BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Progressive Tax

Introduction I would like to begin by thanking my opponent, Danielle, for responding to my challenge and accepting what I believe to be an intriguing debate. I would like to define a few key terms before I begin my main argument. Wikipedia – which is not necessarily always unreliable - states that, “A progressive tax is a tax where the tax rate increases as the taxable base amount increases.” I would like to clarify that this is the exact topic we are debating. Main Argument I do not begin to fathom how anyone could – for any reason – oppose the notion of a progressive tax. It ensures economic prosperity and justice. It guarantees success financially, not only for citizens, but also for businesses and other organizations. “Our economic policies since 1984 have failed by almost every conceivable measure, including those used to justify them. It’s time to try a new direction – one that might include a more progressive tax system,” Well Sharp states. Alan D. Viard of the American Enterprise Institute reports, “If current tax and budget policies are maintained, spending on Medicare, Medicaid and other health programs and, to a lesser extent, Social Security will grow much more rapidly than federal revenue during the upcoming decades. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) laid out the grim arithmetic in its June 2011 analysis of the longterm budget outlook.” These quotes from articles cited in my bibliography suggest a progressive tax to be economically a good solution to spending issues and a good economic stimulant. Viard continues to explain benefits of a progressive tax: “Due to the political obstacles that either party would face acting alone, the fiscal imbalance is most likely to be addressed in a series of bipartisan agreements. These will include both tax increases and cuts to entitlement spending, particularly Social Security and Medicare benefits. Federal tax revenue will rise above its 18.4 percent average share of GDP. Although entitlement spending will increase as a share of GDP, it will grow more slowly than CBO current-policy projections. A key part of the entitlement cuts will involve requiring recipients of Medicare and the other health programs to pay a larger share of their own health care costs; schemes to reduce the overall level of health care costs are unlikely to yield big results.” According to Viard and other experts, a progressive tax will help accomplish economic success even after cuts have been made to key programs. My argument is rather weak and this is the first time I debated this topic. I do admit that fact. However, I hope my opponent considers the facts I presented. I now close my argument and allow my opponent to commence. MLA Citations "Progressive tax." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2014. <http://en.wikipedia.org...;. Viard, Alan D.. "Benefits of a progressive consumption tax." American Enterprise Institute . Southwest Economy, 14 Mar. 2012. Web. 25 Apr. 2014. <http://www.aei.org...;. "Progressive taxation - good for the economy, for society, and for the environment." well sharp. well sharp, 29 May 2009. Web. 25 Apr. 2014. <http://wellsharp.wordpress.com...;.
Progressive Tax

In this debate, I will argue in favor of Progressive Tax. My opponent will argue against it. The debate structure is the following: Round One: My opponent will accept the debate.Round Two: Both debaters will present their main arguments. Round Three: Both debaters will offer rebuttals and any final arguments.Round Four: Both debaters will offer final rebuttals and conclusion paragraphs. The rules are the below:1. Sources will be cited using either the MLA, APA, or Chicago format.2. There will be no forfeiting.3. Proper spelling and grammar will be used.I now allow this debate to commence.
stop trans fat in schools Nutritional service

my opponent misjudged my motive in this debate. the motive of this debate is not to ban trans fat for obesity only but to ban trans fat in order to prevent other harmful effects and the solution. some of the effects are listed as in: heart problem bad eating habits. going back to my first point, hearth problem. Trans fat raises your "bad" (LDL) cholesterol and lowers your "good" (HDL) cholesterol making it unhealthy to the heart when it comes to fat, trans fat is considered by some doctors to be the worst of them all because of its double-barreled impact on your cholesterol levels. according to a mayo clinic article 2009, "A high LDL cholesterol level in combination with a low HDL cholesterol level increases your risk of heart disease, the leading killer of men and women. Eating transfat also increases your chances of stroke. my opponent makes the statement "Many things are bad for you and yet they are not banned. One example would be cigarettes. " however the student has a choice of smoking cigarette but the student has no choice whatsoever in the schools menu. secondly we have bad eating habits. everyday children are been educated on there eating habits but no steps are taking to ensure that these kids are getting healthy foods. our schools are meant to be a place were role model is taught. if we keep on serving transfat, our many schools would be going against this role and causing many kids to go out and buy many trans fat contaminated foods. yes I agree that noting is to stop these kids from consuming this much unhealthy foods but we can provide a good structured foundations for our next generation. a solution to get rid of trans in our schools includes advertisement. just like we advertise sports shoes and many order goods, we could advertise the danger of trans fat thereby reducing the amount of trans fat our kids consume. for these reasons we could find the flaws in transfat and reduce its effect and the amount of consumption. . http://www.mayoclinic.com... . http://www.heart.org... . http://www.personalbest5.com...
stop trans fat in schools Nutritional service

Trans fat has been a growing problem in our schools and still we are able to sit and ignore this problem. Trans fat limits were also addressed in local wellness policies. Schools across America were mandated to develop and implement local school wellness policies as part of the 2004 Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act. According to SNA analysis, wellness policy language on trans fat varies with some districts stating they will 'limit trans fats in meals and food items,' while some set the limit that no more than 10% of calories over one week of lunch menus could come from trans fat and saturated fat combined. Others require labeling of trans fat on menus or limit trans fat to no more than 1 gram per serving. Most included these limits for school meals, a la crate and vending. I stand here to affirm the topic that trans fat should be abolished in our schools nutrition system for the following reasons: obesity obesity is the number one problem in our school system and we fail to recognize this. the fact that our generation is so obese has led many scholars to call us the "Obese generation". we must realize that this is affecting our children and we must make a change and soon to avoid our future leaders to die of hearth disease. the role of the school is to prevent obesity in our children's lives but they go against this and increase obesity in there lives. obesity is caused by a bad eating habit which the school system authorizes and enhances.
tax increases r inevitable and will be the most responsible thing to do.

As I have previously explained, almost all retirees receive pensions from previous employers, as well as from family and friends. Reducing the living cost of retirees will, first of all, benefit the retiree a lot more than welfare and government pensions. Moreover, there is absolutely no evidence of side pro's claim, which is that a large percentage of retirees depend on welfare. In fact, retirees have some of the highest net worths in our society (1). The idea that we have promised things such welfare is clearly untrue. Government as an institution promises nothing; people promise things. Only families have the duty and the authority to support older generations. With that said, I would like to point out that side pro's argument is completely predicated upon the campaign promises of politicians. Welfare and medicare only serve a political agenda and in no way benefit the populous. Good luck with your closing arguments, Con
tax increases r inevitable and will be the most responsible thing to do.

The raising of federal taxes is in many ways, similar to encouraging the growth and expansion of an already inefficient and cumbersome ie. the current US government. I would like to first point out a few mistakes in side pro's argument which presupposes that things such as medicare and social security are necessary to the country. These "services" are, in fact, neither necessary nor helpful to anyone (not even those who are supposed to benefit from medicare and SS. Now, to present my constructive argument, I would like to say that most of the services provided by the government can actually be provided by private enterprises, which have a track record of providing significantly better services. Rather than heavily taxing those who create jobs, as well as the families who are living paycheck to paycheck, we can instead reduce the tax burden by reducing the size of government as well as the unnecessary services provided by the government. To rebut some of side pro's points: 1. If government were to stop handouts as well as social security, a serious tax burden would be lifted, meaning more jobs and more job opportunities. 2. Privatization happens quickly in the absence of government monopolies on services. Side pro's point is null. 3. Retirees are not, in any way, kept alive by the government but rather by family and work pensions. In fact, lower taxes also mean lower tax burdens on retirees. Thank you. Back to you, side pro.
tax increases r inevitable and will be the most responsible thing to do.

raising federal taxes will be inevitable and be the most responsible thing to do the things that make up by far most of the budget are too hard to cut, and we shouldn't be cutting them too much anyway. social security, medicare, interest on the debt, defense, all make up over ninety percent of our budget. even if you wiped out the rest of the government, which would be the height off irresponsibility, you still couldn't even balance the budget, which is five hundred billion dollars. the budget is four trillion, simple math proves my point. if you were to cut into defense majorly and cut the rest by say ten percent, you might be able to balance the budget. but within the next ten years the deficit will double, and there wouldn't be enough places to cut. tax increases are inevitable and will be the most responsible thing to do. if you say we should privative social security an medicare you have to say how you will fund current and near retirees. privatization is a long term idea, not here and now
tax increases r inevitable and will be the most responsible thing to do.

People do not "depend" in any sense upon welfare.People depend on people.We live in a society that grows as its people develop both economically and culturally. The proposition at hand today is, at its core, a political effort to increase government involvement in the lives of low income families. Not only is this unhelpful to the current economic situation in the US, but it utterly destroys the independence of families currently receive welfare. Government, in this case, is a parasite that leeches off of the income of those who create jobs and ruins those who take jobs. This, sadly, is the current state of our country.By voting against side proposition today, you will have voted for the alternative, which is a system in which people are provided with the opportunity to find jobs and grow as individuals. People want to maximize their own potential, so it should be government's role to let them do so. Let's not destroy the economic independence of hardworking families and make sure that we do not tax the very people who are in need of breaks.Pertaining to the issue of medicare, side Pro has clearly not seen the horrors of a nationalized "healthcare". Patients have to wait more than 11 months for basic treatment here in Canada. The number of people thrown to the curb and left to die in this system is absolutely and irrefutably deplorable.The only promise of a responsible government is to never do harm to its people, a promise that the current US government has not kept.The defining question is as follows: Should man depend on man or should man depend on government?
tax increases r inevitable and will be the most responsible thing to do.

the following article says poor people depend on social security. pointing out that many do not need it is ridiculous in trying to prove it's an unnecesary program. the article also says the following. "Currently, 36 percent of retirees rely on Social Security for 90 percent or more of their income" if the average social security is 1300, and they rely on nienty percent of it, their income is only 139 without social security. plus all the people who get the minimum around seven hundred have no other sources, and this also includes the disabled, whom i know many personally, with that minimum number their only income. you can argue family should try to support them, but dont try to pretend people dont rely on it. and con is just wrong, the government made a promise. if the government passed a law to sell cars, and you paid twenty thousand for a new car, wouldn't you be pissed if they backed out? wouldn't it be a broken promise on their part? of course it would. maybe you and me can agree that we can cut a lot of it for higher income people, but even if you cut the program in half, you are merely balancing the budget at best, and not being able to pay for the budget when the deficit soon doubles as it's expected to do. and then there's medicare, privatizing that is akin to just taking poeple's healthcare away and letting them die. con offers highly immoral and irresposible ideas. hence it's the most responsible thing to do to raise taxes.
(Pro) Goku Vs (Con) The Hulk

Resolution - Goku Vs The HulkThis is a shared BOP. Where I will defend that Goku could beat the Hulk and my adversary will defend that the Hulk could beat Goku. RoundsPro(1) Rules(2) Contentions(3) Contentions/Rebuttals/Closing StatementsCon (1) Contentions(2) Contentions/Rebuttals /Closing Statements(3) Shall type only "no round as agreed upon" and nothing elseRules(1) Failure to type no round as agreed upon will result in a full 7 point loss due to my adversary having an extra round. This means that if any other words are typed besides the aforementioned ones, my adversary will FF the entire debate with a 7 point loss. (2) 10k character limits. (3) No semantics or trolling/ this will result in a ff
Homosexuals and every other sexual has rights like everyone else

I agree with you that we are not currently dependent on reproduction for survival but currently in the US, we are around a growth rate of 1% which is actually pretty good but unfortunately this would decrease with the full equality to them. Additionally, i agree that if they aren't openly gay then we won't know in the first place, well that's true and i may be misinterpreting your message with this so i'll wait to refute this. Once again, are you arguing moral standards among gender equality or arguing gender sexual preference? With today's science, you are born as one gender and even the best sex-change operations aren't enough to completely convert you to the opposite gender and what I mean by this is that, if you are born male, you will never be able to give birth. Morally speaking, its to preserve peace if you fully extinguish the concept of gender boundaries due to personal preference, then what would stop someone from picking a gender identity one day and another gender the next (using day to represent an interval of time rather then strictly 24 hours) due to its a state of psychological and emotional mentality that does have the possibility of changing. Furthermore, you discuss if people are happy with themselves and not hurting anyone why should we force them to be someone they are not; scientifically speaking they are what biology makes them; male and female suppose to reproduce with the opposite gender, whether they want to believe it or not, they are. Now luckily, our legal system isn't strictly based off of scientific standards, its also founded upon moral principles which typically are developed from society. Based off of statistics, we know that 78.4% of US Adult Citizens are Christians [1], which follow the Bible which specifically states that homosexuality is an abomination (Leviticus 18:22). Now based off of these two principles, it would be scientifically and morally wrong to provide equal legal rights.
Homosexuals and every other sexual has rights like everyone else

Good point con, but we aren't dependent at reproduction for our survival the time. This means that those who are not heterosexual can freely choose who they want to be with. If they aren't openly gay then we won't know in the first place that they are. Who are we to judge someone, not by their actions or religion for the matter but how they feel their gender role should be. If they are happy with themselves, and not hurting anyone why should we force them to be someone they are not?
Homosexuals and every other sexual has rights like everyone else

Ignoring religion for the sake of this debate in regards to creationism vs darwinism, I will base my reasoning off of our science which shows that humans are merely animals and should follow the laws of evolution which dictate natural selection. Based off of this principle, our motive for living is to increase our chance at survival to have the ability to produce more offspring [1]. Performing any other sexual preference besides heterosexual actions would mean a negative effect towards the chance of reproduction, which their change in role makes them unqualified for improving the human genetically. Furthermore, marriage is a religious affiliation and was defined originally from the Bible, altering this definition to accommodate to modern preferences would be breaking the freedom of religion specified in the Constitution by legally redefining a key aspect of their religion. Additionally, in the Bible it specifies that the act of marriage must be, between a man and a woman plus condemning acts of homosexuality. www.whatislife.com/glossary.htm
Homosexuals and every other sexual has rights like everyone else

I would like to accept the argument though I would first like to claim that my voice in this debate doesn't specify me as supporting or opposing equal rights among sexual orientations outside of the debate. Next, I would like to define the conditions or variables to this debate in that; Us: Heterosexuals Different from us: People who practice non-heterosexual preferences. This excludes people such as pansexuals, bisexuals, etc who live lives through heterosexual acts. Treated Normally: Have the same legal rights in the United States of America
The U.S should ban guns

Since I did have more time to argue against con's case and rebuild mine, I think that it is only ethical to pass this round from any more rebuttals or case-strengthening. I wouldn't vote me down for this round, I just think its most fair to Tajshar2k if I decide to not continue my advantage until the very end.But, I can tell you how to make your decision: weigh our impacts in terms of their actual impact, not just their amount (1 major impact is more important than 3 minor ones, for instance). My opponent (given that his case still stands) has: part of our culture, military & police need them, self defense, economy, non-practicality. I have (given that my case still stands): war, domestic violence, democracy is in shambles, suppression of Oedipus and the creation of the in-home slavery (this was actually dropped so it should be weighed on my side no matter what), and so on.Thanks Tajshar2k, sorry that my case made me on your no-more-debating list, I hoped to have fun on this website for once.
The Death Penalty is wrong

Imagine this scenario: A man is accused of murdering 12 people The evidence is a strand of hair with his DNA on it. He is convicted and given the death penalty. Ten years later, forensic scientists determine that the hair was not from him, but from another person, using a more advanced form of DNA testing. The man would not be able to be released, and the judge and forensic scientists wold have to live with the guild of killing an innocent man. That could happen, and it had happened in the past.
The Death Penalty is wrong

The death penalty isn't the same as murder. Murder is killing someone, usually innocent, for personal gain. However, the death penalty is used to make sure that very dangerous criminals are not allowed to kill innocents in society again. Also, the method used in the death penalty is very carefully tested to make sure it is painless and quick. Currently, the method most used is lethal injection, which is relatively humane. A commonly used drug is sodium thiopental, which is used as an anesthetic when given in lower doses. At a lethal dose, the prisoner would not feel anything (1). Again, the death penalty is only used in spare cases, and so should be left as an option of last resort. (1): http://listverse.com...
The Death Penalty is wrong

My points are as follows: 1. Crime and Punishment- Crimes must be punished, or else the criminal will repeat the crime. For most crimes, smaller punishments are enough in order to deter the criminal from committing a crime again. Pro has stated that two wrongs do not make a right, yet punishment is not a wrong when in the hands of fair justice. The death penalty is just a extreme form of punishment, only meted out when strictly necessary. 2. Protecting Innocents- The death penalty is necessary only in rare cases, where other punishment is not enough. Some criminals' crimes are so severe that it is very dangerous to keep them alive. For example, a murderer who has killed dozens of innocent citizens might be sentenced to death. Obviously, this murderer must be punished in order to make sure that other people aren't harmed again. This murderer who has a blatant disregard for human life does not deserve to live. The death penalty is not used for revenge or any dark purpose, it is only to ensure that the criminal cannot harm innocent people again. 3. Fairness of the Law- The law in present times is very fair. Proof and evidence is needed in order to sentence someone to death. Pro has mentioned the Salem Witch Trials, which is not applicable in present day. People are innocent until proven guilty, and the death penalty is only used when it is certain that the criminal has committed the crime. After all, the death penalty is only the solution for extreme cases. Based on these points, I am arguing that the death penalty should be kept as an option for extreme cases. It should be sparingly used, but still open as an option for when necessary.
The Christians should have their own non-secular state

Most of Brian's points are correct, just one thing here: "because the infighting would be so intense, the Christians would have no time or energy left to threaten their neighbouring states. " No matter what he situation, Christians would fine way to threaten their neighbouring states. Whether by an invading army or missionaries knocking on the door of neighbours at 10am on a Saturday, a Christen state would always pose a threat to neighbouring countries. Thank you
The Christians should have their own non-secular state

I do agree that there may be tensions between different Christian factions in a non-secular Christian state and that disputes may well turn violent and bloody, but this a good thing. You see, many Christians are opposed to contraception and abortions so without culling each other the population would explode. Also, because the infighting would be so intense, the Christians would have no time or energy left to threaten their neighbouring states. Thank you.