BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The income tax rate should be closer to 0% than it should be to 100%

I would like to start off by defining terms: https://www.gov.uk...: Income Tax is a tax you pay on your income. You don"t have to pay tax on all types of income. Dictionary.com definition: the tax levied by a government directly on income, especially an annual tax on personal income. Contention 1You pay tax on many things like benefits you get from your job, medical services, public services, schools, etc. The main point is that tax would improve the welfare of society. Contention 2 and 3 Taking away income tax could potentially violate one's right to life. I define one's right to life as the pursuit of happiness. Income tax goes to various programs that provide money for those in need. The closer to 0% would potentially make these services cheaper. It would take away retirement benefits, benefits for veterans, and food and nutritional assistance. Earned income tax credit assist low and moderate-income working families. The programs provide payments and household benefits. Sources: https://www.cbpp.org...
The income tax rate should be closer to 0% than it should be to 100%

First debate on here, just hoping it's cordial and full of open and honest ideas and discussions! It's hard to find! I'm putting forward the question of taxation - should it be closer to 0% or to 100%? This is a capitalism versus socialism argument, or an authoritarian versus libertarian argument. I guess it comes down to where you stand. In my view, closer to 100% gives less and less choice to the wage earners in society. The less you get to decide what you spend your money on, the worse you can expect things to be. You don't get to choose your healthcare, your food, your car, your house... nothing. The state chooses everything for you. Surely it's better to be closer to having a full and complete say in where every cent of your income is going? I'm not entirely sure 0% is perfect, but I think if you had a gun to your head and had to choose one, it would be 0% over 100% - so I therefore put the question out there, if it's better to be closer to 0% then why shouldn't it be 0%? Why shouldn't we have a say in where every penny of our income goes to? Do we have such little faith in charity? Do people who can't fully afford to do so not already give to charity? I'd say yes, they do. So are we too quick to think the government knows best when they know very little about what's best for anybody? I put it out there - the closer we get to 0% taxation, the better.
Is abortion ok? (should it be legal?)

I will try to cover as many points as I can,First of all, stating that it was 'Murder for the sake of convience' is simply too patronizing to what I was trying to convey, abortion is an essential requirement for those who cannot afford to bring up their children, as I mentioned with the poverty issue, and women themselves do not ask to be 'raped', and they are forced to concieve a child that they were probably aware that from the start they couldn't bring up. Con has put forward the claim that the 1% abortion statistic for rape as trivial. However, my points do link together, 16% of abortions are made because the woman's life would have been changed too much, this also includes cases of rape.In response to the last points -A) Abortion is a choice based on the interests/needs of the female. The 'Right to Privacy' supports this.B) If anything, prostitution and drug laws should complement abortion, as there is little chance a child can be brought up properly if a prostitute gets pregnant.
Is abortion ok? (should it be legal?)

Statistically speaking hardly any of the abortions committed had ANYTHING AT ALL to do with her life being in danger or because of rape (less than 1% are because of rape or incest). It's murder for the sake of convenience. "I'm not ready." "I didn't ask for this." "I don't wanna do it." And so on. People reading this know it's true. How many people do you know that had an abortion? Now how many were because of the aforementioned reasons (rape, incest, life in danger)? I bet not many at all. On the other hand everybody knows PLENTY (whether they realize it or not) who have out of convenience. After all, we are talking about more than 99 percent of them (who fall into this category)... Technology has debunked all the propaganda used to get it passed and make it seem acceptable. Also, it's not about a female's right. A) what about the rights of the females being aborted? B) the govt. tells a woman what she can or cannot do with her body all the time. Consider prostitution and drug laws.
Is abortion ok? (should it be legal?)

I thank my opponent for posting his argument on this topic, As I mentioned earlier, my stance will revolve around why it is justified for a woman to willingly want to abort during pregnancy, I will state my facts below and I will then leave it to Con to respond accordingly. Now, I shall present my brief case.Now, in most parts of Europe, Asia, and North America, abortion is legal on all grounds and is open upon request. [1] These countries have advocated for it for many reasons, but one of the most important being the concern over not just from the possibility of death, but also from rape or disabilityy. Taking an example from the US, statistics show that 42% of women that opt for having abortions have relatively low incomes, which leaves them unable to bring up their child and in rape cases, leaves the child unwanted. s://www.guttmacher.org...; alt="" />Sources -[1] http://www.un.org...
Is abortion ok? (should it be legal?)

A little background on Roe vs. Wade before I fully delve in. 1971 - The Supreme Court agrees to hear the case filed by Norma McCorvey, known in court documents as Jane ROE, against Henry WADE, the district attorney of Dallas County from 1951 to 1987, who enforced a Texas law that prohibited abortion, except to save a woman's life. OK. So in 1971 abortion is illegal unless it is to save the woman's life. January 22, 1973 - The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, affirms the legality of a woman's "right" to have an abortion. June 17, 2003 - Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) files a motion with the U.S. District Court in Dallas to have the case overturned and asks the court to consider new evidence that abortion hurts women. Included are 1,000 affidavits from women who say they regret their abortions. At this point not even the defendant agrees with the ruling. When Roe vs. Wade was passed in 1973 we hadn't invented the 3D sonogram. It was believed that it was just a blob, not human yet.
Solipsism is the Only True Philosophy

His attempt to wrestle with a central concern in philosophy did not go unnoticed. In fact, such an attempt highlights the importance of philosophic rigor. The mighty individual reinforced our need to understand the consequences of a given set of philosophic premises. The exercise had merit in and of itself- irrespective of any final outcome. And in such a spirit, I thank the might individual for providing a forum with which to explore the issue. The issue, left resolved, on the table is whether solipsism is 1. true and real 2. A philosophy, proper 3. singular in excellence. These assertions have yet to be answered. Moreover, the justification for forwarding the motion that solipsism is a true, real, proper philosophy which is singular in excellence rested upon both the notion of an external world and our skepticism towards it. Something about Marie Antoinette rings true here . .. either we may eat our skeptical solipsistic cake, or we may have our external world, but we clearly cannot have both. Thus, we have no reason to believe the assertion that the external world may serve as a justification for believing that solipsism is a true and rightful understanding of the world, much less the "only" proper understanding of the world. Solipsism, has not been proven to be a true and real proper philosophy which is singular in excellence.
Solipsism is the Only True Philosophy

A dream seems real at the time, "reality" seems real at the time. It is entirely possible for a dream to be reality and what we perceive as reality to be, in fact, a dream. Because our world are so-called observed through senses, why is it implausible that a dream or figment of the imagination might be the world observed through the senses and the "real" interaction in the world to be fake. In believing so, you also might ponder whether or not an external world exists. For example, the mind cannot itself view the world absolutely, and in a universe that exists, surely all objects can view one another essentially, right? So, readers, because the brain is only a vessel, and only creates the illusion of self-awareness, senses, emotion, life, and other things, maybe it also creates the illusion of external forces. It could be that, our eyes, ears, and noses are playing tricks on us in giving us the information we want to have, just as in the movie The Matrix. There is no way to prove this but, then again there is no way to prove the existence of an absolute reality.
Solipsism is the Only True Philosophy

I graciously accept the challenge set forth by the might individual to determine whether "Solipsism is the Only True (real) Philosophy." I acknowledge that this question has historically vexed philosophers throughout the ages and it proper to address such an issue. Moreover, I tentatively accept the first stipulation "No using "common sense" as an argument" but would ask my opponent to clarify the terms "common sense". I interpret such a term to mean an ad populum appeal. If I misunderstand the intent, I would ask for clarification. Second, I find the second stipulation "No bailing out" rather vague and lacking a historically "clear and distinct" formulation. Is my worthy opponent asking whether I commit to complete the stated rounds of the debate? If so, I readily agree. If I misunderstand the stipulation, I ask for the necessary clarification. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Onwards. First, it must be acknowledge that the issue being forwarded is an assertion that solipsism is the following: 1.True and real 2.A philosophy, proper 3.Singular in excellence (e.g. the "only") Moreover, it is argued, by my opponent, that the warrants for such an assertion are the following: 1.The mind cannot absorb information or observe the world around it 2.Scientists have done experiments on mice, apes, and humans now too to replace and replicate "real" memory. 3.Interactions between people can be false. It must be noted that the aforementioned warrants are rather peculiar. They, by definition, invoke the following: 1.An external world (cf. The mind cannot absorb information or observe "the world around it.") 2.Other individuals & creatures (cf. "Scientists" have done experiments on "mice, apes, and humans"). 3.Relationships (cf. "Interactions" between people). Now, if it is the contention by the mighty individual that "solipsism is the only true & real philosophy, then he is invoking a rather odd set of propositions and warrants to support such a claim. I thank my opponent for taking the historically indefensible position of solipsism (Bravo), but I readily acknowledge that invoking the external world, and all that is in, is a rather strange way of proving that solipsism is "true" and "real." I am flummoxed by the notion that an appeal to the external world is proof of " that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure." Much less, I find such an assertion contrary to the notion that, "The external world and other minds cannot be known, and might not exist outside the mind." I would ask that my worthy opponent answer this apparent contradiction to forward his assertion that solipsism is 1. true and real 2. a philosophy, proper 3. singular in excellence (e.g. the "only").
Solipsism is the Only True Philosophy

I believe that solipsism is the only true (real) philosophy because of a few things. 1. ) The mind cannot absorb information or observe the world around it, it needs senses to do that. These senses may very well be lying to it because dreams and imagination and memory can be as vivid or more vivid and convincing than "reality". There is no way to know for sure whether the universe is a figment of the mind's imagination. 2. ) Memory is false. Scientists have done experiments on mice, apes, and humans now too to replace and replicate "real" memory. Thus, proving that memory is an illusion and is just a physical pattern in the brain that can act as a computer. 3. ) Reality cannot be proven. As I said in note 1, reality and simulated reality are the same thing. Interactions between people can be false and the universe may exist only to feed false information to my mind. A computer, for example, has no way of knowing about the things around it other than to take information that the creator/owner (us) feed it. Rules for Debate- No using "common sense" as an argument. No bailing out. That's it. 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round are arguments, I have posted my 1st round's argument above.
the soviet union was BY FAR the strongest allied country in ww2

In world war 2 a lot of people say (especially Americans) say with confidence that the USA was the strongest allied country in ww2 and some people even say it was the British! I made this debate to challenge anyone who thinks other wise and see if it is even possible to beat me in this debate? Not because i am good but just because the topic i am debating has such an obvious right answer- The Soviet union. I see no way some won can even claim that the USA is stronger except due to them being a patriot(not a valid reason). First lets look at contribution: the USSR defiantly contributed the most to winning because 9/10 Germans died on the Russian front and over 70% of the German war equipment was also destroyed there. Stalin grad the most essential battle of the war also happened was won by the Russian, The battle of Berlin was won by the Russians and the Russians on there own beat: Bulgaria, Romania, Hungry and FINLAND! If that is not enough- the soviets had the biggest tank force, the biggest army, the MOST planes, and even a strong navy. Not to mention the very high moral/harsh training amongst the troops!!!!! Given all this i don't see how anybody can argue validly otherwise? Sources: https://answers.yahoo.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Should young men and women over 18 years of age, serving in the armed forces be allowed to consume a

You're calling into question maturity, to which I say, its all relative. I'm 37, I know plenty of men and women my own age that we could term immature as well. But I submit, if maturity is the guideline and you look at an average 18 year old, playing video games and doing little with life save for wasting oxygen and compare it to someone who has decided to voluntarily train to fight, kill and potentially die for this country, you are talking about a completely different person altogether. I think on the sacrifice alone that they are willing to endure, again, voluntarily, there is no question that they are far more mature than their average 18 year old contemporary. To tell someone who is willing to do all of this and again, potentially die doing so, that they are somehow not mature enough to handle a drink is insulting and does a disservice to the sacrifice they've made on your behalf.
Should young men and women over 18 years of age, serving in the armed forces be allowed to consume a

Most certainly they should be allowed to enjoy alcoholic beverages. If at the age of 18, we are going to train these young men and women to fight, to kill for our flag and entrust them, potentially with millions of dollars worth of military hardware, its only fitting that we'd allow them to relax and imbibe the alcoholic beverage of their choosing. In the US, we decided that 18 was somehow the right age to allow people to vote, to marry (in most states), to sign legal contracts and a whole host of other things that are allowed under the "age of reason." Why then, are these adults not allowed to drink? It comes down to common sense and respect for what we're asking these volunteers to do - if we're entrusting them to serve in a potentially life threatening role, it is at the height of hypocrisy to suggest that they are somehow not mature enough to handle a glass of beer.
The United states will ban Assault Rifles.

C1. A ban would save lives. Put simply assault weapons are designed for assault, therefore their proliferation should be prohibited in law. To put things into the general context of gun crime within the United States every year 17,000 people are killed, 70 percent of them with guns and nearly 20,000 people commit suicide by shooting themselves (1]. Murder by gunfire particularly affects children, in total well over a million Americans have died in this manner and 80 people continue to be shot in the states every day. So some form of gun control is necessary and a ban on assault weapons is a good starting point. Out of 62 mass murders since 1982 almost half the weapons used, 67 out of 142, were semi-automatic handguns and more than 30 were assault weapons.[2] The period of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban from 1994-2004 with the exception of 1999, the year of the Columbine massacre (which notably involved a semi-automatic produced before the ban), was also a peaceful period in terms of numbers of mass shootings.[3] While assault weapons are responsible for a relatively small amount of total gun deaths in the USA that is not a good reason for not banning them; any life saved is worthwhile. Taking the low estimate of 1% of deaths from assault weapons that still means 90-100 people a year while the high 7% [4]means 630-700 lives that could be saved. C2. Banning assault weapons increases liberty and security. 1. Many who are pro guns argue that it would be illegitimate for assault weapons to be banned while the police have them. Police forces, however, are going to be much more likely, and able to give them up when a ban is in place. The police don’t want to be involved in an arms race with criminals to have the biggest guns; just look at the British police force where there is little gun crime and few shootings of police officers it is not felt that there is the need to have police armed with more than a taser or even truncheon. Put simply a ban on assault weapons can help reverse the arms race between police and criminals. 2.Civil liberties would also be enhanced as law enforcement agencies would not need to devote so many resources into monitoring assault weapons purchases and those who have done the purchasing. Instead they would be able to simply target all assault weapons purchases as needing immediate attention, 3.Finally we must remember that this ban enhances the highest liberty at all; life. Today as Justice Breyer says “gun possession presents a greater risk of taking innocent lives” than not having a gun.Sourceshttp://www.telegraph.co.uk...http://www.iop.harvard.edu...
The United states will ban Assault Rifles.

In this debate, Pro supports the ban of Assault weapons; however, he cites evidence mainly pointing to handguns, not Assault weapons in particular. 1. A ban will not stop or slow assault weapon and gun crimes in general He says that Assault weapons in particular cause 9-100 deaths a year, and because he knows this is a very, very low number, he attempts to cite that "every life saved counts". True, noone should have to die. But the fact that criminals can still easily get their hands on weapons even after a ban, means that a ban is pointless, and no lives would truly be saved. 2. Suicides are completely unrelated to guns The analogy that gun ownership affects suicide rates is absurd. If a person who commits suicide does not have a gun in their possession, they would simply find a different way to commit suicide. The absence of guns does not affect suicides. 3. No pro-gun advocates say that it would be illegitimate for assault weapons to be banned while the police have them. I have never heard this statement, ever. What pro-gun people argue is that the 2nd amendment says that the people have the right to bear arms, in order to balance out a tryrannical government and give the people an opportunity to rise up against that government. They don't protest the police having assault weapons (assault rifles, submachine guns, etc), they protest the government taking away a constitutional right, leaving law-abiding citizens vulnerable not only to criminals, but the government. The people protest the over militarization of the government--, this is, armored vehicles, military vehicles, tanks, and all that, which could indicate a police state. They don't protest the police having small arms, they protest them having military equipment.
The United states will ban Assault Rifles.

Rebuttals My opponet said that 'more gun ownership reduces crime' no it doesn't 'A new study published in the American Journal of Public Health on Thursday has found a “robust” relationship between rates of gun ownership and firearm homicide, challenging the National Rifle Association’s assertion that more registered guns equal fewer firearm-related deaths. However, the study noted that while gun ownership is a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates, the correlation did not necessarily mean that higher ownership directly caused more gun-related killings. The researchers looked at firearm homicide data in all 50 states between 1981 and 2010 and found that for each 1 percent increase in gun ownership, a state's firearm homicide rate jumped by 0.9 percent.'Sourceshttp://america.aljazeera.com...
Should we remake state controlled militia in the U.S.A

....and done. My baby moves at midnight Goes right on till the dawn My woman takes me higher My woman keeps me warm What you doin in the back aah What you doin in the back aah? You should be dancing, yeah Dancing, yeah Shes juicy and she's trouble She gets it to me good My woman gives me power Goes right down to my blood What you doin in the back aah What you doin in the back aah? You should be dancing, yeah Dancing, yeah My baby moves at midnight Goes right on till the dawn My woman takes me higher My woman keeps me warm What you doin on your back aah What you doinon your back aah? You should be dancing, yeah Dancing, yeah You should be dancing, yeah You should be dancing, yeah You should be dancing, yeah You should be dancing, yeah You should be dancing, yeah