BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Bitcoin mining should be considered earned income by the IRS

c-1. IRS Virtual Currency Guidance : Virtual Currency Is Treated as Property for U.S. Federal Tax Purposes; General Rules for Property Transactions Apply.[1] c-2. Bitcoin is not in any affiliation with the US government or the IRS, so it should not be considered income to mine it. c-3. Bitcoin is a decentralized currency. Taxing bitcoin would be near impossible. It would also apply only to the US in this debate, so someone could take a vacation to Japan and mine bitcoin without taxation. If you mean only considered s income and not taxing bitcoin mining, then other countries do not have to consider bitcoin mining as income, because the IRS only affects the US. a-II. As I have said, if someone mines the bitcoin outside of the country, then this does not apply to them, the other countr(y/ies)'(s) income decision applies. This doesn't mean that the person has to leave the country, it just means the device used to mine the bitcoin does. a-II. Bitcoin mining/transactions are untraceable and would cause more trouble than not to try to trace someone's mining to find their identity. [1]http://www.irs.gov...
Bitcoin mining should be considered earned income by the IRS

I. You earn income by bit coin miningSimple, you earn $ by mining bit coins, therefore, there is no reason people who engage in this practice shouldn't be classified under the same guidelines as regular americans. This is essential for demographical and tax purposes. There is absolutely no contention that can defeat this.II. People will stop getting UI benefits for mining A lot of people have this great idea, where they think they can do X, because Y isn't classified, and recieve Z. Classifying ming as earned income stops people from recieving UI benefits, who are making money.The resolution is so simply stated, that it amazes me this is even still a debate.
Bitcoin mining should be considered earned income by the IRS

Pro is missing the point. If it is considered income in the US, that doesn't make it considered as income in other countries. Therefor taxes can be evaded easily. PROPERTY IS NOT CONSIDERED CURRENCY BY THE IRS. Pro misunderstands my statements. Bitcoin is not affiliated with the United States or the IRS, so it should not be taxed as income. IRS does not tax any other currency than USD. Bitcoin is decentralized and therefor, should not be considered income. They are still unemployed even if they do mine bitcoin. Bitcoin mining is not considered a job/profession. c-1. IRS Virtual Currency Guidance : Virtual Currency Is Treated as Property for U.S. Federal Tax Purposes; General Rules for Property Transactions Apply.[1] READ THE ONE BELOW c-2. Bitcoin is not in any affiliation with the US government or the IRS, so it should not be considered income to mine it. READ THIS ONE OMG READ THE NEXT ONE TOO c-3. Bitcoin is a decentralized currency. Taxing bitcoin would be near impossible. It would also apply only to the US in this debate, so someone could take a vacation to Japan and mine bitcoin without taxation. If you mean only considered s income and not taxing bitcoin mining, then other countries do not have to consider bitcoin mining as income, because the IRS only affects the US. READ THIS ONE OMG a-II. As I have said, if someone mines the bitcoin outside of the country, then this does not apply to them, the other countr(y/ies)'(s) income decision applies. This doesn't mean that the person has to leave the country, it just means the device used to mine the bitcoin does. a-II. Bitcoin mining/transactions are untraceable and would cause more trouble than not to try to trace someone's mining to find their identity. [1]http://www.irs.gov...
Bitcoin mining should be considered earned income by the IRS

I. IRS treats bitcoins as propertyI think my opponent misunderstood his own contention. All this is saying is that bitcoins are a recognized currency and will be liable for tax purposes. The opposition should read his own sources.II/III. Bitcoin affiliation As I said, this argument relies on C1, which is outrageously misunderstood by the opposition. Bitcoins can be exchanged on the currency markets, and can be traded for the USD. Taxation can carry over to other money forms. If you have Pesos,you are required to go to the banks and get that exchanged for the USD.My opponent is attempting to make an argument that since the bitcoin is a virtual currency, people should not be required to pay taxes and continue to recieve benefits from the government. This is silly, and bitcoins can be made into paper money. There is no reason people shouldn't be liable as having no earned income. IV. Tax Evasion My opponent has to stay on topic. This is about labelling mining groups as having earned income. Whether that person is making money in Japan or the US, they are earning income, and should be labelled as such. End of story.V. Tracing Bit CoinsCompletely false. Bit coin miners organize into mining groups, and share revenue as they split bitcoin blocks for money. The bitcoin formula was designed so each miner could hold a share, like a corporation. The more shares you have in bit coin mining, the more power you have in votes for how the mining formula should be changed.Bit coin mining is perfectly traceable on a micro and macro scale. There are dozens of mining offices in the US, and these people weren't paying anything to the governnment, although they were making profit.They should be liable for the same taxes any other company pays. They should be required to have a business certificate. And most of all, they should be required to live up to federal regulations.Vote Prohttp://www.investopedia.com...http://www.investopedia.com...http://www.investopedia.com...
Faith and reason are irreconcilable.

I would just like to use a couple of definitions. Faith -- My definition of faith comes from Hebrews 11:1, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. " (NKJV) As Pro is a Christian himself, using the Biblical definition is appropriate for this debate. My faith in God is not a blind faith, and I will be arguing in this debate that it's not supposed to be. Reason -- A basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc. [1]I look forward to Pro's opening argument. [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com...;
Big Bang Theory ISN'T REAL!!!

To say that the bible is a solid source is like me saying everyone on the Internet tells the truth. Religion is a belief and is not a fact thus making the bible a non credible source in an argument that requires factual evidence. Putting personal beliefs aside while in a debate is the key to seeing the truth. Facts do not lie. I can not say that having a higher power such as God is real because there is not factual evidence of his existence there are only stories passed down just like the game Chinese Whispers (http://en.wikipedia.org...). The Big bang theory has more evidence of its occurrence than there is of a God. There is not a single ounce of proof that can defend the statement from the bible "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." as where there are hundreds upon thousands of pieces of evidence that the universe was created through a type of physics.
Big Bang Theory ISN'T REAL!!!

Take the time to do a little bit of research and you will find the answer about the expanding universe. Galaxies are moving away from us and this is due to expansion. Every galaxy will see other galaxies moving away from them in an expanding universe. Unless the galaxies are bound to the same gravitational pull. Hubble's law exclaims "The distant galaxies we see in all directions are moving away from the earth, the evidence is from their red shifts" http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... Again to imply that there was "nothing" is a bold statement as there is not factual evidence that there was ever nothing. There could very well have always been "something".
Big Bang Theory ISN'T REAL!!!

I am saying that people thinkable universe created itself... It is scientifically impossible for something to be created out of nothing. I am a Christian, I do admit, but, even so, the idea that something came from nothing or the Universe expanding is virtually imposable... The universe expanding on its own can't be done. I am not one to fight, but to debate, but... Please, tell me, how can something (The universe) either 1) Be created out of nothing or2) Something (Universe) expand on its own
Big Bang Theory ISN'T REAL!!!

The Big Bang theory is nothing more than a theory about the universe expanding. The universe was in a very high density state when it expanded. We have evidence that approximately 13.8 billion years ago this event occurred and thus created the age of the universe. Now if you disagree with that then explain to me how physics works. Also in 1964 Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation was discovered. This is thermal radiation that can date back to the same time as the Big Bang and is also known as the oldest light in the universe which dates back to epoch of recombination. http://astronomy.swin.edu.au... Something coming from nothing is a very opinionated statement. Is there any proof that were was ever "nothing" or was there always something that formed through evolution. Your statement has no support to it just as evolution has no support to it because it is only a theory.
There is no book as extraordinary as the Bible

My adversaries statements are irrelevant and not applicable to the resolution of the debate Why I believe the bible is not extraordinary is irrelevant, I just have to verify that I do believe it is not the most extraordinary book ever. Since this is subjective, I can make that assertion based on my personal thoughts and preferences. Which I have done My adversary has failed to show the bible is the most extraordinary book ever in every possible mind, but just that it is the most extraordinary book in his mind. To make an objective statement such as "It is the most extraordinary book ever", that must be applied objectively across the board. He has failed to show this is the case, nor will be able to verify this The resolution is not upheld and he has not held up his end of the BOP. I have shown that it is not the most extraordinary book ever in every possible mind, therefore the objective statement is falsified.
There is no book as extraordinary as the Bible

Perhaps my initial claim was not sufficiently clear, but I was clear enough in round 3. My adversary fails to comprehend that his opinion is irrelevant without argument. I do not have to change anyone's mind here. But why don't you tell us why you don't find the Bible extraordinary? Because you are an atheist? Then you might perhaps benefit from the debate I am having with Ozzie "God is real". You have misunderstood, and really, regardless of what the majority think, even if they voted for you as the winner, really who has given the arguments to prove his point? You, sir, are not debating. Just twisting my words in a way you find convenient. And I don't waste my time debating with people like you.
There is no book as extraordinary as the Bible

My adversary has failed to address the initial claim and failed to properly refute my contentions Again lets review this [P1] I think any book (lets use the dictionary) is more extraordinary than the bible. [P2] Since its true in my mind, its true in any possible mind due to its subjective nature [C] The bible is not the most extraordinarily book ever. For my adversary to win he must show the bible is extraordinary in every possible mind, and not just in his mind. His entire round just validated why its extraordinarily to him and to me or countless others. Any argument that can be presented, has been presented, or will be presented is directly relevant to his thoughts and is subjective. He would have to show the bible is is more extraordinary in my mind, than any other possible book that I could like. This is not possible because I do not find it extraordinary.
There is no book as extraordinary as the Bible

I am going to work off this initial syllogism and stay with it [P1] If any book besides the bible is as extraordinary as the bible or more extraordinary than the bible the resolution is negated. [P2] what is extraordinary is subjective, so if any possible possible person believes the bible is not the most extraordinary book the resolution is negated. [P3] I don't believe the bible is the most extraordinary book, the resolution is indeed negated. In defense of P1 If there is any possible book that has ever existed or that currently exists that is just as extraordinary as the bible or even more extraordinary than the bible, my adversary looses. He must show that the bible is the most extraordinary book and surpasses all other books. In defense of P2 Extraordinary is subjective concept in and of itself. What qualifies as extraordinary to my adversary may not qualify as extraordinary to someone else. If any possible person or mind exists that does not consider the bible extraordinary, the bible is not extraordinary to that person and the resolution is negated. He must show that it is objectively extraordinary within every possible mind. Conclusion I don't think the bible is extraordinary along with countless other people. The resolution is negated.
There is no book as extraordinary as the Bible

I see you are a professional debater; this should be interesting. To begin with let us compare the historical accuracy of our books. I understand you are an atheist so you don't necessarily need to believe in the book you choose. But it must be a holy book claiming to be from God. The Bible is historically accurate and reliable. Its accounts are specific. They include not only the names but also the ancestry of individuals. In contrast to secular historians, who often do not mention the defeats of their own people, Bible writers were honest, even recording their own failings and those of their nation. For example, in the Bible book of Numbers the writer Moses admits his own serious error for which he was severely reproved (Numbers 20:2-12). Such honesty is rare in other historical accounts but is found in the Bible because it is a book from God. Two of the greatest 20th-century archaeologists, William F. Albright and Nelson Glueck, both lauded the Bible (even though they were non-Christian and secular in their training and personal beliefs) as being the single most accurate source document from history. Over and over again, the Bible has been found to be accurate in its places, dates, and records of events. No other "religious" document comes even close. The Bible has become a significant source book for secular archaeology, helping to identify such ancient figures as Sargon (Isaiah 20:1); Sennacherib (Isaiah 37:37); Horam of Gazer (Joshua 10:33); Hazar (Joshua 15:27); and the nation of the Hittites (Genesis 15:20). The biblical record, unlike other "scriptures," is historically set, opening itself up for testing and verification. The 19th-century critics used to deny the historicity of the Hittites, the Horites, the Edomites, and various other peoples, nations, and cities mentioned in the Bible. Those critics have long been silenced by the archaeologist"s spade, and few critics dare to question the geographical and ethnological reliability of the Bible. The names of over 40 different kings of various countries mentioned in the Bible have all been found in contemporary documents and inscriptions outside of the Old Testament, and are always consistent with the times and places associated with them in the Bible. Nothing exists in ancient literature that has been even remotely as well-confirmed in accuracy as has the Bible.
There is no book as extraordinary as the Bible

I have mentioned this in previous similar debates and I say it again, faith should be genuine, based on facts, and able to stand to scrutiny. I am a Jehovah's Witness. I am very satisfied with my faith because it fits the description of genuine faith, and I am completely certain that there is no book as extraordinary as the Bible. In this debates I will give my reasons for coming to this conclusion and hope that most of the audience agrees with me. In this debate it is expected from my opponent to talk about at least one book, preferably one he believes to be the word of God, and how it is equally or more extraordinary than the Bible. Round 1: I (pro) have mentioned what book I believe in and Con should do the same. Round 2: The books' historical accuracy will be compared. Round 3: The books' scientific accuracy will be compared. Round 4: The books' practical wisdom will be compared. Round 5: Conclusion
There is no need to help preserve the Earth or the Ozone Layer.

I think that here is no need to help preserve the Earth or the Ozone Layer. I appreciate the opponent's opinion and point of view. I'm not trying to prove anything, but gather an opinion, in a critical and free-thinking way. I only ask for good sportsmanship and a happy debate. People have always been whining about how the earth is being hurt and we need to help. They say we need to go green and help the earth, by doing stuff like planting trees. They think that we need to cut off our use of fossil fuels, which supposedly will harm the plant life and ozone layer. I think it's a load of trash. How do you disagree?
There is no need to help preserve the Earth or the Ozone Layer.

Quite interesting, my friend. I have a few answers and opinions for you. I'm quite sure, when Earth is gone, there won't be any other place to survive on. That wasn't the point of the debate. I'm not sure why you changed the subject. The point of this debate, is that there is no need to help preserve the Earth or the Ozone Layer. Shouldn't you be debating about that? You confuse me.
There is no need to help preserve the Earth or the Ozone Layer.

I both agree, and disagree with your argument. This will become evident as the debate progresses. For this first round, I would simply like to clarify one point. I am not worried about hurting the earth for the earth's sake. What I worry about, and you should as well, is what happens to us when we hurt the planet we live on. When it is no longer inhabitable, where will we go? If we can't live on our own planet, would we be able to live on Mars? I realize that I did not directly answer the challenge put forward by you. I felt I needed to clarify my own main view, before launching into the facts and figures of how the earth is actually being hurt. See ya in round two. This is my first debate on here, so I'm sorta making this up as I go along.
Country folks are better than city folks

1. Urban schooling is superior 2. Hip hop is not intrinsically bad, nor unique to urban areas 3. Low ride cars are not intrinsically bad 1. Urban schooling is superior. Urban schools have more resources and can better help students prepare for real world challenges. Urban school systems offer, on average, over twice as many co-curricular activities, and almost twice as many extracurriculars. They also spend about $3,500 per pupil every year, while rural districts spend about $2,500. On top of these reasons, urban schools are usually more diverse and prepare their students for interaction with members of many other demographics. 2. Hip Hop music is not bad, nor is it specific to cities. Hip hop music, by nature, is no worse than other forms of musical expression. Those who say it contains too many references to drugs, sex, and other explicit content obviously are not aware of these references in other forms of music. For example, "Save a Horse, Ride a Cowboy," a wildly popular country song, is entirely about sex. Drugs are referenced in country music very often as well. Alcohol is a theme in a large number of country songs, and is one of the most abused drugs in the world. On top of that, WIllie Nelson, a prominent figure in country and folk music, is a major advocate for marijuana use. Hip hop is also non unique to cities, as it has made its way into suburban areas, as well as some rural areas as well. 3. Low ride cars are no different in nature than lifted trucks, a common vehicle in rural areas.
Is infinity possible

if something was infinite, lets say the universe, everything that can exist exists including theese to things: 1.A wall or barrier that's stops it, and behind the barrier is nothing, since this can possibly, while improbably exist, according to our definition this is a possible outcome therefore, it must exist, and therefore it is not infiltrate, which means the wall or barrier may not exist. This creates a paradox, and if it creates a paradox, it must not be correct. 2. If all possible outcomes exist than why has nothing destroyed everything. In an infinite universe something capable of destroying all of it must exist, and therefore it can't exist for any amount of time. Unless you want to argue that it is not possible for an object to destroy an infinite universe, in that case let's make the same argument about earth. A possible thing at can exist, and thus exists in an infinite universe. Is a comet destined to hit earth 5 seconds from when you read this. So if a comet hits earth in he next 5 seconds the universe is infinite, if not its finite.
Is infinity possible

Infinity must exist because no wall or barrier can prevent it from existing. When you construct a limit to the universe, then, there is always an area outside of that limit which has not been taken into consideration. Also, just because you can't see infinity doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Infinity goes forever outwards and forever inwards. You can stop infinity or put any limitations on how far or how small it may be. It is only the limitations of the human mind to comprehend infinity that is the major problem. Human ego doesn't allow the universe to be infinite. This is too intimidating a concept for humans to contemplate. Thus, they construct artificial barriers to contain the universe into an acceptable size that is not too intimidating for their egos to accept. Currently scientists believe that the universe is 93 billion light years wide because that's as far as their instruments can reach. http://phys.org...