BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Estate Tax is neccesary to maintaining a Natural Aristocracy in the United States

Pro's rebuttal then Pro's case. Sorry about the "vote con" because of the very limited space of 3000 characters. Because my opponent has not defined "estate tax" in his case we must look at my definition. Please note that there is only one estate tax in existence therefore it must be THE estate tax. My opponent doesn't argue how estate tax runs in the U.S, what point are we debating about? How it's run, most likely that way there is more evidence on this and how its necessary to maintain N.A= more clash. Tom Paine actually disliked natural aristocracy and persuaded colonists to rebel in "Common Sense." My opponent has also proved no evidence on Tom Paine being the first to suggest this tax. We have not agreed on our definition of N.A. My definition was defined by "the irony of democracy." Pro's by T.J. Pro's definition is invalid stated in his FDR quote. NoDeathTax.org is supported by American Family Business Institute. That is a reliable source. Many statics are from the IRS and news. Death tax is another term for Estate tax (dictionary.com). With our failing economy, of course people will want to get out of debt, thus they will use any resources they have. My opponent is trying to put words in my case. This is unfair because I never agreed on it. He shows no real refutation to my contention 2, yet even fails to walk over it. And also what did we agree on in the third to last paragraph? Pro's case: My opponent has not yet proven in his case why estate tax is necessary. He tries to use quotes from famous people to persuade you, yet he doesn't provide analysis on the quotes. His Warren Buffett quote on privately funded food stamps has no clear link. His FDR quote is saying our government was established through generations with different perspectives, our perspectives now are changed compared to the colonial times. This is contradictory with his Thomas Jefferson quote and his source of definition because Jefferson lived at a different time from us, therefore his definition for artificial and natural aristocracy is invalid. "Natural aristocracy: The grounds of [natural aristocracy] are virtue and talents." If Pro wins estate tax will add a harmful piece to the concept of natural aristocracy, thus this will not achieve virtue (behavior showing high moral standards). Voting issues: 1. My opponent has not proven and gave arguments why and how estate tax is necessary. He merely tired to describe the differences, which contradicts with his FDR quote. 2. He has provided no real refutation for my case. I've defended it, it still stands. He has not attacked my contention 1 and 2 as a whole, thus estate tax harms aristocracy because it diverts resources & harms the goverment and citizens. 3. I have proven his case to be contradictory and false. His definition is invalid because of his FDR quote thus you must look to mine. If Pro's definition won, estate tax will demote Natural Aristocracy. For these reasons above, I urge a Con vote. Thank y
Resolved: Estate Tax is neccesary to maintaining a Natural Aristocracy in the United States

Notice Sir, I have not once stated that my argument is on behalf the THE estate tax, but rather on behalf of "estate tax". This means that "contention two" shall be thrown out the window immediately. I cannot and will not argue on behalf of HOW the estate tax currently in the United States is run by politicians. I do find it quite humorous that one of your sources is tompaine. com, being how he was actually the first American to suggest the estate tax. And I do not how reliable of a source "nodeathtax. org is. But I digress. Your statement that "aristocratic hereditary titles are based upon the value of the inheritance" is true, but does it relate to how we have consensually defined aristocracy? No "The Death Tax blindly takes its cut and leaves families to pick up the pieces. " Huh? If a family is intact, then no money will be lost. The estate tax is on the TRANSFER of assets. Not the death of a human. Death Tax isn't even a logical term. If a family loses a loved one, no tax will be imposed upon them, unless the deceased had the money exclusively, in which the family has never entitled to spend it in the first place. "I have proven that estate tax does more harm than good. If we do support this tax we are also supporting a corrupt natural aristocrarcy. " If what you just did was prove that estate tax does more harm than good, you certainly did not do it well. You proved that the current system in which the estate tax is working, is corrupt. I would concede the point if I ever opposed it, but since I did not, we agree. Oh, and can you please dignify the last sentence of the quote above? If we support the CURRENT estate tax, we are not supporting a corrupt natural aristocracy, but merely an artificial aristocracy. I thus continue to contend, the estate tax creates a class of people who are not better than anyone else, but rather came out of the vagina of a wealthy person, and come to be irresponsible in the dealings of the aristocracy.
Fort Walton Beach, Florida is better than Houston, Texas.

However, Houston also has important resources that Florida doesnt have. Houston is one of the major oil sources and without it, oil taxes increase. Just because you lived in a place, doesn't mean you know everybody. There are millions of people living in Houston and I don't think you met everybody and know them very well. You can't just say that people are much nicer somewhere else. People may have different opinions on who they think are nice. You can't say that a city is better than another city because 'you' think people are nicer. Houston is also one of the major headquarters for Texas Instruments. They have been contributing a large portion to education. However, Walton Beach is just a tourist attraction.
Fort Walton Beach, Florida is better than Houston, Texas.

if you dont mind me asking what gives you the right to talk about Fort Walton Beach and houston; because I've lived in both places. And i have to say that the people are nicer in FWB, FWB isnt the 2nd murder capitol in the nation, and all i was stating was that houston is already over building as it is. the more people come to live here the more we have to build and that equals to more pollution......
Fort Walton Beach, Florida is better than Houston, Texas.

Okay....... but ummmmmm the school I'm going to now has dropped in how it's contending with rival schools gradewise. And it happens to be #1 in Alief School District!!!!! So how can we be getting better if the #1 school in a district is sinking fast!?!?!?!?! Yeah and all of that economic advancement is killing our enviroment!!!!! Because as the economy is increasing, more people are moving over here. Thus, Houston + More People = More pollution. Fort Walton Beach increases its economy without polluting anything and it's schools remain #1 to it's surrounding schools....... Thanks for excepting this debate!!!!!!!!
Teachers should not be allowed to strike.

Yes, teachers are workers like everybody else but they work in an industry that simply requires a higher level of responsibility than some others. Striking is an effective method of making change, however not when it is at the expense of an innocent third party - especially one that cannot necessarily understand the reasons for, or the consequences of, the strike. And I'm sorry, they "then have to deal with unappreciative children on a daily basis"? If that's the case, they shouldn't be a teacher at all - I'm confident the issue has nothing to do with teachers feeling that the children are unappreciative, it is that they feel they are not being treated fairly by the government. They should absolutely be able to demand better working conditions, striking is certainly not the only means of doing this, and is an extreme and inappropriate method to use in this situation - not to mention the message that it sends to children that when you don't get your way, you should just quit.
Teachers should not be allowed to strike.

Teachers provide an essential education to our future generations. It is unfair to allow them the power to simply walk off the job because they feel they're not being paid enough. There are other ways to ensure that they are being treated equitably without sacrificing the benefits to our children. For example, mediation has worked in the past for other professionals such as in the healthcare industry to avoid detrimental effects on society. If we allow teachers the ability to go on strike, they will never be happy with what they have.
Guns Should NOT Be Restricted

First, while you do state intentional homicide peaked with the gun ban, you seem to not realize that gun deaths were much lower than before it, proving its effectiveness. To ignore that would be specifically ignoring data to prove your point, since many other things can cause a spike in deaths.Second, you seem to be implying that Americans should take their guns and form vigilante squads, which would only lead to wrongful death and a departure from our justice system, where every crime is punished by death. The purpose of law enforcement is to enforce the law and prevent these groups from causing mass havoc, this job is not the civilians. Third, as far as I can tell ISIS has not snuck any weaponry into the United States, in fact, one of their spokesmen thanked the NRA for making it so easy to get guns in America (1). Why would they bother sneaking a gun in when they can get one is less than a week? Finally, you say that the likelihood of a black market for guns will form, then say that there is no difference to guns and radioactive substances and sex slaves. However, both of those are illegal, which means that if those are, why are guns not? Just because a black market may become more dominant does not mean that the substance should be made legal, otherwise heroin, sex slaves, and all other sorts of dangerous things would become legal.Thank you for your time in this debatehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Guns Should NOT Be Restricted

Once again thank you for your time. 1) Because Australia is more isolated and because it becomes more difficult to bring in guns, as you have stated above, that is why Australia is not an effective or conclusive piece of evidence to our argument. You also fail to realize that I have said that INTENTIONAL homicide in the U.K peaked at 2002 and thus, there is no legitimate way to compare that data to the data from the U.S, and we can only deduce that the gun ban in Britain was ineffective. 2) The likelihood of such invasion force is highly possible especially because of terrorism and ISIS who had evaded the French Police, one of the most advanced police forces in the world, and create mass casualties. This could happen at a much greater scale in the U.S. Besides, take a look at the Clown Clan, the South China Sea, North Korea, etc.,etc.,etc.. They all pose a potential threat to the American society. 3) As to the organized force, we have already seen that with terrorists such as ISIS sneaking in illegal firearms. ISIS is a well funded organization, and, given that Trump is now future president, could definitely create havoc that would cause mass civilian casualties if they were unarmed. 4) THERE ARE BLACK MARKETS ON SMUGGLED WOMEN. IF THERE IS A BLACK MARKET FOR WOMEN, THEN THE POSSIBILITIES OF A BLACK MARKET ON GUNS ARE HIGH TOO. PLUS, THERE IS LITERALLY A BLACK MARKET FOR EVERYTHING FROM RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES, TO STOLEN ARTWORK, YOU CAN NAME THEM ALL. WHAT DIFFERENCE IS THERE FROM GUNS TO THOSE THINGS? NOTHING! Very sorry for the last part.
Guns Should NOT Be Restricted

I would like to start by addressing your first few points: The reason Australia is a good example is because it is more isolated, and therefore is a better example than any US state could be since guns are more difficult to bring in. You also state that Britain banned handguns, which is true, but only a license is required to own sporting rifles and some types of shotgun. Britain still has much less murder than the US, at only 11 murders per million compared to the US' staggeringly high 42 (1). Additionally, in the 2011/2012 financial year, there were only 39 gun murders in the UK, which is only 7% of the murders for that year (2). This number may seem high, but keep in mind that it is less than half of how many people in the US are killed by guns in a single day (3).You argue that banning weapons intended for military use to only the military would strip citizens of the ability to defend themselves against an invading force, but I would like to remind you that the likelihood of such a situation is so low that it is the same as saying we need to keep a US National Twinkie Reserve to protect against attacking aliens. You say that a situation would arise by nuclear efforts, but the fact of the matter is if there are any nuclear efforts the world will end, which is called mutually assured destruction. Therefore, this situation is implausible. Another scenario mentioned is that an organized force was to organize themselves they could burgle the populace. However, this is equally unlikely because of several reasons. The first is that it would simply be expensive and not worth the risk to rob your average US citizen, and the second is that if such a force existed it is the job of our nation's police officers and other law enforcement to stop it, not vigilante squads.Another point made is that the Prohibition on alcohol, where many Americans ignored this law, but alcohol and firearms are very different things. For one reason, alcohol is an addictive substance, where some people begin to require it to function. Another is that in 1994 a nationwide ban was enacted on assault rifles and large-capacity gun magazines, and it marked a noted decrease in the usage of both of this in crime (4). This is evidence that a nationwide ban on guns does work to stop them from being used in crime, and that criminals do not easily ignore the laws.I look forward to seeing your response.1. http://www.nationmaster.com... 2. http://www.citizensreportuk.org... 3. https://everytownresearch.org... 4. http://smartgunlaws.org...;
Guns Should NOT Be Restricted

Thank you for your time. 1) Sure, Australia may be one example, but its isolated application to the entire world is simplistic and ignorant of a broad range of data. For instance, in 1997 Great Britain banned civilian possession of almost all handguns in response to the Dunblane Massacre. The rate of intentional homicide climbed to a peak in 2002, and is still higher today than it was in 1996 (the year before the law took effect.) In addition, countries such as Israel and Switzerland broadly permit home ownership and concealed carry of handguns, and they enjoy relatively low rates of homicide. The evidence for lower crime rates as a result of greater gun control is selective and far from conclusive. 2) The ability to defend oneself against a solitary intruder may be the greater focus of the conversation, but it is not the boundary thereof. The owning and bearing of arms is not only protected under the Constitution as a means of defense against armed burglary, but also against military invasion. If the U.S. Military became incapacitated by, for instance, nuclear efforts, the only remaining line of defense on American soil would be her citizens themselves. Additionally, armed robbery or assault could conceivably be attempted by an armed and organized group, as opposed to a single, armed perpetrator. Banning assault weapons would render any individual powerless against a greater threat than a single invader. 3) Consider the Prohibition " enormous numbers of American citizens disregarded the 1920 amendment that banned the production, transport and sale of alcohol. In fact, the law created an environment which invited an illegal market to develop for the distribution of the substance. Notorious criminals such as Al Capone rose to power by controlling the importation of alcohol to large regions and cities. A widespread ban on gun ownership would produce similar outcomes, with much more deadly consequences. The criminalization (if that's a word) of firearms would result in an influx of devastating gang violence in urban areas, and a government effort to seize citizens" firearms would likely result in dangerous resistance on many fronts. 4) The only people who are affected by gun control laws are people who are inclined to obey laws in the first place. People who commit violent crimes or knowingly break the law in other ways have no reason to obey laws that restrict the acquisition of firearms. People who want to break the law will continue to do so, acquiring the firearms they want by illegal means. Once again thank you for your time. https://stv.tv... http://www.citizensreportuk.org... https://www.loc.gov... http://world.time.com...
Guns Should NOT Be Restricted

The deaths per 1,000 people in Australia, a country with more strict gun control laws is 6.9 people out of a thousand. However, in the United States, a place with less gun control that number spikes to 8.4 deaths per thousand. The example you use is London, however, in the UK the rate is much higher at 8.9 deaths per thousand (1). This shows that less gun control does not reduce deaths. Your second claim, about the Second Amendment also does not hold up. Before the Supreme Court case of Columbia vs Heller most judges and scholars interpreted the amendment as protecting gun ownership for the purpose of military duty. This interpretation makes more logical sense than the modern one due to how the armies were formed in the founding of the United States, where it was less of one unified force and more several state militias combined to fight together (2) Your third statement implies it is not the government's job to protect the people, instead that they protect themselves. The people do have the right to throw off an oppressive regime, but handing out guns to all sorts of people is not the way to do it, because doing so leads to mass amounts of violence and deaths. Your final statement of how background checks prevent terrorist attacks or mass shootings, this claim is simply false due to over 82% of guns used in mass shootings being obtained legally (3). Many other common arguments against gun control are ones such as "guns don't kill people, people kill people". This argument is simply false due to one factor: Guns enable people to kill others much, much more effectively than almost another other weapon, and are so available in the US that it leads to mass instances of this violence and murder, and in 2015 there was at least one of these instances a day (4). This is so much violence in the country that could easily be prevented with stricter gun control laws. I look forward to seeing your response.1. . http://apps.who.int...;2. . http://www.motherjones.com...;3. . http://www.nbcnews.com...;4. . http://www.nytimes.com...;
Guns Should NOT Be Restricted

The U.S government is taking gun control reform too seriously and the best idea is to stop gun control laws. I would like to thank my opponent, whomever it is for his argument and his time. Now I shall begin my argument: 1) Contrary to popular belief, the places with more gun control reform actually have more deaths per year than places where there are less gun control reform such as London. Why? That is because in those countries with more gun control reform, the criminals know that the citizens do not have weapons on them, making thm an easier target for burglary usually using knives. However, when criminals are in an area with less gun control reform- and lets say they own a gun too- they know the risks of breaking into a house where the owner owns a liscensed firearm and they will not risk being injured or killed. 2) The Second Amendment is one of America's oldest laws and it states that: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 3) Though some people say that it is the government's right to protect the people, it is also the citizen's right to overthrow he government when they find i not fit to lead. How can civilians fight off a trained military? With firearms. 4)Though some say less gun control reform makes for more terrorists attacks, that is also false due to the thorough background checks. The background checks involve seeing if a person has been to countries of dispute for suspiciously prolonged periods of time and whether or not if that person is mentally ill or if they have a criminal record.
physical force is a justifiable method of punishing children

I have the right to life. If a child points a gun at me without cause, it is just, given this right, that physical force be imposed to deprive him of the gun. Given the rights of others to life too, it's also probably just that he and others like him be deterred from doing so in the future by further impositions-- such impositions being impossible to make without the bedrock of physical force to back them. The imposition of something as a result of an offense is known as punishment :).
Vaginal steaming has significant and scientifically verified health benefits relevant to the USA

See my Round 3 rebuttal for why Pro's picture is irrelevant. It's anecdotal. I remind Pro that they MUST pass in Round 4. If Pro does otherwise, vote Con. SUMMARYArguments & Sources: Pro has failed to present any scientific evidence that vaginal steaming is effective. Con has presented evidence that the opposite is true. You must vote Con, on both sources and arguments. Grammar: Pro has had, by far, the worse grammar, with sentences without periods and uncapitalized starting words.
Vaginal steaming has significant and scientifically verified health benefits relevant to the USA

PRO'S PICTURESMental scarring, anyone?So I Google image searched the images Pro posted.The first appears to show up for "blue waffle" [1]. This is a fictional disease, which is actually just cases of acute vaginitis [2]. There is nothing to link this picture to a failure to vaginally steam.The second appears to show up for "great pu$$y lips from below" [4]. In other words, it's the same kind of thing somebody would search for when horny. There is nothing to link this picture to vaginally steaming.Basically, neither of these images are related to vaginally steaming. They're just images from around the Internet. You can't accept them as evidence of, well, anything.Furthermore, this evidence is not:(1) verified -- no peer review has been done of these pictures(2) significant -- we don't know what the impact is here(3) scientific -- this evidence is 2 pictures, basically anecdotal evidence, not empirical studiesSTEAM FOR A BLUE WAFFLEIn contrast, numerous doctors have pointed out that vaginal steaming can *cause* vaginal infection (and thus lead to the blue waffle picture seen above), can cause steam burns, and can spread STDs (which can lead to the blue waffle picture seen above) [3]. Basically, vaginally steaming can cause the above picture, and not the lower.Vaginal steaming has also been associated with lacerations of the vagina, leading to bleeding [3], which certainly isn't healthy.REFERENCES[1] https://www.google.com...[2] http://www.urbandictionary.com...[3] http://rationalwiki.org...[4] https://www.google.com...