mistake was entirely to Pro's advantage. He got to read my rebuttals before making his own, and I had to fit two rounds worth of content into one.Unfortunately, Pro did not actually post his rebuttals in Round 3 either, so we cannot move on smoothly. In order to facilitate this debate, I will offer to skip Round 4, and squeeze the rest of the debate into Round 5. This will give Pro two rounds in a row and an extra round in total. I consider this compensation more than fair, since the only disadvantage Pro suffered (skipping Round 3) was his own doing. Any further discussion about this should go on in the comments section, not in the debate itself.If Pro continues to insist on calling for a forfeit, then I leave it to voters to decide whether that is reasonable. There is no precedent that I know for any minor deviation from the rules to constitute a forfeit, especially when there is no warning to this effect. At worst, it should constitute a loss of the conduct point. But since my mistake was beneficial to Pro and I have made ever attempt at restitution, I think that this hardly outweighs the deficiencies in Pro's conduct throughout the debate. Indeed, I can not help but see this as a further attempt to win without any real effort.
To be played.

Oh I see. So not ALL the money is taken. Still, I believe any tax on this would be unreasonable. "If you willed all of your wealth to your son, and say your wealth was the bare minimum to be taxed, $2 million, then your son would have $1.1 million left." Even if my son were to receive a large sum of money, the government had nothing to do with that taxed 45%. Why should they decide to take my [possibly] hard-earned cash?. "That is the idea of taxes as well. Give the government some money, so that we don't all die." I [obviously] am for some sort of taxation, but some seem more reasonable than others. If I was already paying the income tax for my salary, why should I pay even more to pass it on. What is that, a tax for dieing? ("You fail at living, so we get your cash!") Why tax one object for two different reasons? "Yes, you can will it to anybody, but is it fair that person will get an exorbitant amount of money without working?" An interesting question, but you need to analyze what they will do with that money. Let's say my son gets all $2 million. What do you think he'll spend it on? Expensive land? Beneficial insurance? These must be taxed. With an expensive house comes expensive utility bills. His money will be gone no later than when most other people's will. "If you think you can budget better than the current government, I would recommend you run for Congress." Oh yeah? Watch me! You'll see! YOU'LL ALL SEE! *laughs hysterically and runs away* Just kidding. I meant that maybe my son needs some more money for his situation, but he might not get enough because the government gets some of it. "To finish, I'd like to quote former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who justifies the existence of the estate tax because it is "a certain corrective against the development of a race of idle rich"." What's wrong with being rich? Last time I checked, America has a capitalist economy, not a communist one. Keeping one equal class system is not our goal here.
To be played.

I'll pick resolution one and be Con. I believe that the Estate Tax is currently inappropriate for the U.S. I'll use the definition of Estate Tax as shown here on debate.org; "Upon dying, a person's wealth should be taken by the government". Contention 1: Government seizure of leftover wealth would interfere with that person's wishes on their will. What if I were to will all my wealth to my [hypothetical] son, only to have it taken by the government? What financial problems may be caused for my son? Contention 2: The government should keep its hands off my money. What right does the government have to just take my money once I die? It is still mine, regardless if I am alive or dead, and I should be able to will it to whomever I choose. Contention 3: The government would have different monetary intentions than me. What if I was saving money to support my son? What would he do if the government took that money? What would the government use it for? Surely not what I intended. That's all for now, folks.
To be played.

READ HERE GAHBAGE! I'm changing it up to give us more rounds. I'm gonna give you 3 topics for your round 2, and then you're going to pick which one, pick your side, and post your opening argument. For My round 2, I post my opening. Your Round 3, you post your rebuttal. My Round 3, I post my rebuttal, and also I choose a different topic that I posted below, along with my side, and opening argument. Your Round 4, You respond with your opening argument. My Round 5, I rebutt your opening argument. Your Round 5, You Rebutt my rebuttal. My Round 5, I twiddle my thumbs, as it would be unfair to go again. 1. The Estate Tax, in its current form in the US, is appropriate. (For this, you can only be con, and I can only be pro) 2. Brothels (Whorehouses) should be legalized in the US. 3. That eliminating United States government budget deficits should be prioritized over increasing domestic spending. (November NFL P.F. Topic) speaking of which, ray, you should join the debate team.
To be played.

As you can see, this debate is 5 rounds. In the contender's round 1, he/she will propose 3 different topics of debate that COVER VARIOUS FIELDS. (I don't want 3 debates about abortion but worded differently, for example. Then in my round 2, I will choose one of the debates to well...debate on. In the contender's round 2, he/she will choose a stance on the choice (PRO or CON) and choose whether to go first or second. If he/she goes first, to keep the number of arguments per person equal, he/she must include the opening argument in the response, and cannot post an argument in the final round. (Either forfeit or spam, or something.) However, if I am forced to go first, the debate will proceed as normal. So if all goes as planned, we will each get a normal 3 rounds to debate.
To be played.

I'm gonna be fast this time, because I'm starting to feel that we are beating a dead horse. Taxes are only seemingly unnecessary when one don't benefit. C'est la vie. Not everything that our government does is custom tailored just for you. The US gains tens of billions of dollars each year through the current estate tax design. That's a decent bit, and without it, the government would be deeper in debt. (The argument of reducing spending is non resolutional, so it can't be used.) 45% is less than everything, actually its less than half. "You brought up the fact that he gets extra money without paying for it, and I said that it doesn't matter because whatever he uses it on will be taxed anyway." It does matter, because it won't be taxed anyway. It means that I noticed your use of comparing something to communism to make it seem like it is more wrong. Financial institutions and good management could lead to one's wealth going on forever, with no necessary maintenance. That's what the estate tax is for. Thanks for debating me, hopefully we'll find something more invigorating for next time.
To be played.

"The Government supported you through your life, and its now time to return some wealth back to the government, if its over a certain amount." I've been paying the government back already through income tax. Why pay an extra something when I die? I understand taxes are necessary, but this "luxury tax" is just a unnecessary tax on my total profits. "Think stocks, bonds, think properties. One tax is on income from work, the other is on the value of your estate post mortem." Is that necessary, though? How much money is actually made from the estate tax? And almost (if not completely) everything on my estate is taxed anyway. "He can spend it on whatever he wants to spend it on, after all you willed it to him. What you're saying has no logical value, using an assumption of how he may be taxed in the future as a reason why his wealth should stay untouched for now." You brought up the fact that he gets extra money without paying for it, and I said that it doesn't matter because whatever he uses it on will be taxed anyway. "You Lose." Not yet XD "Argumentum ad Communism. I'm not saying that there can't be rich people, but there shouldn't just be as$ lazy rich people, as would be allowed if some of their accrued wealth was not taxed." Whatum does that meanum? And I agree, lazy @$$ rich people are not good. However, due to taxes already in place, their money will diminish soon enough, and they will have to work for more.
We regret the emphasis on college education

Fundamentally, this debate is about emphasis, and not whether or not college is good. Both Con and I agree that college can be a great learning experience with good possible returns for companies and society. However, my argument from the start of this debate has been that there are alternatives that serve as good if not better purposes, and that emphasis alone won't lead to more successful college graduates. Pro says he doesn't necessarily support college as a prerequisite. This is really an example of emphasis taken to an extreme, one I have already explained is harmful to society and students. Pro says that civic awareness is gained through education. I agree. Any education can provide civic awareness. Therefore, this is not unique to college. Pro says that college can provide on-the-job experiences. I agree, though I would say this is uncommon. Both vocational schools and apprenticeships are guaranteed to include this, and therefore far more efficient. Pro says that a deeper, more specific education makes technology better. He also says they need a wider education. He can't have it both ways. You either get broader or you get deeper. As I granted depth, I'd say that's likeliest, and it leaves many students with very specific knowledge and little innovative capacity. So voters should be asking themselves some basic questions: 1) Does the emphasis on college education lead to more college students capable of doing well in that academic setting? 2) Is it better for students to feel that their future is determined solely by whether they go to college, or by whether they receive more extensive educations? 3) Does the emphasis displace other important forms of education that more directly lead to economic benefits for students, companies and society? 4) Does going to college strongly link to the beneficial outcomes Con has stated? I think I've made it clear what the answers to these questions are. I leave it to the voters to evaluate the debate.
We regret the emphasis on college education

OK I think I've lost. This is my last gasp. Rebuttal) 1. Pro is saying that college shouldn't be a prerequisite. But actually, my point is that the status quo is that college has become a prerequisite. I'm not saying that it should. Because it has become a prerequisite, the students should flexibly focus more on college education, like it or not. 2. About civic awareness- I think I need to explain what I meant by that. When people are educated, they come to reevaluate the injustices and etc. that are revolving around them. When citizens are better educated, they are less gullible, and less injustice would occur. 3. About higher efficiency- Actually, college does sometimes provide these on-the-job experiences when it is thought to be needed. A common example(at least in South Korea-I don't know about other places) is student teachers and trainee teachers. 4. About better technology- I believe that the more deeper and specific education the students get in college(you granted that) will be more help in making better technology and the wider view they get with wider education will make more creative and innovative ideas. And that's about it. My thanks to whiteflame.
We regret the emphasis on college education

Thanks to my opponent for continuing this debate so effectively. Con is essentially non-responsive to my points. He states that there are other roads one could take, and then disregards the analysis I've provided in support of them. I don't see any response to vocational schools and apprenticeships specifically, so extend my analyses there. Also extend my points regarding why college is not for everyone. Con then proceeds to outline the very reasons for my concern. The situation is South Korea is, in my opinion, net harmful. College shouldn't be a "prerequisite for entering into society," partly because it completely excludes those who cannot succeed in a college setting. One type of education should not be preferred over another, and Con has provided only limited reasons why college is specifically important, and none for why it is more beneficial than anything I've offered up. Con then proceeds to explain the benefits of such a system. He says that there would be more economic benefits. His warrants are here lacking. I don't see any actual link made between higher education and increased benefits to individuals or society, mainly just assertions that the link exists. Let's go through those assertions. 1) Higher education = deeper education Not necessarily true, but I'll grant this. 2) More civic awareness No reason for this given - Con assumes what is taught to everyone in college. 3) Higher efficiency Again, not supported. I'd argue the reverse - the lack of on-the-job experience makes them very inefficient. 4) Increased profit for company No reason to believe that someone coming from the insular academic environment will lead to increased profits. 5) Better inventions and technology Perhaps, but neither of these things require a college background to accomplish. 6) Better firms Not likely, given that college graduates aren't normally that capable of starting their own businesses since they don't have experience in this regard. Back to Con.
We regret the emphasis on college education

Thanks for your participation. Rebuttal: Of course there are many other roads than college. I acknowledge that. However, my stance is that we don't really regret the emphasis on college education, not that everyone should go to college. Believe it or not, in our country(I'm a South Korean), colleges have become prerequisites for entering into society, and companies and businesses put much importance on what college that person has come from. In the society that we face today, it is inevitable that we put emphasis on college education, and I don't regret it. People from vocational schools are also a bit discriminated, so it would be more efficient for the students to enter into college education. Moving on to my second argument, our second argument is about economic benefits. If students go to college, there will be much more economic benefits. First, the overall level of education will get higher, as people will get deeper levels of education. This will cause the general mature civic awareness, and people will get much more efficient in whatever they are working on. This will bring more profit. Also, with more specific information, better technology and things such as better inventions will be enabled to be made. Also, there are high possibilities that better firms will be born too. All these will help to make profits in global market and etc. So there will be benefits to the country because people work much more efficiently, better technology and products are made, and better firms are born. The cause of all this can be traced back to college education.
We regret the emphasis on college education

Much of the current dogma in U. S. society in particular is that everyone should go to college. I think that we are all lifelong students, but I don't believe that college is the one path forward that should always be touted. Why not? Well, first, not everyone is benefited by broadening their horizons. There's no reason to believe that every individual is going to want to be a scientist, a teacher, or a lawyer. Second, not everyone is cut out for college, intellectually or emotionally. Anxiety among students is a huge problem. Not all these students are going to have the grades out of high school to get necessary scholarships for them to go through their college programs without heaps of debt. What are the alternatives? For one, there's vocational schools. These are essentially trade schools, meant to teach students job-specific skills. This will often be highly beneficial, as they're usually shorter in duration, produce skilled labor with hands-on experience, and are normally supported by private companies, providing a route into a job shortly after graduation. There are also apprenticeship programs, which involve working directly for an employer and studying the masters at work. This is an even more directly applicable way to learn and transition. Much as college provides a great education, it is often distant from real world problems and concerns about getting a job, which are often left solely to the students. Businesses are wary of college graduates, even those with great GPAs, because there is always a gulf between their knowledge and the knowledge and experience the company requires. Both vocational schools and apprenticeships don't suffer from that. I'll get into some rebuttal in the next round. . http://www.politico.com... . http://www.dailyfinance.com...
We regret the emphasis on college education

The crucial aim of the students is to get a good job and a good life, and college is where they get professional knowledge, develop dreams, and complete education. College is also a good motive for students to study, and it helps students focus on studying. If students go to college, their individual potential will be raised higher and the educational quality will get higher. Also, with skills and knowledge learned in college, students will be enabled to get better jobs and better lives. Emphasis on college education will help economy and it will help citizens have higher competence. Moving on to my first argument, our first argument is about individual potential. There are many levels of schools. In elementary schools, students learn the basics. In middle schools, education is lengthened. In high schools, the education is advanced more. In college, education is completed. College is a good way in pulling up one"s potential in many ways. Students who didn"t study and who were lax in studying try to concentrate because they want to have a good life and college is a good tool in getting a good life. Also, while in college, students who didn"t have interest in studying may start to get interest because they might find something specialized that they really like and develop a dream, or they could try to expand their education and get further knowledge. In college, educational quality is also higher. In college, there are specialized majors and much deeper education is possible. For an example, art learned in high school would comparatively be much shallower than art learned in college. So in college, students can have their individual potentials pulled up, and the educational quality is higher too.
Your not born gay

Since it is only a one round debate, I'll just give it all I got. I have done some researching and studying regardings this topic and here I will post my findings and prove that you are indeed born gay. Scientific researchers specializing in human sexuality have shown that homosexuality is genetic (and that people are born gay). I am unaware of any study that has ever suggested that sexual orientation is a choice. Scientific research from October 2004 that was replicated in June 2008 stated that scientists have found that women tend to have more children when they inherit the same genetic factors linked to homosexuality in men. This fertility boost more than compensates for the lack of offspring fathered by gay men, and keeps the “gay” genetic factors in circulation. A lead researcher said "You have all this antagonism against homosexuality because they say it's against nature because it doesn't lead to reproduction. We found out this is not true because homosexuality is just one of the consequences of strategies for making females more fecund" and that their findings offered "a solution to the Darwinian paradox and an explanation of why natural selection does not progressively eliminate homosexuals. " A 2005 study reported genetic scans showing a clustering of the same genetic pattern among gay men on three chromosomes - chromosomes 7, 8, and 10. The regions on chromosome 7 and 8 were associated with male sexual orientation regardless of whether the man got them from his mother or father. The regions on chromosome 10 were only associated with male sexual orientation if they were inherited from the mother. A study published in Human Genetics in February 2006 examined X chromosome inactivation in mothers of gay sons and mothers whose sons were not gay. Researchers found extreme differences between women who had gay sons and women who did not. A study from 2006 said that researchers have known for years that a man's likelihood of being gay rises with the number of older biological brothers, but the new study found that the so-called "fraternal birth order effect" persists even if gay men were raised away from their biological families & that "the research suggests that the development of sexual orientation is influenced before birth. "Seeing the overwhelming evidence, I hope that the audience agrees with me! Thank you.