BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Defending the first argument of proposition side.

You used the Gini coefficient to argue that income disparity causes social unrest and point to Columbia and Zimbabwe as examples of countries with a high Gini coefficient and high social unrest. However, Columbia is awash with drug money and the corruption and violence that accompanies it. And Zimbabwe is not an example of anything – other than what happens when you let a lunatic run the show that is. These countries do not prove your case. What America proves is that a country can have high income disparity and falling rates of violence. The period covered by the BJS details was also a period when income disparity grew hugely in America. If your theory is correct violence should also have increased. The fact it did not shows there is more than simple poverty at play here. Pirates do not rob because they’re poor. They rob because they’re greedy. They don’t hold cargo ships to ransom in order they be able to feed their village. They get the huge fees and go and buy Toyota Landcruisers and AK47s and further terrorise their villages. A more level economic playing-field in Afghanistan will not harm the Taliban’s recruiting strategy as long as American drone planes keep dropping bombs on wedding parties. The Taliban recruits because Afghani’s want their country back and want to avenge their dead. The element of people they get because a villager needs to sell a child to reduce his or her food burden is minimal. Poverty is not the cause of violent crime. Poverty is an excuse used by greedy and violent individuals to play on the sympathies of the judge in order to get a reduced sentence. As a rule Western industrialised nations do not have people starve to death for lack of money. The only place this seems to happen is in countries such as North Korea where income disparity is minimal – apart from the very, very, few at the top. Moreover when you charge that there is no link between low tax on the rich and falling crime rates the same charge might be thrown back at you. What does ‘pirate problem in Somalia’ have to do with high or low taxation? I am pretty sure that the pirates don’t pay any tax at all whether Somalia has a tax regime or not. If you are trying to blame the problem of piracy on the current liberal regime of reasonably low taxes on the rich then you are wrong. Piracy has always existed, and as it is something that is outside the law already taxes have very little impact. Getting ransom money does not change this as they are getting ransom money mostly for cargo and the ships they capture rather than the people, this is paid by companies rather than individuals.
on the rich will leave

Unfortunately you know as well as we do that someone will undercut the rest. While I do not believe that greed is good it is undeniable that it exists. The Monaco example given by us in our initial arguments almost immediately demonstrates it, an island of low taxes in the middle of high tax Europe that thousands of the richest run to. Essentially because a country can make so much extra out of poaching the rich from other countries even if at low tax rates a country will do it making all those who raised taxes worse off. If the top 10 Britons in Monaco have assets of £13.5 billion and get taxed 1% on those assets (I realise that this is different from income but for the sake of using something which I have figures on will stick with it, the end result is the same) then Monaco raises £135million and at the same time deprives (lets hypothetically assume Britain would be taxing 2%) Britain of £270 Million. How do you persuade Monaco that it is not worth their while undercutting. Force might be an option, but this is not very helpful for your social agenda and things get more difficult if it is a powerful country such as the USA that does the undercutting. There would essentially be a race for the bottom among countries that want these rich (either for the taxes they bring or the spending they do) that leads to the effectively 0% tax that can be found today.
Defending the first argument of proposition side.

You said that “Bureau of Justice Statistics violent crime has been falling since 1994 and reached its lowest ever level in 2005 .” But please pay attention to the fall of violent crime is not due to a “low tax on the rich”. There is no link directly to demonstrate that low tax on the rich is the cause of declining violent crime in U.S. Look at the world as a whole instead of only rely on statistics from one country. The pirate problem in Somalia is still a stingy issue to the international community. Their primary purpose of looting and robbing is to get the ransom money.[[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/world/africa/01pirates.html]] Once again, poverty is the answer to the root of the problem. An example in Afghanistan: recently, Taliban recruited and trained a large number of child suicide bombers. Many of those kids were simply ‘brought’ by them from poor thresholds.[[http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/07/07/pakistan.child.bombers/]] You said that" to solve the problem by making the poor richer, by giving them every opportunity to enrich themselves and by levelling the opportunity playing field." This is a good and nice statement. Everybody knows making the poor richer should be the panacea. But giving them opportunities to improvement is a huge and big projects for most governments in the world. According to UN report this year, that 90 million people are living under poverty line[[http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L2892172.htm]]. Governments need money to give the poor opportunities they need. Tax income is the main source of government fund. In the background of financial crisis, taxing the rich is the efficient way to raise money. Examples in Sweden, New Hampshire and California are sweet but all in the developed countries. Even if in those developed countries, poverty is the cause of violent crime. Refereeing to the opposition’s reference^2^, violent crime rate was declining between 1994 and 2005, but a closer analysis would reveal that the Blacks, Hispanic and other underprivileged groups took a large portion of violent crimes. A common point is that they all suffer from financial stricture.[[Statistics could be found in the book Essentials of Sociology by By David B. Brinkerhoff, Lynn K. White, Suzanne T. Ortega, Rose Weitz published in 2004. http://books.google.com/books?id=c6UAAAAACAAJ&dq=essentials+of+sociology%5D%5D
on possibility for evasion or backlash by the rich

Your conclusion just gave us something that we can use. You guys said the Kennedy tax cut from 91% to 70% increased tax revenues when nobody pays 70% tax now so you agree with the policy of 70& taxes making more money but to get anyone to pay 70% tax today would mean a DRAMATIC INCREASE so thank you very much for the evidence. We have not only called for the dramatic increase but have said why it is necessary and how EVERYONE will benefit. Coz we are working on a better off society for ALL, both the rich and the poor. Obviously the opposition did not make what the tax is for clearly, or they would surely be embarrassed or ashamed of trying every effort to get rid of any country that calls for dramatic increase of responsibility. You have quoted a lot from Adam Smith and Abraham Lincoln but we are here in the 21st century where old style fiscal policies have not worked for ALL of society so we call for a dramatic increase in individual responsibility, in the education of what society means. Margaret Thatcher that there was no such thing as society but that came in the greed is good era. Here's the news guys, greed is NOT good and there very much IS such a thing as society and it needs helping and one way is to dramatically increase tax because people don't pay enough NOW. We didn't say they would pay this increase forever. Our opponents are scare mongering and seem to want to defend a Reaganite policy that led to the culture of get rich quick and screw everyone else. In 2009 that is shameful.
on the rich will leave

There is indeed difference of tax rate on the rich and possible rich people would move between different countries to escape paying more taxes. It is inevitable that tax rate would be different from one county from another based on their economic situation. But what we value is that rate of income tax on the rich should be increased in every governments around the world. Though rich people may move from one country to another country with comparable lower tax rate, but they are still paying the “high tax” in the second country, which all still bring chains of benefits to the social welfare. The rich will leave does not necessarily mean that we should not increase the tax rate on them. There is indeed difference of tax rate on the rich and possible rich people would move between different countries to escape paying more taxes. It is inevitable that tax rate would be different from one county from another based on their economic situation. But what we value is that rate of income tax on the rich should be increased in every governments around the world. Though rich people may move from one country to another country with comparable lower tax rate, but they are still paying the “high tax” in the second country, which all still bring chains of benefits to the social welfare. The rich will leave does not necessarily mean that we should not increase the tax rate on them. Capital will only goes to the place where it’ll generate more money. Fundamentally, the rich people would go to any place where there’ll be more profits and less tax burden. We don’t deny that will happen, but just because it happens doesn’t mean it is right. What we can see here is a nature of profit-seeking, and further more an action of avoiding social responsibility among many rich people. They do not care about other groups of people as long as they make most of the money. And as we explained in previous arguments, this phenomenon is severe in China. It is exactly what harms the process and education of real development of citizenship. A problem our policy is addressing today. Karl Marx once said: experience praises the most happy the one who made the most people happy. We believe this is universally right beyond the border of China as we propose to increase tax for rich in all governments. The rich might leave, but there should be no place in the world they can escape, as a most capable group of people, to avoid their share of corporate social responsibility
Science Saves Us from Infectious Catastrophes

If not for the field of medical science, we might still face calamitous diseases like the black plague that ravaged Europe before it continued on a destructive path to Russia. At the time, the Black Plague killed around 450 million people, which historians estimate was between 30 to 60 percent of the population in Europe at the time. Nowadays, science has addressed these issues with isolating the infected and better knowledge of how diseases work, which became possible through medical science and learning about the problem. Antibiotics, knowledge won through scientific discovery, is a stable chemical compound that remains within the human body for a long time. It has helped millions of people to stay healthy. For the time being, antibiotics like penicillin has saved as many as 80,000,000 lives.
Saves Ecologically Sensitive Environments

Most people won't argue how we wouldn't be in a lot of the messes we have today if it weren't for science. For example, when the BP oil spill happened, we wouldn't even be in that mess if it weren't for scientific advances that made those things possible. To extract the oil from deep sea drilling, for example, we needed a great deal of scientific research involved in how to conduct deep sea drilling. When the oil flooded out and polluted the ocean, we used science to unravel the trouble it had already gotten us into. Another way science has decimated the environment relates to manufacturing and the ozone. Whenever someone sprays hair spray, it depletes the ozone layer, which will hurt us over the long term if we're not careful to address these environmental concerns.
Saves Ecologically Sensitive Environments

Beyond any shadow of a doubt, science will continue to advance well into the future. One of its more interesting discoveries has been the possible use of bacteria to help clean up oceanic oil spills like the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Science has engineered a form of hydrocarbon bacteria and microbes that feed off the polluted parts of the ocean, called Alcanivorax borkumensis. These microbes are available even now, but unfortunately, science has not yet reached a point where they are effective. Still, it could be a huge advantage in the future.
Made the World a Smaller Place through Worldwide Communication

Cultures sprung up with unique characteristics in the past, and it made the world a truly unique place to travel around. You could see the colorful Holi Festival of Hindu India and visit the ancient Mayan ruins of Guatemala while eating the special cultural foods of these countries. Today, however, McDonald's has sprung up in each of these countries, and the ease through which we communicate across the globe has made the world feel much smaller. As a result, there's a global influence that has started to make the world less unique and more the same. Many people, for example, see the rising of McDonald's across many cultures and countries as a bad thing for health and the uniqueness of countries. By making the world smaller, it lowers the awe factor.
Made the World a Smaller Place through Worldwide Communication

In the past, most people in the western hemisphere viewed countries of the East as more exotic. With the advances in technology made from science, we can now sit at home in Arkansas and communicate 7,414 miles to a long-time friend in China. All this happens without either party ever leaving their home in a matter of seconds. In that sense, you can make friends all across the globe, and you never even have to leave your home to do it. That's the type of luxury that not even the great kings of the Medieval era had. This global communication also makes it much easier for families to speak with each other when they go abroad. For example, a mother's son may choose to serve in the military, and nowadays, instead of having to write letters home, they can do a video chat over Skype, and it's like they never left.
Easier to Deal with Drought and Famine

Because of the systems we have implemented today, drought and famine have a slightly less devastating impact. Through scientific knowledge, we have learned how to deal with drought and famine. For example, when California experienced a drought in 2014, we simply shipped over $110 million in supplies to that region from areas not experiencing the drought. The scientific ideas that we became aware of as we learned about resource management has helped us to deal with these hard times better. We have a kingly selection of food choices that were unheard of in the past. The royalty of the past could not even dream of some of the convenience we have today. For example, we can live in the cold climate of Alberta, Canada, and have mangos, a fruit that does not grow there, shipped from countries like Nicaragua and Mexico, and because of food preservative knowledge obtained through science, we can taste these foods. In the past, they may have rotted on the voyage to such a far-off destination.
All the World's Knowledge Available at Our Fingertips

There's a funny joke that goes, "People of today have all the knowledge they could ever dream of, yet if they spoke to someone from the past on how their smartphones work, most wouldn't give that description. Instead, they tell them how they use it to look at cat pictures." That joke highlights the reality of today. With a simple search on Google, we have all the knowledge we could ever need in a lifetime. That leaves us with plenty of opportunity to become some of the most educated people in the world if we use it correctly. Learn how Google grew from a successful scientific project at Stanford.
The 'bane' is caused by humans

First of all I am going to assume that boon is in the yes column. Science is fundamentally neutral - whether it is good or bad is dependent upon the people creating it and ultimately using it. The vast majority of science is done for science's sake, for the 'advancement' of humanity and therefore on the whole can be thought of as good. Yes there are bad things that come out of science - take for example nuclear weapons which are something that is pretty obviously on the bane side of this debate but these weapons in and off themselves are not particularly bad (I guess pretty much balance out - boon of employment vs bane of using some resources pointlessly + worry of some nuclear waste) rather it is the use of them that is particularly bad. And of course most other science would not have the same problems on the bane column.
Science Saves Us from Infectious Catastrophes

One of the compelling arguments against the use of antibiotics relates to how diseases slowly grow immune to antibiotics and other treatments, and the immunity of these diseases could one day cause severe problems for humanity with a super disease that they can't treat. In the future, it could mean more problems than what it solves. One of the reasons physicians say you should never take more antibiotics than necessary is that it helps this bacteria to become immune to it.
The argument for ethical foreign policy is at its strongest on the issue of heinous crimes committed...

The opposition can concede the principle but reject the active practice. We might want to go in all arms a flailing, but in practice that might make matters worse. We also have to be mindful of broader concerns, like the situation in the foreign country and what action might do to our image in that country and its neighbours. Taking an active and moralistic stance towards African problems can make the West, especially the UK, look like neo-imperialists. The problem with Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe is a case in point, in which post-colonial resentment runs high.
There is the simple humanitarian imperative in the side of ethical foreign policy intervention: we m...

All the while people may suffer and even may die. But an immediate and active response, before the whole situation has been assessed might lead to more lives being lost in the long run. It is horrible to be so starkly utilitarian, but we must be in the business of solving things for the long term, not just wading in willy-nilly with some principle guiding us.
An ethical foreign policy can and must be pursued by western governments. Like any other aspect of g...

If “ethical foreign policy” means active intervention whenever and immediately that there is a “moral imperative” (whatever that means) then it is a hopelessly naïve notion. Governments are constrained by practical concerns. It might be bad to sell arms for example, but if the government stops UK companies doing it, UK citizens lose jobs but other people carry on selling the arms. We lose out and no-one gains – except other arms exporters.
Governments shouldn’t be held to ransom by out-side lobbyists; they ought to make a stand and if the...

It is impossible in a representative democracy to discount domestic interests like that. To draw an analogy with foreign trade policy – it might be in more peoples’ interests for the UK to abolish its agricultural and all other tariffs completely. But that would more than likely trigger the collapse of most UK agriculture and other industry. The “right thing to do” surely can’t be to precipitate domestic decline, even if it does help more needy people. Moreover, there is the question of governments having to win elections – what government would be elected on such a platform.
People take what can be good to the extreme.

In some cases, cosmetic surgery does help individuals. Things like skin grafts on burn victims, or the correcting of an abnormal feature on the human body. These things help people feel more normal. This is how cosmetic surgery was first used. Then people started to use cosmetic surgery, not to look merely normal, but to look perfect. They wanted their bodies to look like the airbrushed girl/boy in the magazines. However, we have now been taken one step further into the nightmare by people using surgery to look abnormal. People having their features changed in order to look like animals or serpents. This freaky use of cosmetic surgery is not healthy. What was once medical and good is now nothing more than a freaky side show.
It can alleviate mental illnesses

Some people are so consumed with their appearance that they let it affect their mental well being. There are even some mental illnesses which are based solely on the body’s appearance, things like anorexia and body dismorphia. These are illnesses whereby people harm themselves through worry about their appearance. If we have people who have the ability to change what these people do not like about their bodies then why should we not use it to help these people with their mental well being?
To attempt to dress cosmetic surgery in the flag of feminism is absurd.

To attempt to dress cosmetic surgery in the flag of feminism is absurd. If anything, cosmetic surgery is the latest phenomenon in the long history of the objectification of women in society. Women are driven to meet male standards of beauty, exaggerating their shape and seeking to remain youthful lest their partner leave them for (often literally) a younger model. Today many operations are arranged by male partners rather than by the women themselves. Cosmetically-enhanced celebrities are redefining definitions of attractiveness for new generations, leading young girls who would have been considered naturally beautiful in past decades to see themselves as plain and to seek their own surgical remedies.
Wealthy people need to spend their money some how

Currently, we are in a recession. But even in a healthy economy it is never good to have vast amounts of stagnant cash remaining in one family. This money is economically redundant. If people have money, and they wish to spend it they should be implored to do so. The money would be paid to surgeons who have their own surgeries. Those surgeries would pay for receptionists, cleaners, repairmen. These are all jobs created out of money which would otherwise be left sitting in the banks of the rich. Cosmetic surgery is a way of prising money out of the hands of the rich and vain, which is most certainly a good thing.
It shows us for the spoilt race we are

Spoilt is surely not the term to describe the phenomenon you are describing. With the availability of cosmetic surgery these days, at a pretty price, people are realising that they can achieve anything they want if they work hard to achieve it. If anything this raises people’s aspirations. People want to work hard, save their money instead of squandering it and pay for what they really want. This is the working of a Protestant work ethic, the harder you work the more you can achieve. Spoilt is when you attain what you want with no work. But the vast amount of money and the days of recuperation required is a large price to pay for cosmetic surgery and people weigh up their options of whether cosmetic surgery means that much to them.
Cosmetic surgery is addictive.

Cosmetic surgery is addictive: look at Michael Jackson, or Lolo Ferrarri, who got breast implant after breast implant despite the harm it did her body. The compulsion to change one’s body is often a symptom of a deeper mental instability. It should be treated as a problem, not indulged and encouraged with surgery. It’s only a plaster patched over a much deeper problem.