BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
while homestead exemptions should exist, property taxes should be our primary focus on tax revenue

So you're saying we should get rid of the income taxes and focus all our taxes on just the property tax? Why should we focus on property tax? Should we raise the property tax? Your argument doesn't quite make any sense because you haven't given any explanation on why we should be doing this. If you're articulating that we should raise property taxes then I disagree because the property tax is already progressive. Sure, the Bush tax cuts are applicable because when he cut taxes it was the highest revenue we've ever had through the fiscal year. The bush tax cuts had no part in the housing bubble. To my point about the 17 trillion dollar debt. I had stated that we should be focusing more on federal internal revenue rather the states and the local governments because thats where they need it the most.
while homestead exemptions should exist, property taxes should be our primary focus on tax revenue

yes i acknowledge all that state and local notes, and the levy point. some jurisdictions have exemptions, not all. but they should. it shouldn't be a percent for the lowest, it should be nothing. we can respect tradition, and have federal government get money by income taxes. but the states usually have state tax, and there's usually local taxes on income. these should be focused towards property instead. you may have a point, perhaps or perhaps not, that taxes should be lower or stay the same. but the real focus on this debate is the source of the revenue, not how much it is. an while it's not really applicable fo those reasons, you point about keeping taxes lower, the 2007 point isn't applicable anyways. that was the height of the housing bubble. so of course there would be high revenues. we can't base revenue ideas off what happend when there were bubbles, cause they are articial situations, and they don't predict what normally will be the case. your points about farmers are special exceptions, and we can recognize that in our laws. they already have special rules for farmers in income tax, if we focused on property taxes, we can have special rules for them there too. i'm not sure why you bring up being protected from creditors with one's home, given this doesn't have to do with the source of our revenue. even if it was a valid point, we have property exemptions to protect people from creditors to begin with anyways. they are also known in credit law as homestead exemptions. most states are pretty generous with them, and they cover pretty high valued homes. what the govenment has done with our seventeen trillion dollar debt doesn't really have to do much with this debate. we have to get revenue one way o the other, particularly the local governments, and htey should be forcusing on property taxes.
while homestead exemptions should exist, property taxes should be our primary focus on tax revenue

First, Id like to add that property taxes are typically set at a flat rate per 1000$ of officially assessed value. So technically property taxes are already calculated through mill levy and assessed property value. Property taxes are only accumulated through state and local governments, the federal government does not acquire a certain percentage of property tax. A sales tax is also imposed for local and state revenue, which in some states accounts for the most revenue out of all the other taxes. My argument will consist of that property tax shouldn"t be at the focus of our internal source of revenue while homestead deductions should still exist due to the conditions of certain individuals. I believe that lowering taxes will produce greater revenue in the long term. To begin with, homestead exemptions will take a financial load off of many farmers who make a living off of the property that they own. It wouldn"t be fair to them if they have hundreds of acres. Farms can have good seasons and bad seasons. Homestead exemptions can also be referred to Homestead protection where an individual is protected financially if their spouse were to die. If people were bombarded with bills and other things they can"t afford. Their home would be protected from creditors and in-turn would protect the primary residence from forced sell(to pay off crediors) . Homestead should be able to provide tax deductions for those who qualify. Why I believe property tax shouldn"t be our main focus for internal revenue due to the fact that property tax revenue can only go to the states and local government. Sure, there are a lot of local governments struggling financially, but our federal government has dug themselves into a 17 trillion dollar debt. We need to focus on the federal internal revenue. States and local government already have plenty of ways to acquire money. Of course, the universal argument of lowering taxes all together. Lowering property taxes could possibly bring people out of financial trouble, those who already don"t qualify for exemption status. I"m not a tea partier by any means, but history has shown that our internal revenue increased under certain tax cuts. 2007 was the year with the highest internal revenue under bush tax the rich tax cut because everybody was spending, investing and working. . http://www.mtgriffith.com... . http://money.howstuffworks.com... . http://www.investopedia.com... . http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...
while homestead exemptions should exist, property taxes should be our primary focus on tax revenue

while homestead exemptions should exist, property taxes should be our primary focus on tax revenue the primary source of income should come from property tax in excess of one's own personal property. and the homestead examption should be nothing for cheaper land, but for excessively large properties, it should only be a reduction. if you can't afford to own an excessively large property, tough luck. and of course again propety outside one's own, should be taxed largely. this all creates disincentives to own excessive property, when property should be promoted to be freely distributed as much as possible. a person shouldn't be required to have a roomate, but when it starts to get excessive, you need to start figuring somehting else out if you can't afford it. bottom line though is we should not get rid of the property tax, it should be our main focus, aside from possible homestead exemptions. (next in line is income tax. this way we can get a firm revenue,,,, if people want to make money, they are going to have to pay income tax. last in line, so as to encourage commercial activity, sales tax. which would have to focus on those with more income, perhaps. see pros and cons of 'fair tax', but also note the disadvantags that would entail needing to keep poor people from having to pay, and ensuring enough revenue.
Roblox is Dying and Should Retire Its Servers

I don't claim your arguments are bias because the game is popular, I claim their bias because the only objective arguments you put forth were hacking and exploiting and Roblox making money. "If you talk to anyone on Roblox about the well being of the game you will hear many things." This doesn't back up your argument, just because something is believed by the community doesn't mean it's true. A large part of the hearthstone community believe the game is dying, it very clearly isn't. I'm not viewing it as I played it I'm viewing it as a game. Your largest gripe with it is it doesn't follow it's mission statement to inspire innovation. The game does do this, you can create and build your own games as you wish. That being said, the most well made and enjoyable games will usually be on top, that's just a fact of an equal platform. Pro then goes into an argument that talks about the game's community as if it's important to the game itself not "dying." Pro just claimed that when a game is dying it is "the digression of the very fabric of the game itself and the community that revolves around the game." The community has no play in the game itself, just because it is changing and evolving doesn't mean it's dying. You don't like the changes the community is undergoing so you view it as dying, when it isn't. Pro then makes the argument that there is no innovation in roblox while there very clearly is. Again, just because crappy and poorly made games aren't popular doesn't mean the game is dying. The reason why those few profiles are always on the top? They make great content, simple as that. Just because fewer are making games doesn't mean the game is dying, they just might not want to be a creator and just want to be a consumer. "FACT: The frequency of games appearing on the popular tab has gone down. FACT: less programmers are receiving massive success" Again, this doesn't mean the game is dying. The game is a free market as far as this goes, and you can play whatever game people post. Most people play these games because they are good. Pro uses Call of Duty 3 as an example to prove the that hackers mean the game is dying. This is flawed because, by Pro's definition, the game has been long dead. The content is stagnant, the player base is largely unchanging, and the company is no longer trying to combat hacking. Roblox was never a "mature creator based sandbox programming game." That is pretty ridiculous. Besides the point, YOUR view on a good/bad player base is arbitrary. The game is thriving from the viewpoint of the kids that are joining. I never claimed the company was "prospering financially" I claimed that what the memberships for are to make money. Roblox is a business after all. Pro is entirely too biased in his argumentation. Using his same logic from a different POV we get the exact opposite conclusion. The game is thriving. "Great games are always popular! I can create silly games to share with my friends, even if they aren't popular! The game isn't pay to win! There are more people my age in the community!" Etc.
Roblox is Dying and Should Retire Its Servers

I'll answer my opponent with the same points he used 1. You complain that there is a lack of diversity but what if I told you that you are obviously in the minority. If games stay on the popular tab it's because they are still popular. If people don't want those games they are free to browse others, just because something is at the top for a long time doesn't necessarily mean someone's abusing it. Even if these "organized programmers" were sponsored by Roblox, a majority of platforms similar to this has sponsored servers, or in this case games. There are various reasons for this. You yourself said it isn't inherently bad. Just because you have a problem with the lack of diversity doesn't mean the game is dying and the community has a problem with it. Look at games like League of Legends or Hearthstone, those games have had the same 2-4 game modes for YEARS. They are both the top dog in their genre. Or even a game like skyrim that is praised for its replayability. Just because you do the same sort of thing for an extended period of time doesn't mean that it gets boring. 2. Hacking and exploiting are apart of literally every game. There are no games where there aren't bugs that are eventually exploitable or hacks that can be put in to place, whether temporary or long lasting. If Roblox as a game platform has a problem with it then encourage the community to report such events. If you don't let the company know you can't expect them to stop it. 3. This is where I believe your arguments are proven to be mostly bias. You dislike the games that are popular and dislike the community. It may not be for you. Just because something is not compatible with everyone does not mean it's dying. I'm certain a mute/block system exists. Utilize it. 4. From what I understood when I played, the things you could buy with money is purely aesthetic. If a game was pay to win it never lasted too long. Even if it did, it just shows that the majority of the community LIKES whatever game that stays popular. Every player has access to other games than just the featured or popular ones. 5. What Pro has to do to win the argument is prove the unprovable. They have to prove that their opinion is factual. "Should they retire its servers?" Is a question that is ridiculously objective. Look at it from financial POV and this debate is completely different and there could actually be grounds for it but Pro has taken it to the point where they are personally displeased with the game. Instead of crusading against the game, Pro should just stop playing and let the other people have their fun on the game they like. This is the equivalent of your neighborhood kids playing soccer and the person who owns the ball got butthurt and ran home with it so now the fun is over for everyone. Don't be that guy Pro. 6. Another critique of the subject itself, what does it mean for a game to be "dying." People still play old games like Modern Warfare 2 and that is widely considered as "dead." Pro has not provided any definition of which to debate around.
Roblox is Dying and Should Retire Its Servers

I played roblox in my middle school days. Roblox is an old washed up website While this may be true, Pro has not provided any factual support for this claim. Purely opinion. Roblox is controlled by organized programmers... A group of programmers that are skilled at making games that people like, there is nothing wrong with that. It may make it harder to become a big name game creator on the site but that is because most people lack the skill and originality to compete, not because of some kind of abuse by the programmers. Ripe with hacking and exploiting While this may be true, this is not a good indication of a platform "dying." User base is young This is true, but toxic playing environments are apart of every game that is online. People are jerks online, that is almost the only true constant in the world. (hyperbole) Company is obsessed with making money Duh. Of course the company is "obsessed" with builders club and in game purchases. This is what makes a company profitable. Relies on ad revenue and VIP memberships to stay alive Again, of course it does. This is every free to play game on the market. Some don't even use advertisements. In conclusion Pro has attempted to justify their claim that Roblox should retire its servers. They used arbitrary justifications that apply to business in general and actually show that it could be THRIVING. Pro hasn't provided anything showing their profits are falling drastically or their player base is corroding. Even if the latter two were true, it would still not be the absolute justification for giving up.
Roblox is Dying and Should Retire Its Servers

Roblox is an old washed up website that is controlled by organized programmers with a monopoly on plays and likes stifling creativity and competition. It is becoming ripe with hacking and exploiting. Its user base is largely younger and immature creating toxic playing environments. The company is obsessed with Builder Club memberships and in game purchases. It relies solely on add revenue and VIP memberships to stay alive.
It is OK to snitch

Yes, my opponent has stated that it is the snitch's decision. .. however, that's not the point of my observation. The point is that turning in the Jews in that situation would be NOT okay. Snitching in that situation would be NOT okay, which is the pertinent question of the debate. My opponent has failed to understand the nature of his own debate. The question "why can't people just wait for it to turn green" is entirely irrelevant to whether or not "it is okay to snitch". The simplicity of stopping at a red light is irrelevant. Should we listen to the letter of the law even when the spirit is different. Stop lights are to avoid colissions. The law wasn't made because a bunch of people decided there should be periodic stops, it was made so people would be safer and so traffic would flow better. When there is no one around, and a person runs a red light, it doesn't affect their safety and it doesn't affect traffic flow. It doesn't violate the spirit of the law, only the letter. Since it doesn't violate the point of the law, it is silly in that case to snitch on someone. Pro goes on to say "you may not be harming someone but sometimes you do hurt someone". I would direct the voters' attention to the definition, yet again. Informing the police is not always snitching. It is only snitching when it is not serious. If running a red light causes someone harm, it is no longer "not serious", so in that case, it would not be snitching. It is also very likely that X or A would tell the police, but even if they did not, moving cars so traffic could flow would also be a serious matter. Snitches only exist when the matter at hand is inmaterial and not serious, as in life would go on and no one would know any different whether the snitch snitched or not. Stealing money is serious too. That is monetary injury. However, if we pretend that it isn't serious, do you think that the victim would not call the police? I ask the voters' to look at what pro has proven. Pro has the burden of proof in this matter and has failed to prove that snitching is okay. I have provided situations in which I showed that snitching is not okay. The very definition of snitching implies that it isn't okay. If it isn't serious, it doesn't require people to tell the police. The non-serious example provided in the urbandictionary definition was running a red light. This situation has no injury.
It is OK to snitch

My opponent first started with the example of the holocaust. I have already stated that it is the snitch's decision. They can make the decision if they want to turn in the Jews or not. In the case of the holocaust the people were brainwashed into thinking Jews were bad. You were saying that a person may be OK with going through a red light because there is no traffic. Now I asked in response to you why can't people just wait seconds for it to turn green. Something as simple as stopping at a red light is not that hard. When you do go through the red sometimes you may not be harming someone but sometimes you do hurt someone. Then a snitch tells the police. Would every car accident be considered major? What if X rammed into A and A also received minor injuries such as a fractured finger which could only need to be bandaged. Can't you tell the police a crash happened and it is blocking traffic? That can without an injury but it is important that someone tells the police so the police know to assist in moving the cars. What if someone stole a wallet that ONLY filled with money. Someone just lost their money and if someone has evidence of who did then it should be informed to by the police. Even stopping the simplest of crimes as well as serious ones can make the world a lot safer.
It is OK to snitch

My opponent makes a logical leap from "smoking weed is a crime" to "the police should be told". Is my opponent suggesting that in all cases, the police should be informed of a crime?Is my opponent suggesting that laws are infallible? In the holocaust, the Jews were rounded up and put into work camps, is it the opinion of my opponent that the citizen should inform the police of where the Jews are? That is an extreme example, but I feel that it still accurately portrays the argument that my opponent is putting forth. "what is wrong with waiting some seconds before the light turns green"That is a totally irrelevant question. The question at hand is whether or not it is okay to snitch, not whether or not it is okay to commit an offense which is potentially worthy of snitching. Police are able to make places safer by focusing on crimes that actually matter. I direct the voters' attention to my opponent's definition again wherein it states that informing the police of a serious crime does not count as snitching. The police make the streets safer from rape, perhaps, however, when the police are saturating an area to look for a rapist and the snitch comes up to tell them someone ran a red light, the snitch is actively derailing safety from being achieved. Every second that is spent on the cop listening to a crime which by it's very definition is not serious is a second spent not catching serious criminals. I look forward to my opponent's response.
It is OK to snitch

What the police are able to do is make places safer. Smoking weed is illegal and is thus a crime so the police should be told. As for something as simple as running a red light people can always be left with a warning such as if the car was very close to the light but it still turned red. I also depends on the person who is telling the police. Are they OK with someone running red and also what is wrong with waiting some seconds before the light turns green.
It is OK to snitch

The police do not work for the people. The police work for the state. When the police inform you of your Miranda rights, they tell you that everything you say can be used against you in a court of law. This is because the police are not allowed to use the statements to SUPPORT you. The statements you give them can ONLY be used against you because the police are representatives of the state, and cannot help the defense. Since the police cannot work on the side of the defense, it is not okay to tell them of nonserious "crimes". Their job is to detain and fine people, not to look at the facts and decide it's not worth it- even if they do have that power. The definition by the instigator includes the phrase "Turning in somebody for something SERIOUS does NOT count as snitching." That is to say, snitching is ONLY telling the police about crimes that are not serious. Crimes that have no victim. If you run a red light, but you didn't get hit, why should someone tell on you? You may have been being responsible. You may have just thought the light was just holding you up because no one was coming. Or how about another scenario. One with no victim. If X decides to smoke a little weed, and Y tells on him, it is not okay to snitch. Smoking weed has no victims. Nobody is hurt. It is the right of X to do whatever he wants without being harassed by the police so long as he doesn't harm anyone else. It is for these and other reasons that I believe it is not okay to snitch. I look forward to my opponent's response.
Inuyasha's children

"I will look to a scientific approach." Attempting to apply science to a fairy tale is a waste of time, but if we're going to go about assuming that the idea of "yokai" is scientific, then let us take a look at the link provided by Ragnar in the comment section: http://en.wikipedia.org... Keep in mind that it states yokai have the ability to take on the form of humans (according to Inuyasha, the more advanced ones at least), thus this enable me to bypass CON's "different species" argument as youki have the ability to take on the form of different species. If they have the ability to take on the form of different species (particularly human), then surely they'd have the potential to mate with ANY species much like that hot blue chick in Mass Effect. That being said, let us center this discussion back to whether or not Inuyasha could have children. First, we must keep in mind that upon every night of a new moon, Inuyasha temporarily transforms into a full human. Thus, if CON really is correct about Inuyasha's "yogurt train" not being able to reach Kagome's "station" since he is half demon, then Inuyasha could simply wait till the night of a new moon so that both him and Kagome could attempt the horizontal shuffle without having to worry about any yokai genetics getting in the way. And that'll do it for now.
Inuyasha's children

I will look to a scientific approach. Assuming science could prove they exist(I know, just assume) then humans and demons would be two different species. Now, donkeys and zebras are also two different species so I will use them as proof in my argument. Zebra's and Donkey's could indeed have offspring, and have, the result being a Zonkey (it's 100% truth). However, Zonkey cant breed, not even with others of their kind. Why is this? Geiotes (sex cells) have half the chromosomes each other cell has in thas organism. When two organism of different spieces rerpoduce, thier geiotes combine to make a zigote. However, since the eggs or sperm would not match, they can not have offspring.