BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Taxes are Extortion and Theft

If the demand of payment is for services and privileges someone did not ask to receive or cannot opt out of, this is still extortion. To counter your analogy, if McDonald's were the only fast food restaurant in a given area, delivered their food unasked for to people under threat of a theft charge if they did not pay, and had those arrested who refused to pay up, that would be the situation. Many of the people delivered to might, in fact, enjoy McDonald's food. They might not even object to buying it under other circumstances. However, behaving this way is still extortion and theft, whether the service delivered would otherwise in fact be desired or not. That a person is free to move hardly changes the fact, especially as they will certainly find similar operations in place there. As for the legality argument, any behavior could theoretically be made legal. The question is, if the act were done the same way in any other circumstance, would it be extortion and theft? The answer is obviously yes, as the laws punish such acts specifically if any other entity commits them, and common definitions regard it the same. It is an open question if all your tax payments return to you in the form of government services. I doubt whether for instance bailing out a failing company through taxpayer money can be considered a "service" to us. Many other similar examples can be thought of. Being a medium to store value does not make money any less property. Regardless, my definition of extortion includes money without any reference to this.
Taxes are Extortion and Theft

Taxes are not extortion because taxes are a form of payment in return for services and privileges. Services: national defense, welfare, education etc.Privileges: citizenship, permission to live within the country etc.Now, since a person can choose whether or not to live in the country (or a certain state) it is not extortion. Saying taxes is extortion is like eating a McDonald's hamburger and then saying that you shouldn't have to pay. If you don't pay then you'll be fined and maybe jailed for a time. This fine isn't theft, it's a fine for a penalty.You are free to live within the United States but you are also free to leave at anytime and move elsewhere. Therefore, taxes are not extortion because you are receiving services for your payments. Not paying taxes is akin to refusing to pay for any private sector services. Taxes to not equate to theft because the taking is not unlawful. You are required to pay taxes by law in return for various services and therefore are not theft. Also, the government has no intention of depriving you of your belongings permanently because your money comes back to you in the form of services. In the case of seizing property this is usually done for collateral for tax evasion or until taxes are paid and therefore have no intention of taking it permanently. Also, money does not count as property since it is only a medium to store value. For these reasons, taxes are not extortion nor theft. Taxes are a payment for services.
Taxes are Extortion and Theft

I will present my argument in the form of a syllogism. Premise 1: Extortion is the act of securing money, favors, etc. by intimidation or violence. Theft is the taking of property belonging to another person with the intention of depriving the owner permanently of its possession. Premise 2: A tax is a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc. Taxes are demanded under threat of fines and imprisonment for failure to pay them. Conclusion: If a person accedes to this demand and pays, it is extortion. If they do not, it becomes theft as the state will forcibly seize their property, along with a fine and or imprisonment as penalty. Taxes thus are extortion and theft. In accepting this debate, my opponent agrees to the definitions provided. Failure to abide by this should result in a loss of conduct points from voters. Forfeit of any or all rounds is a concession, and should result in loss of the debate points. Good luck to anyone who accepts this. Sources: Extortion: http://dictionary.reference.com... (Definition in World English Dictionary entry near the bottom) Tax: http://dictionary.reference.com... Theft: http://dictionary.reference.com... (Definition in World English Dictionary entry near the bottom)
shooting people

Shooting people isn't always against the law nor is it always used in a bad way. Shooting people is simply another way to defend oneself, a way to hunt, a way to fight wars. ect. ect. If we stopped shooting guns altogether then there would be a lot of uproar because the war effort would fail, hunters would be having a lot of trouble hunting, and citizens would want a way to defend themselves from those who aren't so keen to follow the law.
Driving age should not change.

For this round I want to look quickly at the idea that if the driving age was raised then teens would not be able to get the needed driving experience. Most states allow teens to get their permit at age 15. There are a few that have it at age 14. If the age were raised to 18 that would give teenage drivers 3-4 years to get the much need driving experience they need. http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_license_in_the_United_States
Driving age should not change.

Receiving a drivers license is a privilege. It is not a right. Frank J. Kane v. The State of New Jersey.Donald S. Miller v. the California Department of Motor VehiclesThe Teenage BrainThere are some interesting facts about the brain of a teenager. There is an almond shaped region of the brain called the amygdala. The amygdala is responsible for emotional responses. It is also responsible for aggressive reactions. This part of the brain develops early. The prefrontal cortex is responsible for reasoning. This part of the brain is still developing in a teenager. In essense a teenager is overly emotional, but less likely to think before acting. If any voter wants an example of this...just read some of my opponent's statements in this debate and on this poll....http://www.debate.org.... My opponent should not worry or be offended by this as they can not help it. This combination a more developed amygdala (emotions) and an underdeveloped PFC (reasoning) leads to some common traits from teens. Teens tend to act impulsively and engage in risky behavior. Teens are much less likely to consider the consequences of their actions or to change actions that are dangerous or inappropriate.This is not the mind frame of someone that should be controlling an automobile. Why? Because of this mixture teens are more likely to underestimate dangerous situations or not recognize them at all. Teenagers are also more likely to speed and are less likely to wear their seat belts. http://www.aacap.org...http://science.howstuffworks.com...http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...http://www.psychologytoday.com...http://www.cdc.gov...Some Stats On Teenage Drivers in the USSeven teens die every day due to automobile crashes. In fact, automobile accidents are the number one cause of death for teens. Teenagers have more accidents then any other age group. 1 in 5 of all 16 year old drivers will have a wreck their first year driving. Teens make up 10% of the total population, but 12% of total auto fatalities. Teenagers are three times more likely to have a fatal accident.http://www.cdc.gov...http://www.autos.com...https://www.dosomething.org...Teenage drivers pose a significant risk to both themselves and other drivers. Raising the minimum age for obtaining a license to drive gives them more time to practice their driving skills under supervision.
Driving age should not change.

Some states are raising their driving age to 17 and even possibly 21 which does not make me happy cus I am 14 and am so exited to get my license in 2 years. I mean congress does not need to lower the age but the age being raised all the way to 21. OMG do you know what your doing to us, I mean teens get summer jobs that happen to be miles away and your making us wait until were 21??? And then theres college and marriage age is 20 thats when couples can have children, and now your taking away there rights and they cant get jobs to support their families, they cant see loved ones that live in a different state, and I mean 21 is the drinking age so basically we'll have even MORE God damnn reckless drivers which is the least we want.
Islam on Jesus

Hello all. There are three logical ways anyone can interpret Jesus, if they believe he historically existed. This doesn't necessarily have to apply to Muslims. HE WAS THE SON OF GOD This is fairly self explanatory, one of the ways the Muslims could interpret Jesus would be to believe what he said and worship him as the son of God, but since they rejected that what are the other two options? HE WAS A LUNATIC If the first definition is denied then Jesus was a lunatic. He was a man who ran around telling people that he was the son of god, if this isn't true then he must be crazy. He cannot be worshiped as just great prophet, if he wasn't the son of God like he claimed to be then he is bat-bloody insane. Jesus would be no more of a worshipable prophet then the homeless guy down at the gas station who tell you the end is near. HE WAS A LIAR Maybe Jesus wasn't a lunatic-maybe he was just lying. If that's the case then he was the worst heretic this world has ever seen. He has led billions of people astray, in full knowledge of what he was doing. Why Muslims would think a guy who did this is a great prophet is unimaginable to me. If Muslims deny the first options then they must assume one of the other two. There is no room for this "Oh he was a great prophet" business. If you deny that Jesus was God then he must have been a lunatic or a liar. The Muslims who interpret Jesus as a good prophet are wrong, and the truth lies in one of the three options. I propose.
Islam on Jesus

The resolution is still supported because Muslims SHOULD believe that Jesus claimed to be the son of God, and claimed to have divine powers and authority, the evidence is overwhelming. Sources: King James Bible John 8:58 - "Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.'" John 10:30-33 - "I and the Father are one." 31 The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" 33 The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." Muslims should acknowledge that Jesus claimed to be the son of God, and cannot be regarded in respectful light by the religion of Islam
Ironman vs Batman

To conclude we simply need to look to who had the most loose ends and who best defended their heros abilities. I am thrilled that Pro found the direct quote and I apologize for assuming he didn't and for my inability to find it. I would also like to note though, we never said that time was a factor in sources. If I use original batman comics to back my case that seems fair. I can't think of a reason why that is not just. Final note before I place voting arguments, I started by saying that emp's and freeze rays were hypothetically unfair. Then Pro wanted to include them in the debate "Con claimed that the EMP's and freeze rays were an unfair example, I say bring them on because I can actually defend Ironman with facts. " So I then agreed and began refutation and argumentation. I think it is ludicrous that in round 5 Pro can just claim they can not be included. I obviously reject the fight presented and the reason why is that all the weapons and points that Pro has ignored or never adressed have been left out entirely. So let us take a final look at the points pro has yet to cover or refute. 1. Cryogenic charge batarangs: have never been addressed, so freeze ray or not iron man's systems have to fight the freeze. 2. remote control: Pro ignored in his story that as the fight is going on the bat jet of mobile can function as autonomous individuals causing 3 directions of attack. 3. The sonic bat storm: I hate to have to site this again but pro has never made any legitimate claims as to how he will deal with this. Even with his source it doesn't refute that thermals,heartbeat, and ultrasound would be useless. 4. The glass: I made the point in about 2-3 separate rounds that the life source of iron man is only defended by a thick glass casing which could be destroyed by explosives or freezing and shattering. 5. Combat: although pro did give some examples of how Iron man can fight close range he never really refutes my claim on Irom man's weight being easily low enough for batman to punish. 6. Gotham: pro accepted that the fight be in gotham at night but never really acknowledge batmans knowledge of the city 7. Paranoia and rage: Pro completely drops these points as I provided evidence of corruption and called sources for the rage faults. I would think that con solidly disproves. We see that these factors make batman have a decided edge and eventually, if not swiftly, win. Thank you to any readers, commenters , or voters.
Ironman vs Batman

I have been arguing with many people about the outcome of an epic battle of iconic titans. A battle between Ironman and Batman. First let me start out by saying that while I am pro MARVEL I do have extended knowledge on DC characters, today I would like to narrow it down to Ironman and Batman. Consider the following strengths of Ironman: He has a gold-titanium alloy suit powered by an element thought impossible to synthesize. Included in his massive arsenal of weaponry are a tank buster missile, flares, lasers, repulsar rays, a highly sophisticated targeting system, and a mainframe allowing Stark to hack without fear of being hacked. His weaknesses are abundant as a man, alchoholism, liver weakness, and a giant hole in his chest keeping shrapnel from entering his heart. But as Ironman he is indestructable. Now let us consider Batman, strengths include, criminology expert, a bunch of fancy gadgets he bought or were made by Lucious Fox. He knows several different kinds of mixed martial arts and is very skilled at rounding up mindless thugs. His weaknesses include a general lack of trust for anyone, extreme paranoia, an unbalanced anger, and the lack of will to kill dangerous criminals. Not to mention he is afraid of bats. If anyone wishes to post what they would think would happen in the fight that would support a victory for Batman, be my guest.
God and creationism true or false

The question regarding the existence of a deity is beyond the scope of rationality and logic. When you try to apply the tools of rationality to the question, the result is the equivalent of dividing by zero. If you persist in that mode, then you have to apply the rule of logic that states that if it cannot be proved true, it must be regarded as false, or untrue. Since no tangible evidence exists that could logically prove the existence of a god, then the premise is false by default.
God and creationism true or false

I believe in creationism and god not only because he proves himself by not being proven. But god works in ways that enable him to work miracles and answer prayers and talk to people through spirit. God is too amazing and out of this realm to be comprehendid by mankind. We all know what elements are and what elements make put of themselves substances. But do we know who made the element who thought of matter who though of energy who thought of melanin who thought of other significant things that make up the world like the brain. And god created us male nd female and he did it by taking eve out of Adam. Meaning the y chromosome man was here first. There is proof of that. Also two similar cells couldn't change into two different sex cells when they botherdo not know that the other needs the other to procreate
Should marijuana be legalized for medical purposes

Argument: Many doctors agree that marijuana is very beneficial for medical purposes. Diseases like cancer, glaucoma, epilepsy, and many other mental disorders are all well treated with marijuana. Marijuana is capable of killing pain and helps rise your metabolism. It has been proved that marijuana is better than pain killers. Marijuana has been legalized in 18 states, and in most of them marijuana is less costly than many medical prescriptions that treat pain. Marijuana has been legal during the 1930s-1940s, and later on this medical treatment has been becoming more limited (1).Here is what doctors say about medicinal marijuana:1. 69% of doctors say it can help with specific illnesses.2. 67% it should be an opportunity for many patients.3. 56% agree making it legal throughout the world.4. 50% of doctors agree it should be legal in their state.5. 52% call for making new laws on medical marijuana in their state (2).[1]: http://www.teenink.com...[2]: http://www.medscape.com...
Should marijuana be legalized for medical purposes

About this debate:Welcome to my debate. As you can see you and I will be debating whether the legalization of marijuana should be used for medical purposes (only). Not only should marijuana be used to cure cancer, but also various other diseases.Rules: 1. No profanities2. No plagiarism3. Forfeiture causes disqualifications.Rounds: Round #1: Acceptance from opponentRound #2: ArgumentsRound #3: Rebuttals Round #4: Conclusion/Summary
the game rating should be more strict, kids are easily able to buy games like mortal kombat alone

your stupid. you have copies it cause i saw you multpile times! but you dont like do it to some one. you stand there a say stuff like "..and then ill punch in the face and hold them to the ground...." and then you saw like if i were ever to get attacked then do this and this and you pantomime MK moves....oh and im trying to make fun of oyu or make you feel bad ...jake does it to thousands of kids your age do it. but dont call me a liar
the game rating should be more strict, kids are easily able to buy games like mortal kombat alone

I DO NOT!!!! WILL YOU LET IT GO ALREADY?!?!?!? If that is true, me or one of my friends would be dead, or severely injured. The only time I hurt myself was when I was riding a scooter down a hill and I decided that it would be a good idea to jump ofrf because it would be too dangerous trying to turn. So instead of jumping off, I put one foot down first, and then started tumbling. The scrapes are healing now. Again, I DO NOT IMITATE MORTAL KOMBAT!!!! Not only is that a lie, but if you insist that I do, then I will look like a psyco and get the cops called on me!!! Honestly, I don't imitate it, I never did, and I never will.
the game rating should be more strict, kids are easily able to buy games like mortal kombat alone

umm YES you do imitate mortal Kombat all the time! you act like you can do those 'tricks' like in the game and i cracks me and pandora up all the time...but dont be embarrassed because your friends do it too....if the game rating says mature you definitely should not buy it...do you know why there is a 'm' on there q?? its for MATURE people...not you matureureureurer!!
the game rating should be more strict, kids are easily able to buy games like mortal kombat alone

1. I do not imitate Mortal Kombat! 2. I agree the ratings should be more strict, but we actually can't buy games like that from real stores. At thrift stores, maybe they don't. But in stores like Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy, Gamestop, and others, they make you show them your ID first. So we cannot buy them, but we can play them. I actually think they should have strict movie ratings because there are kindergarteners that have watched Child's Play! That is not good!
the game rating should be more strict, kids are easily able to buy games like mortal kombat alone

kids (you) are way to influence by games. the rating may say mature but kids like you can still buy and play them with no super vision. kids may deny that they do this but they commonly copy games. mortal combat for istance, has gory spine ripping gut punching scenes that even you copy, it makes kids feel that they can do the things the characters do and gives them bad attitdes
Annie is a far more superior player of Super Mario Galaxy than Topher.

I wholeheartedly understand the importance of saving the Princess from Bowser (although one cannot help but wonder if she just allows herself to be kidnapped for the attention she gains from it). However, is not the point of the game also to restore the universe, the method by which is to retrieve all the stars and restore power to the station that weird chick lives in? Which is the more noble task--saving royalty that has been repeatedly kidnapped by the same perpetrator for over 20 years (she looks good for having such a long career...prolly gets a weekly injection of botox or something) or restoring unity to the entire universe? I don't think I need to point out the true answer... And as far as Annie's "extra time" giving her an advantage, this is a complete fallacy. First of all, her Christmas break has been spent on far more worthwhile tasks. Lego Star Wars, for example, as well as extensive knitting. Not once has she played Super Mario Galaxy with her time off. In fact, she has accomplished the task of recovering more stars working essentially MORE hours than Topher with far more difficult "customers," so to speak. Take that to the bank, Mehlhoff. :)
Annie is a far more superior player of Super Mario Galaxy than Topher.

The FEW stars that Annie has discovered were only facilitated by the fact that she has been on Xmas break for over a week, while Topher has been working like a dog ever since Christmas! If Topher had had time, his star count would be through the roof! Also, the significance of beating Bowser cannot be underestimated. The Princess is safe. All is as it should be in the Mushroom Kingdom.
Annie is a far more superior player of Super Mario Galaxy than Topher.

In light of recent events, particularly Annie's discovery of the three stars, as well as her goal of finding all the stars on Super Mario Galaxy, it's clear that she is the far more capable player of said game. Now while you may argue that since Topher has defeated Bowser and that garners him superiority, I contend that it was an easy out. Rather than discovering all the stars and completely beating the game, he chose to allow Bowser to still have control over some of the stars despite his defeat, thus letting Bowser still have considerable power in the Mario universe. Had the stars all been rescued, I contend that Bowser would've been easier to beat given Luigi's appearance and also the experience gained would've made the battle much easier. Seeing that Annie is currently obtaining all the stars, she is simultaneously increasing her own power while decreasing Bowser's by means of taking back his source of power. Take THAT. :)
We should bring back gladiators for the death penalty

Well, at this point my opponent has pretty much given up the premise of debate so there's really not much else to say on the actual debate topic, but instead he makes another point about perhaps a volunteer-based system, I'm not sure why seeing as it's not what the debate is about, but I'd be happy to talk about why I'd also be against that. If he'd like, I'd be happy to debate that as its own issue. With the forced prisoner system out of the way to be replaced by volunteering, you pretty much remove all of the benefits mentioned earlier. It's not just, it doesn't lower taxes, and I highly doubt people would find it entertaining. It still promotes and encourages violence, and now has no benefits. The only seeming thing suggested that we live in a free society, which we don't. People aren't free to drive without insurance or a license, you're not allowed to do heroin, or torture animals, or a whole bunch of things. Sure, we have a degree of freedom, but we're not absolutely free, and I think that's a good thing. Unrestrained freedom is anarchy. Thank you for creating the debates. I had good fun. I hope we debate again some time.