BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion should be illegal everywhere

The issue of abortion is one of the most contentious, and emotive dilemmas faced by modern societies. The question is whether one should allow the termination of a child while it is in its mother's womb. For some, the question is even more fundamental: at what stage is the fetus in the womb to be regarded as a child? The battle-lines are drawn between strict, religious (‘pro-life') arguments (that it is never permissible), and those (‘pro-choice') that emphasise the mother's right to choose as the primary concern. While abortion has been accepted by the American state since the land-mark Roe vs. Wade case in the early 1970s, this is by no means a reflection of universal agreement – either international or within America itself – as many Western countries still have considerable restrictions on abortion. For example, the Irish position has softened only recently, and the Catholic Church steadfastly refuses to change its resolutely pro-life stance in the face of criticism from Women's and other lobby-groups. I welcome anyone to debate this topic with me. I welcome the challenge, and good luck friend.
There should be a progressive tax system

p1.Dosent matter how they aquired the money or income its theirs. Its not fair to take more from them less from others.2.Yes it is. Progressive vs one simple flat tax.3. No they would not beacuse they would have less jobs providing less income. I will be upholding 3 contentions. P1)Fairness and equality.Would it be fair and equal if you work hard and are a productive member of society that you should have a larger percentage of your wealth taken away from you Of course not.P2) Simplicity.A flat tax is easy to understand and comply with, thereby reducing errors and tax fraud and professional tax preparers and advisors no longer needed, saving money for taxpayer. P3) Economic success.I will argue that by decreaseing the percentage at which the wealthy get taxed, will cause a favorable impact on the middle class.Which make up most of the population, and relieve some of the financial burden they have to endure, which could potentially help them become more financially stable. If I make a product, and I sell it to make a living, the only way I am going to be able to make a living off of it is to make a profit off of the good or services I am offering.This means that after production, advertisement, and everything else that goes in to it, my price has to be one that will make a profit.Taxes are like any other expense that gets worked into this equation. The higher my taxes are, the more I have to offset that in the price of my product. Therefor the people paying for my product (since the majority of Americans fall in the middle class bracket they are the majority of thebuyers will fall in this bracket) will be paying a higher price, to compensate for some of my losses.This is why raising or keeping a higher percentage on the rich, doesn't work to accomplish the end task it was meant to accomplish, because in the end it is hurting the people it was meant to protect. Now in the same way that having a higher tax percentage on the rich, ultimately gets reflected in the price of the product, so to does having a lower, flat tax. The lower the expense to produce, the lower the price of the product, the less the buyer pays. That means you save money. Now it doesn't stop at just the product price. As a wealthy business owner, if I am taxed less that means I have more money to invest in the growth of my company. With company growth comes more employees, with more employees comes more citizens earning an income and with more citizens earning an income comes, you guessed it, more taxes. This means more money flowing back into the government. Which could help to reduce our debt as a nation and provide economic success. We surely see that a flat income tax rate would increase the economic success of everyone and as a nation.Sources.1.Logic
There should be a progressive tax system

A progressive tax system carry significant benefits to economically disempowered households . These households are not working class because they are "lazy", many are working on minimum wage to support their families. A progressive tax also allows a government to collect more in tax revenue to support, education and medical assistance. Also this tax system will allow small businesses to collect more income by placing a less of a tax on them. This same rule applies to households while stimulating the economy, due to the increased purchasing power of households through saved money. This increased power will increase businesses income.
There should be a progressive tax system

P1)Fairness and equality Why do you assume that just becuase they have more money they work harder. Alot of people who are weathy inheritied or are born into their economical situation. Simlar to those of the working class. Its not becuase their lazy , its becuase they where put in a bad situation. And i dont really get how that would be fair to the working class either, why should they have to pay as much as someone whos weathy? You have to look at the bigger picture and relize that 1,000$ to someone who is weathy isnt the same to someone who has less money;the 1,000$ to the person with less money is alot more to them than to someone thats weathy. P2) Simplicity I honastly dont think a progressive tax is that much harder to understand. P3) Economic success You mention higher prices to buy products. But the middle class would have much more money to pay for these products due to not paying as much in taxes. Its that simple. Now you say that the rich would use this money to increase their business. But ypu cant assume they will do that. Why would they do that when they could just move their head quarters out of the country and not pay taxes period. This is a very common buisness practice that many deem unethical. Burger king is doing that now to avoid paying taxes. Now if we put restrictions on that with a flat tax you still cant make the assumtion that they will use that money to create jobs. Why? Becuase their is so many other proftible ways to use that money.
There should be a progressive tax system

Thank you con for that. Seeing as there are no guidelines I’ll take round 2 as opening statements and further rounds as rebuttals. I will be upholding 3 contentions. P1)Fairness and equality.Would it be fair and equal if you work hard and are a productive member of society that you should have a larger percentage of your wealth taken away from you Of course not.P2) Simplicity.A flat tax is easy to understand and comply with, thereby reducing errors and tax fraud and professional tax preparers and advisors no longer needed, saving money for taxpayer. P3) Economic success.I will argue that by decreaseing the percentage at which the wealthy get taxed, will cause a favorable impact on the middle class.Which make up most of the population, and relieve some of the financial burden they have to endure, which could potentially help them become more financially stable. If I make a product, and I sell it to make a living, the only way I am going to be able to make a living off of it is to make a profit off of the good or services I am offering.This means that after production, advertisement, and everything else that goes in to it, my price has to be one that will make a profit.Taxes are like any other expense that gets worked into this equation. The higher my taxes are, the more I have to offset that in the price of my product. Therefor the people paying for my product (since the majority of Americans fall in the middle class bracket they are the majority of thebuyers will fall in this bracket) will be paying a higher price, to compensate for some of my losses.This is why raising or keeping a higher percentage on the rich, doesn't work to accomplish the end task it was meant to accomplish, because in the end it is hurting the people it was meant to protect. Now in the same way that having a higher tax percentage on the rich, ultimately gets reflected in the price of the product, so to does having a lower, flat tax. The lower the expense to produce, the lower the price of the product, the less the buyer pays. That means you save money. Now it doesn't stop at just the product price. As a wealthy business owner, if I am taxed less that means I have more money to invest in the growth of my company. With company growth comes more employees, with more employees comes more citizens earning an income and with more citizens earning an income comes, you guessed it, more taxes. This means more money flowing back into the government. Which could help to reduce our debt as a nation and provide economic success. We surely see that a flat income tax rate would increase the economic success of everyone and as a nation.Sources.1.Logic I look foward to my opponents rebbuttals.
There should be a progressive tax system

I belive there should be a progressive tax rate becuase someone who is sucsseful in socitey should give more back to help others that are less sucsseful. It would also benifit the middle and working class, while lowering income inequility. This is especially true if taxation is used to fund progressive government spending such as transfer payments and social safety nets. Studys also show that countrys with a prpgresive tax system are happier. http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Bullying is good from a young age.

I greatly disagree with your statement. Yeah, one of the potential outcomes of bullying is gaining personal strength from it, but it's not very likely. Term 'bullying' can include one or more of the following terms: "Violence, extortion, exploitation, abuse, torture, hazing, mental tormenting, harassment, humiliation, dehumanization and social humiliation or defacing. A victim may be bullied by a single offender or by a group of offenders, privately or in front of audience (that may or may not be encouraged to join). To point #1 : Children have plenty of opportunity to confront with others. Every child encounters injustice, disagreement and probably a fight, too. That's plenty of room for the kid to learn how to react appropriately. No bullying is needed for that, and in fact bullying is far beyond acceptable as it may likely to cause the victim a severe emotional trauma with life-time consequences, from sleep, mood and eating disorders to the point of actually committing suicide. The children are the most fragile victims. An experience with bullying can negatively impact victims self-esteem, self-image, development, personality and even abilities in adult life. Every therapist will always examine the patient's childhood assessment, because emotional traumas from the childhood are the hardest to overcome and known for scaring the individual soul at most. Point #2 : There's no such instinct. The instinct tells you to live in your natural habitat (the community), to get along and to belong. And again, bullying doesn't help it at all. While negative feedback is appropriate and helpful for an individual to understand what's acceptable and what isn't, bullying doesn't belong to functional human civilization. Point #3: That's very incorrect. When a bully scares the victim "to death" and makes threats e. g. - "if you tell your parents I'll shoot your dad/mum; or I'll tell my brother who's just out of jail to do this and that", the parents won't know and they'll wonder why the kid acts strange, why doesn't eat or sleep or behaves in a strange fashion. And bullies often keep their victims in such a deadlock which gives them opportunity to further subdue and control the victim. This obviously damages the child permanently. I'd like to believe you don't endorse bullying. I hope you just didn't realize what's the actual extent of bullying, and maybe confused it with some sort of friendly "yanking one's chain".
Bullying is good from a young age.

Point #1: It is useful because kids learn from it easily. OK try this scenario and see what you think. You were bullied at a young age and used to cower and hide from the bully. You feel it's unfair and one day you think you've had enough and you come out all confident, powerful and unafraid. You then maintained that and when you got confronted in a workplace you were the person to speak up to the workplace bully and you "saved" and helped other people. Doesn't that sound better than going into the workplace and getting bullied worse? It is waaay better in my view than being a cowering, scared person that doesn't speak up. Point #2: Human Instincts After getting bullied at a young age it is easier because your human instincts already tell you what to do. Sometimes it's offense is the best defence and sometimes it's defend desperately. Bullying from a young age make us train our human instincts and "evolve" into a powerful and challenging opponent to deal with. The main purpose is for defence and being able to do what you need to do. Point #3: Last Point This helps parents calm down before their kids leave home because they know that they know how to deal with the harsh outside world. I AM 100% SURE THAT THIS HELPS PARENTS. Now to recap, you gain experience, you train your defense and then become powerful and parents calm down. It's a win-win for parents, kids and basically everyone.
Rap battle

Before I start here are the rules: THEY ARE NO RULES JUST RAP!!! Ok so you wanna take me on then say yes, but a guarantee that at the end you'll be a mess. Prepare for humiliation in front of all the debate.org NATION!!! Ny number one spot is forever reserved , and I can never be served. I'll spit fire at your a wooden compartment raps and in the the end you'll Need a FIRE DEPARTMENT!!! Note: this is just my beginning rap and I won't start really spitting fire till I see how good my opponent is.
Rap battle

To you this is realistic B!tch to me this is simplistic And guess what this whole time I've been being optimistic Your right this isn't a competition To me it seem winning to you Is your number one mission You have no way of winning This whole time I've have been pinning I think the debate.org nation Are being patient to see Your humiliation You say your doing this for joy Dude your 22 and your getting you A$$ kicked by a 13 YEAR OLD BOY!!!! Note: hey everybody please comment on our rap battle and say what you think.
Rap battle

My raps may be weak 'cuz English's ma second language consider this a tip but I don't think it ain't gonna fit (in your brain) Oh! You think you're on a winning streak? F*ck, this ain't a competition Sh!t... You better dial 9-1-1 'cuz I ain't payin' no tuition And listen son I never dissed your mom I just said and I think I'm bein' fair that you look like a young boy seeking for attention but guess what? I'm just doin' this for pure joy ... 'cuz I'm from another dimension! Note: Don't take this seriously, it's all randomly cheesy.
Capitalism is better than communsim

My opponent has claimed that Capitalism is the better system for the following two reasons:1) The failure of the USSR.2) An unhappy populace in Communist countries.The main problem of my opponents claim is that, the USSR, nor any modern "Communist" nation, is actually Communist.A Communist society is a society which is classless and stateless[1]. By this definition, nations such as the former USSR, China, Korea, Cuba, and others, were not "Communist". The USSR specifically was what is known as a Socialist State.[2] However, by it's very definition, the USSR had a state; and a very large one at that. This in of itself disproves it as a Communist nation. by relation, unhappy people in these countries is not the fault of Communism, but of the governments which rule over them.Most people recognize that Communism is a better system than Capitalism. It is a Utopian society. People will criticise the ability for humanity to reach that level of society, but it is undoubted that a society where everyone's needs are met, where everyone shares everything, and where no one is left to suffer, is superior to s society of winners and losers; the kind of society Capitalism breeds. However, this debate is not about whether or not Communism is possible, but whether or not the idea of Communism is superior to Capitalism. To which the answer is obvious. Communism is characterized by an egalitarian society; without race or gender issues. Without poor or needy. Whereas it is possible for Capitalism to exist with these problems, as Capitalism is not dependant, but rather, thrives on a class structure, it is impossible for Communism to exist with these issues, as by definition, that would create different classes. A communist society is one where everyone is able to receive what they need, while being expected to contribute nothing more than what they can, and what is needed. Given that all work is shared by the populace, there would be a surplus of workers, and therefore, everyone would need to work less individually, which would lead for more free time for people to pursue their own goals, separate from work. Given also that people are no longer bound to what class they are born into, and what money they have, Communism is also the height of individuality; People are free to do what they please, learn what they please, ect., so long as it does not bring harm to other people.Further more, in nations where people have turned to Socialism, they have often done so after years of oppression by the heel of violent, sometimes dictitorial regimes...which were Capitalist. They former USSR is a great exmaple of this. Capitalism inevitably leads to the oppression of the working class. If Capitalism were oh so good in comparison to Communist, people would not adandone Capitalist ways in favor of trying to pursue Communism and Socialism.Clearly, given that a true Communist society would a social utopia (whether or not it's possible to achieve), it is vastly superior to a Capitalist one.Sources1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Writers' Strike (to test waters of this debate thing).

You actually tried arguing, nice :-D I figured you wouldn't since you agreez with meez. So anyway. It really isn't so much about the writer as a person, but the writer as a job. They are just getting F'd in the A. In 1987 they took a "temporary" cut in their pay (by half) so that they could help the VHS push through. They were supposed to get that money back (or at least have their pay reverted back to the original amount) once VHS became successful. That never happened. Then there is the bigger issue of whether or not they deserve money for programs on the internet (played from NBC.com, etc). Well, the companies are making a TON of money off this (billions I hear, but of course I have no proof). Rahr. Doesn't really matter if this continues because it was only a test and It think we both agree anyway. Want some serious action? I wish we could have 3 or 4 people arguing in one debate.
Hitler is insane and should not be held responsible for his actions.

I believe that Hitler was not responsible for his actions has he was insane.Hitler suffered from borderline personality disorder, which manifested its symptoms in numerous ways and would imply Hitler was in full control of himself and his actions. Others have proposed Hitler may have been schizophrenic, based on claims that he was hallucinating and delusional during his last year of life. Many people believe that Hitler had a MENTAL DISORDER and was not schizophrenic nor bipolar, but rather met the criteria for both disorders, and was therefore most likely a schizoaffective. If true, this might be explained by a series of brief reactive psychoses in a narcissistic personality which could not withstand being confronted with reality (in this case, that he was not the "superman" or "savior of Germany" he envisioned himself to be, as his plans and apparent early achievements collapsed about him). Being insane is to be mentally deranged, and since being mentally deranged is to be disordered in the mind.
Resolved: God's Existence Does Not Entirely Violate Science

Pro's Fallacy Filled Videos Do Nothing To Disprove Evolution, They Only Demonstrate That the Authors Don't Understand Evolution. The prime reason I did not answer Pro's false attempt at scientific Deduction Is: Because his Premise “The theory of evolution states that life originated from non-organic matter. “ Is False, then his conclusions will also be False. He lost that one in his opening statement. Here is the Renowned Biologist, PZ Myers explaining the History of Pro's Creationism. http://www.youtube.com... Yes, Creationists cannot divorce themselves from the fact that they are still following Ellen White's Hallucination from Brain Damage. The Reasons Including God In Science Only Violates Science is: Scientific Enquiry Relies On Predictability Of Outcomes: Including any alterations from any intelligent agency, Destroys Predictability thus Violates Scientific Enquiry. As Pro stated in his opening Argument: “ God is omnipotent, so He can make things happen that scientists would never believe.“ This is exactly why God cannot be included in Scientific analysis. Such an agent would make scientific predictions or Theories impractical, Science would become a Guessing Game as to What Law God Will Violate next. Scientific Inquiry would be useless and scientific predictability would be Non-Existent. Thus Pro Indicated and Admitted In His Opening Argument That God Would Violate Science. Is the Universe fine tuned for Life/Us?http://www.youtube.com... The Scientific Knowledge Of The Bible is Inept: Flat Earth, Solid Dome above it with Stars glued to the Solid, Pillar Supported Dome (Heaven), which fall to Earth when Shaken: (Many Passages).http://www.youtube.com...An Accurate Genesis:http://www.youtube.com... To consider such knowledge as a part of scientific knowledge would not only Violate Science, it would also make Science EXTREMELY STUPID. Thanks Pro for the Awesome Debate!
Resolved: God's Existence Does Not Entirely Violate Science

Point 1: There were no "random accusations" in my videos. They all had this necessary principle behind them: everything that ever happened had a cause. If this is true, the Big Bang had a cause if it happened. The question has become "How did the Big Bang happen, if at all? " Answer: all the matter in the universe gathered up into one spot and exploded, scattering things around a vast universe. A question in one of my videos was: "Where did that matter come from? " This question must be answered. But as I stated before, there is extremely high evidence against the Big Bang. And as the Law of Conservation of energy states, matter cannot be created nor destroyed. The Big Bang theory also clearly violates this law by stating that an explosion that started out no bigger than a period created a universe that is constantly expanding. The random appearance of this matter also violates the same law. For these reasons, science will never explain how the matter came to exist. The existence of God has now been rendered scientifically valid, but since there is so much evidence against God, there is now a religious paradox, a very confusing kind. But as I stated earlier, "real" science will never explain the Big Bang, which means now that only what you refer to as "pseudoscience" can explain the Big Bang. Therefore, religious beliefs have won the paradox, and thereby requiring a deity to exist. But if everything had a cause, how did God come to exist? That question is needless. What you should be asking is: "How can I know God? " Point 2: Genesis and other creationist beliefs are true, and there is hard evidence. -. http://m.youtube.com... -. http://m.youtube.com... -. http://m.youtube.com... -. http://m.youtube.com... This video also lays waste to evolution directly. . http://m.youtube.com... Point 3: whatever shows that evolution is not true supports creation, which in turn supports God.