BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Conservative (right wing) values are inherently detrimental to society and human values

Right wing policies (true Republican economic theories) place emphasis on individual merit, rather than entitlements. Our beloved Constitution provides us with the rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Do you suppose the Founders just forgot to add "right to a home and job" in there? When the government provides anything, be it transport or medical aid, they have the ability to refuse to provide it, and when you have entitlements, everyone is dependent on the government, and you have no choice but to obey them or starve, lose your job and home, ect. Another thing you mentioned are Monopolies. These have nothing to do with right-wing policies, they're the unfortunate byproduct of crumbling morals. The "Trickle Down Economics" theory, depending on hoe you look at it, is a fact of economics. Rich business owners invariably spend their money to pay employees and maintain facilities, which both maintains jobs, creates temporary jobs, and provides stability and circulation within the economy. The idea that the rich only spend money for themselves is completely absurd, as most (as I said earlier) are rich due to their businesses. Of course the rich oppose progressive taxes, they basically confiscate money from the successful and hand it out to the less successful. In another era, this was known as Communism. As for your "contributing back to society" argument: Government has no business whatsoever dictating morality. If someone wants to donate money for what they judge to be a good cause, by all means, let them, but when the government takes more money from working citizens to pay others to not work, that's not moral, that's buying votes. One last thing: how does it aid society to give money to those who won't work? Does leeching money from productive businesses to provide for those who won't pull their own weight sound like a good economic policy to you? If handing out money aids society, then doesn't the idea of keeping what you earn aid it even more?
Conservative (right wing) values are inherently detrimental to society and human values

Before I begin, I'd like to clarify a couple terms that you're using (improperly) as snynonyms: "right-wing" and "conservative". "Right-wing" implies the ideals of the GOP, which have recently been left to question, while "conservative" can mean any number of different values. Now that we have that out of the way:You claim that right-wing ideals are "essentially about the protection and promotion of oneself". To demonstrate your point, you claim that any advancements made by the free market and free economy are purely coincidental. However, you provided no evidence or example to suport this claim. I propose that the free market, while not perfect, is the best and most innovative possible structure an economc power can have. When everyone has a voice, and the (somewhat less so nowadays) unrestricted capability for entreneurership, that the general standard of living improves. In a free-market system, if someone has an idea, that is either more convenient or cheaper than that of the status quo, they can turn this idea into a reality, rewarding their cleverness and improving society. So, in a free-market system, improvemet to society is the driving force of the economy itself, not a coincidental byproduct.I've noticed that people don't particularly enjoy having their hard-earned money stolen from them to provide aid for those too lazy to work... When a liberal (and/or progressive) mindset dominates our government, interesting things start happening: the government begins to go above any beyond its authority, passing unfair taxes on items it considers immoral (cigarettes, for example), and takes money from those who have it (and earned it by working) and gives it to those who don't have it, be they actually incapable of earning money or just too lazy to work. That's where the worry comes from having liberal politicians.As for progressive income taxes; why should anyone be punished for success? Most of America's rich are business owners, so what do you think will happen if you tax them to death? Their businesses starve,and employees (the ones who aren't layed off) recieve massive wage slashes. Do you think that this is a good thing?
Conservative (right wing) values are inherently detrimental to society and human values

Right wing ideals are essentially about the protection and promotion of oneself. They argue for a free market free economy and any advancements to society are unintentional. As Adam Smith (British Economist all round smart guy) of an 'invisible hand' that means people do stuff because of selfish reasons and any good side effects are not intentional. This way of thinking surely is not sustainable. When right-wing people are worried about left-wing politicians being in charge, they are worried that they won't be allowed to make as much money, or that their money will be taken away. They're basically worried that they won't be able to be better off than everyone else. This can be seen in many countries where the right wing party vote against corporation tax or inheritance tax, basically any thing that will tax people who are rich.
progressive tax is fairer than a flat tax

Of course the rich will still make money. That's an obvious statement given that the rich are inherently "rich". My point is focused on the AMOUNT of money that they are required to make. A modest flat tax promotes a healthy economy. Take your idea, a 90% tax on the rich. To earn just a measly $100 dollars someone must invest to the point were they earn $1,000. That meant that if someone starts with investing $100, they must increase their principal investment by 1000%. ONE THOUSAND PERCENT. The stock market only rises at an average of 7% a year. Do you understand how difficult it is to make any sort of significant return on any amount of money invested with this type of tax? How then, will the working class have any motivation to drive the economy. The answer is simple. THEY WON'T. Furthermore, you asked to debate whether a progressive tax is fairer than a flat tax. By definition, fair is synonymous with level, or equal. What is more level, equal, and fair than giving the same tax rate to everybody??! The rich make more money, so they are taxed more money. The poor make less money, so they are taxed less money. Everybody pays at the EXACT SAME rate, and contributes their FAIR share.
progressive tax is fairer than a flat tax

First of all, our government is based on a capitalism. People have the opportunity to get an education and work for their money. This type of economy is driven by the fact that people work to gain for themselves. Instituting a luxury tax on the rich, who by the way, drive the economy the most, causes them to lose motivation to earn more money. Hypothetically, if a man who earns $500,000, and who could, with more work, start earning $800,000 a year. However, he is not actually earning the extra $3,000, or even a fair ratio of what it would have been. Multiply this effect, and it is disastrous to our economy. Progressive taxing PENALIZES values like hard work, investment, and entrepreneurship. Daniel J. Mitchell, Ph.D.: "Consider what will happen, though, if the government imposes a modest tax rate of, for example, 10 percent. With a low, flat rate, very few people will have an incentive to avoid taxes, so the economy will do well and the government will collect about one-tenth of the income earned. As tax rates rise, however, taxpayers gradually become discouraged and businesses discover that it is not profitable to employ as many people. These factors combine to reduce earnings--and therefore lead to a reduction in taxable income" In theory, the increase in economic growth would even create more taxable income with a modest flat tax than it would with progressive tax rate which targets and punishes those who generate the most growth in our economy. You mentioned that I should imagine a trillionaire who owns the earth, but you didn't give any warrants to that, or even a single impact. Please don't waste my time with a bunch of useless words.
progressive tax is fairer than a flat tax

the rich should pay a luxory tax, which pays for all the spending that is done on the poor. why is it fair to make everyone pay it when most people are just able to take care of themselves and not taking such large amounts of resources?imagine if the earth was owned by a trillionaire who owned all the earth but a plot of land where everyone else resides. natural law would say they could branch out, plant crops etc on the other land, but the law of man has prevented that. this is not so far fetched..... half the worlds resources are owned by less than a percent of the population.
progressive tax is fairer than a flat tax

You say paying for the poor is the most important part of these taxes. A flat tax would pay for the poor. The government can actually make more money from a flat rate at about 25% or so. Obviously that wouldn't be exact. The government would have data on what percent to use, but it would be around there. There would be no less care for the poor based on this decision. I actually gave strong evidence proving that a flat tax would create more taxable income. Also, why are you bringing up a point that the rich are taking resources. Our energy resource crisis (which I assume you are talking about seeing as you were not very specific) is actually invested in almost completely by the upper and middle classes. A flat tax actually encourages investment as I said before, thus solving this problem in the best way. Even if you were talking about monetary resources, please refer to my first paragraph and previous arguments. The government would have access to acquire MORE taxable income with a flat tax than they would with a progressive tax.
progressive tax is fairer than a flat tax

ninety percent is a little high. a random fairer amount would be twenty five for wage earners, and fifty for those who make more than say doctors as tehy are the highest wage earners. the fairest amount would be whatever it takes to pay for hte ppor. according to your idea of fair, it would be more fair ussing your ideas to give everyone a flat fee.... say a thousand or ten thousand. why should hte rich be expected to pay more as a flat tax just because they make more? but really what's fair is what it takes to pay for the poor, as the rich have excessive wealth. you claim people will be disincentiveized from making money, but they wont.... they will continue doing what it takes to make more money, usually cause it's money building upon itself anyway. you haven't shown that people will stop trying to earn money, when the truth is historicaly people will continue with lots of money. the bottomline though isn't that idea of motivation, it's that we need to help the poor. cause if the rich aren't making as much or taking as many resources, that leaves more for everyone else.
Positive way of thinking and happiness

Actually my writing is not poorly presented. You are just angry, because your writing is, though. And so you are simply trying to undermine mine in a childish attempt to make yourself feel better and maybe take the focus away from your writing. Additionally, i am not dogmatic or opinionated, for the simple reason that i have arguments for what i support and i am not afraid to debate my beliefs. If someone managed to present counterarguments for what i have stated and managed to persuade me about the truth of his opinions, then simply I would have learned something that I did not know. That is the reason i made this debate in the first place. Furthermore, because you have no argument you are trying to switch the subject of my article into something I did not say. I Never said anything about worshipping death, denying life or wanting to commit suicide. This are Your words. I never supported something like that and i never will. My article has nothing to do with death, suicide, giving up in life or nihilism. On the other hand, in my article I try to help people find the way to enjoy their lives and be happy. How could that possibly be connected to death? All in all, because you don't have anything to say, you are making childish attempts to undermine what i said, by saying that I claim things i do NOT support and have Nothing to do with what i said. I am very sorry for you. I wish you to find happiness in your life.
Positive way of thinking and happiness

I'm sorry but I lost interest in your writing because it's poorly presented, it sounded opinionated from what I did read. Over the course of time you show evidence that you live, living is what is - to worship death is stupidity. If you deny life then aren't you someone for whom there is need for a mental health expert? If you 'didn't want' to live, for some it's an easy task; for those who fear the pain of suicide, it is not an easy task for you - your mind is as weak (or as strong) as your will. The majority of people want to live, plants try to grow, most life at least tries to live. It's either fear and you stand up for a death cowardly, or nihilism, where you worship death. To cast such an opinion is supporting the death of our species because you frown upon what another may call nature.
Positive way of thinking and happiness

"Reality is subjective. The way the world is, for us at least, is the way we perceive it. The world around us does not really matter as much, as how we understand and see it" Pro's argument. The world is important to our survival. If we struggled to survive, any human who wants to survive, would be unhappy. If it's too hot or too cold, some people are uncomfortable and this effects their happiness. We live quite passively without a strict burden on our shoulders to keep the world around us healthy. This is because we work for the Government ideology more so than a wiser ideology. However, that is no excuse to think that the world doesn't matter as far as our experiences are concerned. If it wasn't for the previous habitable conditions that sustained our ape-ancestors evolution, happiness for humans wouldn't be possible. How we understand and sense the world, is using the world - humans are Earth-kin. To think that your sense and understanding of the world is free of the world, is sophism. I'd argue knowledge of the world being able to sustain our species for billions of years, would lead to greater positive emotions.
Illegal immigration is endangering and destroying American safety, finances, education, and culture.

How do illegal immigrants have a negative effect on the American economy? Many of the jobs they take are the sort that people don't want, such as cleaning public toilets. Although some jobs they take are the sort students take part-time, there are other jobs students can take. I, for example, take computer repair jobs, which in the past few months has made me more money than the "McDonald's" job you talk about. I'm sure many other students have similar stories. You claim that illegal immigrants "endanger and destroy" American education. But the evidence you provide for that is an anecdotal story of twenty students skipping a class once. How does this destroy American education? The students who remained in class still were educated as they would be on any other day, were they not? If they weren't that is a problem with the teacher, not the students. The students who were out can either figure things out on their own, or be lacking in their OWN education. This does not "endanger and destroy" American education. Even if they are accepted as Americans (which I believe they are, though you seem to disagree), it does not have impact on the average education level of Americans-- almost everyone takes many days off school during their time there. You claim that illegal immigrants "endanger and destroy" American safety. But your evidence for this is that smugglers (of both humans and drugs) fight each other. This only effects the safety of those people who take such jobs. You also say that smugglers sometimes abandon or kill the people they pretend to help. But this is a risk that illegal immigrants are taking. Again, accepting them as Americans does not help your argument, as they remain a small subset of "Americans". As for the claim that immigrants destroy American culture-- what happened to the melting pot? Would you agree that those of European descent should leave the country because the Native Americans were here first? No? The Europeans did almost completely wipe out the native people. But the Europeans don't seems to be declining in America now. You also say there are "acres" of trash on the Arizona border. I find this difficult to believe. Could you point me to a picture? Even if it exists in such large amounts, what proof is there that it was caused by illegal immigrants? And, although unsightly, how does it endanger and destroy American safety, finances, education, and culture?
Illegal immigration is endangering and destroying American safety, finances, education, and culture.

1. The problem with the statistics from FAIR is that FAIR has an agenda of reducing immigration. Therefore, their assumptions will be biased towards that agenda. If this is an "I have big names" battle, then I could cite SPLC calling them a hate group, articles from The American Prospect, etc.. But even if these numbers are taken as fact, would people complain if we spent that money on Mexican schools? Why is it bad that we're spending it on US schools that Mexicans attend? My point in saying that the jobs taken are those that are undesirable was that it encourages Americans to take better jobs. Did you like the type work you did for $2/hr, or that you were paid for it? Today's students can still get jobs, just not the same ones, and many students will take jobs where they enjoy the work. 2. Many American citizens do not pay taxes, either. Why do their children get free education, but not the children of illegal immigrants? You also say that children of illegal immigrants are asking for in-state tuition rates. Aren't they residents of the state? Why shouldn't they qualify? 3. Some illegal immigrants form gangs, but so do many people who are not illegal immigrants. The number of victims of 9/11 was 2,999. In 2003, the number of people killed by car accidents was 42,884. If we assume that illegal immigrants caused 25% of those accidents (and it is very unlikely the number is this high), people here legally caused 32,163 fatalities in 2003-- more than ten times the number killed on 9/11 in ONE year, not a bit over six. Even if illegal immigrants are involved in more crime (which I'll accept for argument), your premise is that they "endanger and destroy American safety, finances, education, and culture". I doubt that crimes are destroying our education and culture. But do illegal immigrants perpetrate disproportionately more violent and financial crime? If so, that helps your argument. Otherwise, it has nothing to do with your argument. And what does Hizbollah disguising themselves as illegal immigrants have to do with actual illegal immigrants committing crime? They could just as easily disguise themselves as students. Are students a threat to American safety? 4. What evidence is there that illegal immigrants care more about their home country than America? 5. What do what the Spanish did have to do with what is happening now? I only brought up what Europeans did as a parallel to what the Mexicans are now doing. 6. So the trash is real. But, again, what evidence is there that it was left by illegal immigrants? It may be close to where many of them come from, but it's IN America. Furthermore, your position is "illegal immigration is endangering and destroying American safety, finances, education, and culture" (I am repeating this because it is the subject of debate). It does have a negative impact on the environment. But that's not what we're debating. We're debating your position. The trash, as you've admitted, has nothing to do with that. You say you do not believe I am 14. How old do you think I am?
Government Intervention in an Economy

This debate will be that some government regulation in an economy is more desirable than having a Pure free market economy with no economic regulation whatsoever. However, the Con of this argument will have to support some government regulation, but only to this extent:Government should Protect Property Rights Minimal tax collection for other 3 points purely Law enforcement Military defense A person can also debate with me on this debate even if they support NO government regulation in an economy, I haven't tried this but why not.Any government intervention that effects a nation's economy is intervention in an economy. So, a government that bans video games would be using intervention in an economy (example). Round 1: Intro and any definitionsRound 2: Main arguments mostlyRound 3: Rebuttals and closingRegulation:A law, rule, or order prescribed by authority to affect conduct.Intervention:To come between, to intervene.Economics:The management and usage of resources in a nation.
Death Penalty

Firstly, your response included no factual date to support your claim that "feeding an housing and heating and cooling those institutions that are already quite crowded is going to cost even more money." According to the L.A. Times, "the California death penalty system costs taxpayers $114 million per year beyond the costs of keeping convicts locked up for life. Taxpayers have paid more than $250 million for each of the state's execution." This quotation is factual proof that the death penalty is far more expensive than keeping someone incarcerated for a life term. Secondly, their is no doubt that they're exists people who are considered extremely dangerous, but who can be kept incarcerated and away from the general population. When imposing the death penalty, we run the risk of executing an innocent person, which is truly an irreversible mistake. A clear example of this statement is the execution of Jessee Tafero. After Mr. Tafero was executed, while his Writ of Habeas Corpus was pending, doubts arose as to his involvement in the murder of two polices officers. Mr. Tafero was convicted by an over zealous Judge who had a strong belief in the death penalty. Ultimately, Mr. Tafero's Co-Defendant was released from prison while Mr. Tafero was wrongly executed by means of the electric chair. According to US Senator Russ Feingold, "Since the reinstatement of the modern death penalty, 87 people have been freed from death row because they were later proven innocent". The fact that these people were on Death Row is troubling, given that they were innocent and could have been wrongfully executed. Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun states "rather than continue to coddle the court's delusion that the desired level of fairness has been achieved...I feel...obligated simply to concede that the death penalty experiment has failed." The government is not just in depriving someone of their life, even if people believe the defendant deserves death. The law forbids anyone from depriving the life of another man, but what example does the government set forth in imposing the death penalty.
Death Penalty

It is even more costly to keep so many prisoners in state and federal funded institutions. Feeding an housing and heating and cooling those institutions that are already quite crowded is going to cost even more money. Also, there are some criminals who are just too dangerous to be kept alive. Serial killers, for instance, will never stop killing. If they get out, as they very rarely but sometimes do, we are all in danger. Your assertion that the death penalty is unjust is rather unsupported. Whether something is unjust or not is an opinion. I think most people would find it quite just to kill someone who has murdered lots of people. Not to mention killing some criminals would be helpful to the victims are their families. Sometimes the only way the victims and their families to feel safe again is in knowing that the person who hurt them so much is dead. Whether the death penalty should be used depends on the case and I do not condone is being used liberally, but for the purpose of keeping people safe and happy, it needs to remain legal.