BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The user possessing the username "Liquidus" has some form of access to the Internet.

As my opponent has no arguments relevant to the resolution, to my arguments, or to the stipulated nonstandard burden of proof, his round is empty of argumentative value and my arguments stand unrebutted. A point by point analysis of his irrelevant statements and why they are irrelevant proceeds below for those who care to read it. "In order for me to win this debate, I must prove the following:"The user possessing the username "Liquidus" does not have some form of access to the Internet." "I did not argue that my opponent has the burden of prove, but my open concedes/stipulates a nonstandard burden of proof. I accept this stipulation. "The user "Liquidus" could have been created by another person. Suppose, "Liquidus" was the name of a famous debater from Greece, this name was then adopted by someone who plagiarized this name and consequently, is not "Liquidus". "This is incoherent and irrelevant to the resolution, which merely refers to the user possessing the username Liquidus, regardless of whether that user is actually "the user Liquidus", or whether that user's name qua person is Liquidus. "Therefore, the original Liquidus did not create this name. "The resolution clearly makes no reference to any "The original Liquidus.""1. to have as belonging to one; have as property; own: topossess a house and a car."This is clearly not what "possess" means, possession is used as evidence of ownership in courts of law but is legally distinct. To possess is to be in control of. You control the use of the username Liquidus."2. to have as a faculty, quality, or the like: to possess courage."It is among your faculties to post under the username Liquidus. " 1. the ability, right, or permission to approach, enter, speakwith, or use; admittance: They have access to the files. "And you are using the Internet to transmit your words, user possessing the username Liquidus. "You are claiming that a person who abuses drugs occupied the username liquidus and approached God through the internet. "I am claiming nothing of the sort, this is a straw man arrived at by way of the fallacy of equivocation or by no means at all save making things up.
The user possessing the username "Liquidus" has some form of access to the Internet.

In order for me to win this debate, I must prove the following:"The user possessing the username "Liquidus" does not have some form of access to the Internet." Argument 1The user "Liquidus" could have been created by another person. Suppose, "Liquidus" was the name of a famous debater from Greece, this name was then adopted by someone who plagiarized this name and consequently, is not "Liquidus". Therefore, the original Liquidus did not create this name. User is defined as: 1. a person or thing that uses. 2. one who uses drugs, especially as an abuser or addict. Possessing is defined as: 1. to have as belonging to one; have as property; own: topossess a house and a car. 2. to have as a faculty, quality, or the like: to possess courage. 3. (of a spirit, especially an evil one) to occupy, dominate, orcontrol (a person) from within: He thought he was possessedby devils. 4. (of a feeling, idea, etc.) to dominate or actuate in themanner of such a spirit: He was possessed by envy. Access is defined as: 1. the ability, right, or permission to approach, enter, speakwith, or use; admittance: They have access to the files. 2. the state or quality of being approachable: The house wasdifficult of access. 3. a way or means of approach: The only access to the housewas a rough dirt road. 4. Theology. approach to God through Jesus Christ. 5. an attack or onset, as of a disease. Internet is defined as:a vast computer network linking smaller computer networksworldwide (usually preceded by the). The Internet includescommercial, educational, governmental, and other networks, allof which use the same set of communications protocols. Argument 2You are claiming that a person who abuses drugs occupied the username liquidus and approached God through the internet. Therefore, your statement is illogical and proved to be false. Resourceshttp://dictionary.reference.com...
The user possessing the username "Liquidus" has some form of access to the Internet.

You are accessing this site, audience, via an internet browser. The user possessing the username "Liquidus" has created his profile, issued his topic declaring what debates he'll take, accepted this debate, and typed his acceptance via use of a similar internet browser. Your computer is receiving this data through the HTTP Internet protocol. In order for my opponent to have taken any action regarding this debate he or she has to have accessed the Internet. This is sufficient to demonstrate the resolution.
Progressive Taxation (Pro) vs Flat Taxation (Con)

I want to point this out before anything else, he said:"During the 1950s, things were acutally going pretty well in terms of economic growth: In fact, in 1955, GDP growth was 9.37% on the year, a remarkable amount. Incomes rose across the country, middle class families were better off and the economy was rolling."Actualy, ourr highest GDP growth was between 1880 and 1881 with a growth rate of 12.5%, {1} a period when there was no income tax! {2} Whereas the GDP growth rate in 1955 was actualy 7.1% {3} Strange think is I really doubt that the rich were taxed that much- here's what I think happened- the goveronment threatened the rich and the corporations with a 91% tax, so they wrote off most of their profits via investing in manufacturing or spending it into circulation, this created economi growtth because now the corporations were investing every cent they earned, which created more jobs, increasing the demand for work, and driving up wages. Regardless I think that our economy flourished despite the massive taxes, not because of them, infact the massive increases of wages and productivity we saw from the early 1940's to the late 1960's was because of massive investments by the corporations!CONCERNING PEOPLE OF LOWER INCOME BRACKETSActually, a flat tax can help the people going on lower income levels if you simply raise the rate by which you measure their income. Here is what I mean=- right now, the "zero point," by which we measure someones income is 0. But if we raise this to say 20,000, and institute a 25% flat tax, then we will measure someones taxes a bit differently, i= income, t=tax:with 0 as the "zero point:"i(25%)=twith 20,000 as the "zero point:"(i-20,000)(25%)=tSo what does this mean for peter? Well, if we measure his tax rate according tothis negative income tax rate proposed by Milton Friedman {4}, it would look like this:1. (10,000-20,000)(25%)=t2. -10,000(25%)=t3. -2,500=tSo now Peter has to pay -2,500$ to Uncle Sam, which actually means that Uncle Sam will pay Peter 2,500$, which s far more beneficial to peter than taxing him 500$, not only does he not have to pay taxes, he also has an extra 2,500$ to help himself out. So as you can see, the libertarian flat tax system can actually be better for the working class than a progressive tax, which can only benefit eter if he is on welfare- and no onewants to be on welfare, but no one is going to refuse a tax rebate are they? This will allow Peters income to be subsidised without affecting his work incentive, and wih him retaining his dignity as a working member of society. {1}. https://www.measuringworth.com...{2}. http://taxfoundation.org...{3}. https://www.measuringworth.com...{4}.
Progressive Taxation (Pro) vs Flat Taxation (Con)

Now let's examine my opponents scenario-Say Joe earns 1,000,000$ a month and Peter earns 10,000$ a month, but this time lets account for John who earns 1,000$ a month. Joe represents the 1%, Peter the middle class and John the poorer class. So, a liberal politician comes along and decides that John needs welfare to pay for his needs, so he sets up this progressive tax system:Joe- 50%Peter-35%John- 0%Joe, an entrepreneur, sees that his business's earning after tax have just reduced by 400,000$, so he decides to move out of the US. This has a number of effects:1. There are less jobs in the US, thus reducing Peters wages to 5,000$, and John most likely loses his job, as a result this liberal politician decides that taxation is the solution, and increases Peters tax rate to 60%2. With Joe out of the picture, the liberal politician decides to raise taxes on the middle class to account for the difference. As a result:1. Peters wages are now reduced to 2,000$ since jobs are reduced, creating an employers marked since workers now have to compete for what jobs are left. 2. Joe will now hide his money in Bermuda, and will decide to begin employing foreign workers in China or Mexico, reducing the amount of wealth produced in the US, creating a trade deficit, removing money from circulation, increasing unemployment and decreasing wages. 3. Joe will now put thousands of dollars into congress to create all of these "tax loopholes."Which results in:1. Peters wages are now reduced to 1,000$ after tax as a result of higher taxes and lower wages. 2. Joe will now pay 0% taxes, while Peter and John have become both of them part of the poorer class, rather than Peter being middle class and John being lower class. 3. John's chances of becoming middle class are now just about 0 because jobs have left the country, and now the government has to fulfil more obligations, and does this by, you guessed it, taxing what is left of the middle class into oblivion until none of them are middle class anymore. 4. The entire nation becomes impoverished, and now Uncle Sam has to loan the difference from Ben Bernake. This inflates the money supply, and reduces both Peter and Johns wages via eating away at their purchasing power. These all have further consequences as a result, but for now it can be said that Peters wages are now 1,000$, whereas without the progressive tax they would have been 9,000$, and not only that, but Johns wages would have risen to that point eventually also. This isn't a slippery slope fallacy, this is actually how this idea has turned out in our country experimentally, I don't even want to think about what would happen if we pushed this even further.
There are ONLY TWO Genders: Change my Mind

So I see a big disconnect in what you and so many other people say. You say that gender and sex are different. What you are saying is that gender refers to social roles and constructs, So boys can pretend to be girls, And girls can pretend to be boys. But. . . Those are both sexes, So in gender you can pretend to be a sex? There is a big disconnect in this. Also, Facts are facts. You can pretend to be another sex, But that doesn't mean you are. What if I identify as 60? Is there something wrong with that? Should there be an alternate term for "age" to fit in with what one person is pretending to be?
There are ONLY TWO Genders: Change my Mind

Well according to sociologists, Gender and sex are two very different things, And to say they are the same is just plain inaccurate. This is a common misconception people have when it comes to gender and sex. Pick up a sociology text book or read any number of essays done by a sociologist and you will see that you must separate your ideas of gender and sex. Gender has nothing to do with biology, Because our ideas of what constitutes gender are nothing more than social constructions based on cultural variables, Which can change with time (as they have in the past). This debate has boiled down to an issue of definitions, And our lack of agreement when it comes to sex and gender. If you define sex/gender has the same thing, Then yes there would only be two forms, Man and woman. However, If you separate the two ideas, You cannot say there are only men and women, Because gender is culture specific. Gender is simply what a culture assigns to a specific sex, If you"re biologically a man, You need to act and do things this way. If you"re biologically a woman you need to act and do things this specific way. Let"s take the gender of a woman for example, If you go to different cultures around the world you will find many definitions for what constitutes a "proper woman", I think we can both agree on this notion at least, But if you go to different culture, You will find a completely different definition for what constitutes a "proper woman". In most western cultures, A woman is seen as an equal to a man, But head over to some eastern cultures, The woman plays a for more subservient role in the culture. As you can see these are two very different definitions of gender when it comes to women. Until we can agree on definitions, We will just be debating past each other, And this whole thing will simply be a waste of time.
There are ONLY TWO Genders: Change my Mind

Before delving into the issue at hand, We need to cover the problem with your definition of gender and of sex. They are two very separate things, And you cannot lump them together. While you are correct when you come to sex, Biologically there are only two sexes, Men and women respectively. You are quite wrong when it comes to the issue of gender. Gender is a social construct, Depending on someone's culture, Gender can mean very different things. Gender consist of what one particular culture deems appropriate in terms of roles, Behaviors, Activities, And attributes for men and women. I suggest you read Judith Lorber"s essay on the social construction of gender. Thus, As a society or culture changes and different ideas are introduced, And norms change, The definition of gender is also expected to change as well. So, With gender being specific to each culture, And there being numerous cultures on Earth, There cannot be one definition for gender.
There are ONLY TWO Genders: Change my Mind

Well I would not say they are pretending to be anything, Pretending means to behave or do something as if something is true when you know that it is not, Especially in order to deceive people. Transponder people don"t claim to be another gender to deceive people. They truly believe in what they're doing and for the most part don"t care what other people think or say, So there"s no pretending to be another gender in that respect. Try talking to a transgender person and attempt to convince them to stop being transgender and see how well that goes. I don"t understand why so many people have this notion that transgender people are attempting to trick people and society at large, They are just people attempting to live in accordance with what they believe. None the less, To get back to the issue at hand, I propose a thought experiment, This might help you understand the need to differentiate between gender and sex. What makes a man a man? And I"m not talking about biological indicators here, In other words, How does a man know how to act like a proper man? Biology sadly gives us nothing in terms of ideas on proper womanhood and manhood, So that leaves culture and education. We learn how to be members of our sex through what we see and experience. So, If I see and experience different things then what you see and experience for example, Then I might come to believe that being a man and woman is something very different from your own ideas on gender, Correct? Say I flip the gender stereotypes and build a society where women are taught to be masculine and the men are taught to be feminine, Tell me, What would man"s gender be in such a society? He is biologically a man, But to us he acts like a woman no? Would we call him a man or woman? Gender is a complex issue and cannot be so easily explained by saying "gender and sex are the same, Therefore you are either a man or a woman". Two people can have very different ideas for what gender is based on their culture and what they were exposed to. And when transgender people say "I"m a girl" or "I"m a guy" what they really mean is that they have chosen to take on the attributes or behavior of a specific gender. They are not claiming to be another sex in other words, Just a different gender. I think the transgender community has definitely failed to make that clear and is a major issue I have and something I would encourage them to change. None the less, You are correct when you say there are only two sexes, And yes you can say you"re one sex but that doesn"t mean you are. But that gets into the whole topic of medical sex changes, But that is a completely different issue then the one at hand. And to answer your rhetorical question about age, Yes there would be something wrong with that because unlike the issue of gender, Age is a measurement of time and is easily quantifiable using numbers in the form of years. Gender is not as easily explained, As this debate has surely proven its complexity, And how that by saying that sex and gender are the same thing is simply inaccurate.
Rap Battel

I guess you failed again because of my powersI know how to rapYou're chicken againYou have nothing to sayYou're an old manwho likes to get drunkwho makes the stupidest debates everAnd you are stupid in generalYou're namenis so horribleIt shouts out SPAZZBecause you one hugegirly-girl afraid of everythingYou're afraid of meI have your manlinessAnd you have my girl powersI will rule DDO historyThis rap battle was stupidYou never did rapBut the voters know the real winnerAnd that winner is me! Hey votersVote for ConBecause her raps are awesomeBut you know who to voteI'm gonna end thisNot with a bang and a boomBut a kick in the shinBecause you are the worst rapper in DDO historyBut now are the goodbyes'Cause this debate is over Just remember thatYou are the worst rapper and will lose to a girl
Rap Battel

You're an idiotfor calling me a hewhen I'm really a she bear, a she girlWho's rapping to a dang old manFirst came the men who thought they were goodThen came the boys who loved some girlsThem came the she bears and the she girls who had a rap battleAnd the she bears and the she girls wonYou have poor spellingyou spell like a five year oldYou can't spell 'double' or 'battle'I am a best spellerWatch out in the next round'Cause it won't be so easyfighting withthe she bear
Rap Battel

Am I a bore to you sorry if I know how bad it must be to smell like pooI was like that once, the class dunce But now I am the king of this wrestling ringDont make me give you the flying elbow, your so high right now you'll be shouting "Doubl Rainbow! "You really need to stop smoking because it makes you start choking in rap battles I will have to go ham on this kid like the Seahawks did to the RamsNext round I won't go so easy, just trust me
Rap Battel

Oh I'm so sorry that my stupid opponent forfeitedbut he was a dang old fool for only having 30 minutesto rap, but he forfieitedSo yeah, I'm da boss for nowI guess he forfieited because he was chickenTo fight off against a good galHe thinks he's da bossBut right now I amRight now I'm doneThis dang old argumentNow I must kick youNOT!
Policy Debate is better over all than Pf Debate.

Pro, then con But first, I'd like to point out that he has not used a warrant either. So this debate is not one with warrants. Our warrants are our personal experiences Obs 1- How can you tell me what a k is, you have never run one. Look at . http://www.debatecoaches.org... The K's are attacks on the case. Obs 2- Why is arrogance bad, Plus, we can best evaluate a debate, by the debaters it produces. If they are better at other events, is that not proof for the superiority of the debate style? a. But you are an experienced PF debater debating a pf style debate. b. How is it off topic, Extend the top c. My experiences are more likely. The man who created policy is dead and ghosts don't exist. Obs 3- So those of you who have done PF honestly like the biased judges who only vote pro, don't flow, and basically jut sit there? Besides, you have a great inner and outer personality, and I love everything you make. Obs 4- Policy creates debate coaches, because extend how policy makes better debaters, politicians, because you learn how policy is enacted, and how does PF make you a better lawyer Obs 5- a. the A only said that we have more time, it wasn't really an argument b. Depth than breadth, We cover a topic so much, we learn a lot about it. but with pf, you only learn as much as you need to Obs 6- 3a, their names are Skylar smission and Micheal Ingram, they went to carrollton with me Obs 7- In policy, cx is a time to clarify and sometimes double-bind, Cf is only for extending your speech Oh and I can't access Cx from the school network.
Policy Debate is better over all than Pf Debate.

Thanks for the timely rebuttal, I'll go over my points and then go to his points Obs 1 -We do cover philosophy. They're called Kritiks. They say that the plan enforces a negative philosophy, and instead of doing the plan, we destroy said philosophy. Obs 2 -It is generally known that Policy debaters are better because they A. know how to weed out the stupid arguments and therefore can take out all parts of the arguments B. We know how to handle under extreme pressure, ex. someone looking over our shoulder, asking a detail about our case C. Like I said, Personal experiences, you don't have to believe me, but it is true Obs 3 First of all, I'm not talking about the very smart, handsome and great judges that are probably going to vote on this debate ;). I'm talking about those judges that are not tabula rosa, The ones who vote pro every time no matter the issue. Not the Very smart judges who may not have debated in high school. The Judges they got at the last second who don't know anything, Unlike the people who are going to vote on this debate Obs 4 - Nobody debates like policy, but extend my defense of my obs 1. That it helps you take out all arguments, plus what job do you have where you use pf debating skills_____. Policy jobs- Congress Obs 5 b. There are three "quality" arguments made most of the time. Policy has multiple good arguments made at the same time c. But with quantity, you have to use debating skills. to figure out which are quality arguments d. we have lots of clash, if you don't, you will loose Obs 6. - to quote the GA state champion of PF, This is Pf, I don't need evidence. You don't have to believe that that the examples are true. But whether you do or don't, I saw them. Obs 7. -in cx people who do waste time, loose. In cross-fire, people who waste time get time. The point is that it is easier to abuse cross fire. Plus, we have a sexual innuendo. Onto their case Obs 1 - I'm not arguing that pf does not have value. besides if this site had policy form debate, I would jump on it so fast, but they don't. Policy turns Pf. extend observation 2. Policy helps you debate pf and therefore, all their advantages go to policy 1. we were all novices at one time. We learned how to do it, it just requires commitment 2. Well if the general population cannot understand something, they need to learn, we need a smarter generation. everyone can better themselves. Elitism is inevitable, if people are unwilling to change 3. sure, why not waste time and money debating on something you have no plan of solving for? Why not? let's debate whether kittens are cute or not. 4. Not everyone wants to do policy. that's ok. We have to debate opinion.