BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
taxes on tobacco

. http://www.youtube.com... I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. It was a tough debate but hopefully I will come out of this the winner. Now for the first point. "Also the lifetime medical costs of some one with obesity is higher than a smoker. so would it be fair to tax them for medical costs ? " Why we don't taxes them is because obesity has to do with genetics. Smoking Tobacco is different is because you are willingly doing it to your body. Obesity has to do with a little of both, people are willingly eating or in some cases not and they are gaining weight even though they are doing everything right. . http://www.medicalmoment.org... . http://www.sciencedaily.com... "My opponents suggests that people should buy there cigarettes online, but the reason why they are so cheap is because they don't pay taxes on them. So this really is not a refutation of my point because it is an instance of people not paying taxes on cigarettes. Furthermore if my opponent had researched this a little further he would know that they are still required to pay the taxes when they file there taxes. In most states it is a crime to buy cigarettes online and not pay taxes on them. " My opponent says that most states it is illegal but 10 states out of 51 are illegal. Tobacco industries will find ways to get their products to people who don't have a lot of money. They might have specials, they may lower the price meaning it will be cheaper. That means it will be cheaper(I don't know how much cheaper and how cheap they can make it) and people with little money will be able to afford it. Even though tobacco is costing a lot of money and people who don't have a lot of money might not be able to afford, they will have to might cuts even with out these taxes. Most people will make cuts that aren't important to try and save money so when they do have a lot they will be able to afford tobacco. Those type of people most likely didn't buy a lot of tobacco anyways because they couldn't really buy tobacco when the money they were making were just making ends meet. They would be more worried about having a roof over their heads, food in their stomachs, and living in a warm house. Even though more poor people smoke than rich people, we don't know How many packs each group buys. A poor person may buy 3 packs a month, or 1 carton a month because they really don't have the money. Also the reason a lot of poor people smoke is because it is a cheap way to relax yourself and rich people will be able to get professional help. Speaking of rich people, those who smoke may buy 20 cartons in a month. If the voters are still unsure about who won this, I think this clip will help them decide.
taxes on tobacco

The main question for this debate is, why should there be such a huge tax on cigarettes and not on anything else.? My opponent has cited the medical cost of smoking as a reason for these taxes, but if I choose to smoke and I get sick and then I pay for my medical cost. Why should government be able to punish me? Also the lifetime medical costs of some one with obesity is higher than a smoker. so would it be fair to tax them for medical costs ? http://www.plosmedicine.org... My opponents suggests that people should buy there cigarettes online, but the reason why they are so cheap is because they don't pay taxes on them. So this really is not a refutation of my point because it is an instance of people not paying taxes on cigarettes. Frthermore if my opponent had researched this a little further he would know that they are still required to pay the taxes when they file there taxes. In most states it is a crime to buy cigarettes online and not pay taxes on them. http://www.stateline.org... http://couponing.about.com... In conclusion Cigarette taxes should be repealed because they unfairly single out one segment of society and force them to pay a ridicules 100% tax, and often they are the people who could least afford to lose that money. There are many things that are bad for you but only one is taxed like this.
taxes on tobacco

I was not just referring to federal taxes but all taxes on {excluding sales tax} tobacco. I will start this round with some numbers first the cost of the taxes. federal taxes recently went from 39 cents to $1.01 per pack. the average state tax on cigarettes is a 1.32, the average tax excluding tobacco producing states is 1.44 the state with the highest tax is rhode Island at 3.46 a pack the city with the highest tax is NYC at 4.26 The average price for a pack of cigarettes nationwide is roughly $5.12 now subtract that by the national tax of 1.01 and the average state tax of 1.44 cigarettes without tax cost 2.67 per pack this an almost 100% tax http://www.tobaccofreekids.org... Does That mean we should get rid of education and schools because it interferes with peoples' personal choices?" this irrelevant because the government does not force adults to go to school Are you saying that people who don't smoke is because of taxes being high and not because they care about their health?" no but because of these taxes it limits the people who can smoke to those that can afford it. not certain what point your making with the smoking population stats I am not arguing that cigarettes are not bad for your health. but that if our government continues to keep it legal than these type of taxes should not exist. "The reason they are raising taxes on Tobacco is because it will make it harder for teenagers to buy tobacco related products because most teenagers don't have a job that pays them enough to buy tobacco at the new prices." also low income households. This law does help by decreases the money spent on help treating people who want to quit or suffer from using tobacco for a long time; and with more money they can treat other problems that people suffer from." I cant speak for all the state laws but the federal tax give money to no such programs. "The revenue from the tax increase, which will be used to expand coverage under the State Children's Health Insurance Program to an additional 4 million low-income children, was signed into law in February." http://www.usatoday.com... A Price Waterhouse analysis of the U.S. industry's impact estimated that tobacco production generated $51.5 billion of the U.S. Gross National Product (GNP), employing 681,353 persons along the way http://org.elon.edu...
It is permissible for victims to use deadly force as a response to repeated domestic abuse.

I shall begin by attacking my oponents case. First of all, i would like to point out that my opponent has defended only one argument througout his whole case. That argument is that "minimizing suffering is wrong because suffering is needed in order to understand human fatality of the ontological mode of being". Now, take in mind that my opponent is acctualy not using any solid evidence that ties to the resolution, but instead is using a philosophy. Some of the voters may be bafled by his case, but I did allow my opponent to use any kind of case, as he stated in round 1. Let us move on. In my opinion, my opponent has not succesfully grasped the resolution. He is only providing a philosophy wich deals with a beings existense. But, i say to the voter and to my opponent, that this resolution calls for a more vivid outlook. One must look past theory and look to facts. The facts point out that domestic abuse occurs. My oponent has not pointed out why a person put under repeated domestic abuse should not be allowed to use deadly force to rid his or her abuser. My opponent has only stated that "suffering is a necessary part of human existence in order to find solidarity with others and confront our finiteness as human beings". But, I say to you that suffering is not a nessesary part of life and one should never undergo suffering just to be able to find the "true meaning of life". Now, this takes me to another thing i would like to point out. My opponent would have us believe that after a said person suffers from domestic abuse , he or she will get back on their feet and live life to the fullest. But does one not agree ,that in many of the cases pertaining domestic abuse, the person being abused does not make it out of the situation alive, due to the fact that the abuse ends up killing the said person. So how is the fact that suffering allows ones eyes to be open to the reality of life have anything to do with this resolution? This resolution only asks if it is allowed for a victim of domestic abuse to dispatch his or her abuser. This brings me to yet another point. My opponent has not brought up the topic of law. Law will always be present in situations like the resolutions. So i ask this, can a suspect that abused his or her spouse , while testifying in a court of law, say the following words to defend his or her own case : I wanted [him or her] to be exposed to the reality of human existence according to ontology, so i abused [her or him] in order for [him or her] to open her eyes and realize that suffering is vital to life. No, one cannot say that in a court of law without destroying his or her case to pieces. The law dose not take into account the fact that suffering is vital to life. Instead, they take the events that actually happened and tie them to the case. Thus, i close by asking my opponent to answer the questions i posed above. Thank you.
It is permissible for victims to use deadly force as a response to repeated domestic abuse.

Accepted. Below are my observations about the nature of the resolution and what should be considered acceptable.1. As the resolution was the January/February NFL LD resolution, I assume the debate will be of that manner. This will mean that the debate will be of the LD style, unless my opponent informs otherwise in the next round.2. If the above observation is true, I posit that all types of LD cases should be acceptable (kritiks, disads, theory, etc.)That's really all I have. I look forward to my opponent's case.
People should have a sexual partner

Rebuttals: As expected, Con has failed to meet their BoP and show why people should have sexual partner(s) or engage in sexual relations. I will point out once again that this was especially important for him to prove, as it is completely commonplace and the *status-quo* for people to do so~~thus, additional effort was required from him. Cons resolution can more or less be negated by the fact that have a 'sexual partner' is absolutely vital for the continuation of the human species. I. E~~if everyone ceased in having a sexual partner, humankind would eventually cease to exist. But this isn't to deflect from the fact that (as previously stated) people *can* take precautions~~such as those that prevent sexually transmitted infection, disease, etc. Thus, it's still perfectly safe for humans to have sex. Con states that: 'First of all, for me personally, I don't see any value for having sex with someone that you don't desire to have baby or officially marry. We all know having sex is an action to have a baby and good thing to release daily stress you get from somewhere. ' Essentially, this is opinion and nothing more. While Pro may not approve of such relations, it doesn't necessarily make them wrong or provide a valid reason for people not to have sex under whatever context they like, and with who they like. Moreover, Con himself negates that sex is also a tool for people to 'relieve stress', or in my view: gain pleasure. So they have absolutely not been successful in arguing against it. 'To be quite honest with you, I want to have a lot of sex with girls simply cuz I want to, however, it is a short term and not long-lasting benefit for both man and woman. When it comes to marriage, making babies, I don't support the idea of having sex before marriage is a ok thing to do. However, it is still natural behavior that anybody has. ' Once again, Con has negated his own points by acknowledging that sex is a 'natural behaviour' that 'anybody has'. Thus: why exactly should people not have it? Something that Con has failed to answer satisfactorily. In addition, Con assumes that sex doesn't have any long-term lasting benefits. However, it can have a number of 'benefits' in *many* different areas-->>the positives are significantly *bigger* than any 'negatives' that may exist, and naturally go very deep.
People should have a sexual partner

Thanks for the replay and feel really sry for not replying you quickly. Well, let me go over my standpoint of why it is a bad idea to have a sexual partner in your life. My ideas are based on my experience and knowledge. First of all, for me personally, I don't see any value for having sex with someone that you don't desire to have baby or officially marry. We all know having sex is an action to have a baby and good thing to release daily stress you get from somewhere. To be quite honest with you, I want to have a lot of sex with girls simply cuz I want to, however, it is a short term and not long-lasting benefit for both man and woman. When it comes to marriage, making babies, I don't support the idea of having sex before marriage is a ok thing to do. However, it is still natural behavior that anybody has.
People should have a sexual partner

Debate accepted. >>Resolution: People should have a sexual partner. My position: that people should indeed have a sexual partner, or partners ;) Opening Statement: I'd first like to note that Con has more or less conceded his case by stating that 'it is natural behaviour for people to have sex with someone'. Therefore, it is natural behaviour for people to have a sexual partner or someone to engage in nice, satisfactory, mutually beneficial sexual activity with. They proceed to assert that this 'may affect you in later life'--however, they fail to define or explain exactly how this can affect you. *If* Con is referring to 'physical effects' (again: one can only assume), there exists precautions that people can take when engaging in intercourse with sexual partners--moreover, there is enough information available to learn how to be responsible when approaching sex. As Con is the instigator of the topic and the one advocating for a change/alteration to the status-quo--which is: people not having sexual partners, the BoP is on them to show why and provide valid evidence for their case.
President Obama Should Be Re-Elected

Terribly sorry. Rebuttals "The current unemployment rate is 8.2%. This is a high number, yes. Though while still high, the number is significantly dropping. In October 2009, the unemplyment rate was at 10%. The president has been making stries in getting that number as low as possible, and has even come up with a plan that could get it down to 6% by sending aid to state and local governments and boosting infrastructure spending. The 2008 economic crisis still has an effect on everyday Americans, and the unemplyment rate numbers reflect that." The point is, it is higher than when he entered office! Also look at this: http://www.debate.org... "It's true that President Obama wasn't the one who fired the fatal shot against Osama bin Laden, but he ordered Operation Neptune Spear (the operation to kill bin Laden). Prsident Obama was much involved with the reviewing and planning of this event. He had much to do with it." All Obama did was tell the army to kill him. Bush did too. It was the army that killed him. "Yes, but that point is that under President Obama, they came home sooner, rather than later. Who knows how many soldiers lives have been saved because of his decision to save his soldier's lives. If it had been done later, our country would've been devastaed with more losses." The war was over, it was time for the troops to go home. Even if they had stayed, they would have only stayed for maximum of 2-3 years. Not a big deal. "A huge topic when discussing President Obama's presidency thus far is health care. President Obama's Health Care Reform Bill, allows children to remain covered by their parents' insurance until the age of 26, which is an extreme help to college graduates who have trouble finding employment after they graduate, as well as establishing tax cuts for up to 3.5 million small businesses to help pay for employee health care coverage." At the price of our taxes. Also, it is unconstitutional for the Federal government to mandate to the States that they must fund this Federally proposed program because it is not job of the Federal government to get involved in Sovereign States rights. Obama's health care reform also eliminates the freedom to choose your doctors. *The Tenth Amendment generally underscores the division of authority between the federal and state governments. New Contention: Gas Prices Gas prices have almost doubled under Obama. Vote CON! Sources The US Constitution http://money.cnn.com... http://news.blogs.cnn.com... http://www.deflationeconomy.com... http://thinkprogress.org... http://www.washingtonpost.com... http://www.politifact.com... http://www.policymic.com...
President Obama Should Be Re-Elected

The current unemployment rate is 8.2%. This is a high number, yes. Though while still high, the number is significantly dropping. In October 2009, the unemplyment rate was at 10%. The president has been making stries in getting that number as low as possible, and has even come up with a plan that could get it down to 6% by sending aid to state and local governments and boosting infrastructure spending. The 2008 economic crisis still has an effect on everyday Americans, and the unemplyment rate numbers reflect that. Sure Michelle's health campaign isn't as important as, say, foreign policy, but it's nice to see a first lady that is, too, involved with the country's affairs. Obesity rates are constantly soaring, which has caused Catholic charities to sign in on Michelle's program "Let's Move! " hoping to decrease this number. Luckily, we have a President who sees equality in everyone and doesn't cherish one type of person over another. It's true that President Obama wasn't the one who fired the fatal shot against Osama bin Laden, but he ordered Operation Neptune Spear (the operation to kill bin Laden). Prsident Obama was much involved with the reviewing and planning of this event. He had much to do with it. Yes, but that point is that under President Obama, they came home sooner, rather than later. Who knows how many soldiers lives have been saved because of his decision to save his soldier's lives. If it had been done later, our country would've been devastaed with more losses. Some of President Obama's attempts to better our country's enviornment have failed, yes, but he has made improvements, as well. He increased average fuel economy standards from 27.5mpg to 35.5mpg, starting in 2016. A huge topic when discussing President Obama's presidency thus far is health care. President Obama's Health Care Reform Bill, allows children to remain covered by their parents' insurance until the age of 26, which is an extreme help to college graduates who have trouble finding employment after they graduate, as well as establishing tax cuts for up to 3.5 million small businesses to help pay for employee health care coverage. President Obama has certainly not had a perfect four years in office. But when looking at the Republican contenders for office, President Obama remains the best choice for this country, and should be re-elected. . http://economy.money.cnn.com... . http://wonkette.com... . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.washingtonpost.com... . http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com... . http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com...
President Obama Should Be Re-Elected

You have the Burden of Proof.Rebuttals"It's imperative to recall what President Obama was elected into. The United States economy was destroyed by the Bush administration. The problems caused by the preceeding administration cannot be solved overnight; President Obama has been making strides in fixing Bush's mess,; it won't be an easy feat. It couldn't be for anyone."Unemployment rates have soared under Obama. There are more people unemployed currently than when he entered office."Michelle Obama, too, has been of help to our country, attempting to promote healthy life styles in children, trying to mold the youth in America."This is not as important as the big issues. Also, it has not helped. Studies have shown that obesity has been increasing."One of the most important things President Obama has done for our country was take a positive step towards human equality by repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell."I concede that."Let's not forget the capture of Osama Bin Laden or the coming home of our troops, either."The army killed Bin Laden, not Obama. Obama had nothing to do with it. Coming home of our troops? It would have happened sooner or later.Contention 1Unemployment rates are higher now then when Obama entered office.Contention 2 President Obama has shown lack of success in the green energy. The Obama Administration’s investments into the private sector green energy sector have shown failure . Examples: Solyndra, a solar energy corporation, was awarded $535 million dollars of taxpayer money and $25 million in tax incentives by the Obama administration. The company filed for bankruptcy. Ener1, a green battery manufacturer, was awarded $118 million dollars of taxpayer money under the Obama Administration American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The company filed for bankruptcy. Beacon Power, a green energy storage company, was awarded $43 million from the DOE by the Obama Administration. The company filed for bankruptcy. ConclusionObama should not be reelected.Sources http://en.wikipedia.org...; http://en.wikipedia.org...; http://en.wikipedia.org...;
President Obama Should Be Re-Elected

I will argue that President Obama should be re-elected President of the Unitede States. He has done multiple positive things for our country, including creating more private sector jobs in 2010 than during President Bush's entire 8 years as president. It's imperative to recall what President Obama was elected into. The United States economy was destroyed by the Bush administration. The problems caused by the preceeding administration cannot be solved overnight; President Obama has been making strides in fixing Bush's mess,; it won't be an easy feat. It couldn't be for anyone. Michelle Obama, too, has been of help to our country, attempting to promote healthy life styles in children, trying to mold th youth in America. One of the most important things President Obama has done for our country was take a positive step towards human equality by repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell. Let's not forget the capture of Osama Bin Laden or the coming home of our troops, either. President Obama is America's best option for 2012. Five round debate.