BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Wesley Snipes: Not Guilty!

I may be trumped on the Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co. matter -- that's what I get for listening to tax protesters instead of doing my own research. This was particularly reckless of me considering the fact that I know a lot of the anti-income tax legal arguments to be without merit. But I will continue the debate, nonetheless. But even as you have corrected regarding the above, it is you who is in need of correction as to the intended nature of United States government. First, you mistakenly say that "the amendment was voted on by the people, and was accepted by the people" -- people don't vote on constitutional amendments, mors202. And that's because we do not, and were never intended to have, this "democracy" you speak of. The United States was intended to be a voluntary compact among sovereign states for the purpose of mutual defense. The people of each state are guaranteed a REPUBLICAN form of government, not a "democracy." There is a huge distinction. In a democracy, the majority can vote to take away the rights of a minority. In a constitutional republic, that's not permissible. Individuals have a right to their life, liberty, and property, and the income tax infringes upon these rights. I do advocate a constitutional amendment to repeal the 16th (as well as the 14th -- which was never ratified anyway -- and the 17th). But as the people do not vote on constitutional amendments, their ability to bring one about in your "democracy" is very difficult. The two parties have enshrined themselves via corrupt and monopolistic election laws, and they make a profitable enterprise doling out favors to their contributors and other special interests at the expense of the American taxpayer. Although we do not have a democracy (thank God!), the framers of the Constitution did not intend a group of nine dictators in black robes to be the sole arbiters of constitutionality -- the executive and legislative branches were to have a role as well, as well as the states AND THE PEOPLE. Jury nullification is the ultimate example of "democracy" (in the positive sense) in action, and is part of the founders' vision for a representative republic of checks and balances on power. Whenever any form of government becomes destructive to liberty, it is the duty of the people to alter or abolish it. The income tax and IRS are destructive to liberty, and the people should rise up to abolish these tyrannical institutions. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Hooray for Wesley Snipes!
Wesley Snipes: Not Guilty!

Thank you, clsmooth, for allowing me to debate you. I'm arguing this, not because I believe the income tax is a good thing, but because the law allows Congress to levy an income tax. In addition, I disagree with my opponent's means for ending the law. My opponent makes the correct observation that income taxes were held to be unconstitutional prior to the passage of the 16th amendment. However, while making the argument that, even after the passage of the 16th amendment, that Congress had no power to impose income tax is wrong. My opponent cites, as evidence, the case Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., saying that the judge ruled that the 16th amendment gave no new taxing power to Congress. However, he fails to include what the judge was really saying: "It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had the power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be "direct taxes" within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes "from whatever source derived"." (http://en.wikipedia.org...) As the statement clearly shows, the judge believe that the 16th amendment did not grant Congress new taxing power, but merely clarified what, and how Congress could tax. In addition, clsmooth, the people wanted an income tax. That is why the amendment passed anyway. The amendment was voted on by the people, and was accepted by the people--indeed, has always been accepted by the people. Remember, America is a democracy, and the people still rule. If my opponent believe that every jury will "nullify" the law by giving not guilty verdicts to tax evaders, why doesn't he advocate a constitutional amendment getting rid of the 16th amendment? Because he knows that there is not enough support for such an act. Even if individuals do not like the laws passed by the people, they must realize that they are still obliged to follow those laws, and juries still obliged to hand down verdicts based on the law, not their own ideological beliefs.
Wesley Snipes: Not Guilty!

Wesley Snipes was acquitted on charges of tax fraud and conspiracy related to his "failure" to file federal income-tax returns. He believed his advisors who said that the Sixteenth Amendment did not give Congress the authority to lay taxes against the income of citizens derived from domestic activity. The income tax, as applied, is NOT constitutional or legal and Wesley Snipes is a hero. This story will be buried by the tax-hungry mainstream media, but the truth is mounting against the illegal IRS regime. My argument is two-fold: 1. Congress had no power to lay taxes on citizens' income prior to the Sixteenth Amendment. After the passage of the amendment, the Supreme Court held that the Sixteenth gave Congress "NO NEW TAXING AUTHORITY." If Congress couldn't tax incomes before the Sixteenth, this means they couldn't do so afterwards. All other arguments for the income tax are moot -- it is unconstitutional, whether or not there "is a law" or not. 2. Even if the income tax WERE legal (or if the powers that be illegitimately rule that it is legal), then juries have the authority to "nullify" the law by acquitting every tax-protester case. Thus, juries can make the income tax illegal through jury-nullification activism. The income tax was instituted -- allegedly -- to help even out the distribution of income in America. That hasn't worked. That's because the income tax and the Sixteenth Amendment go hand-in-hand with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. The federal government's (non-existent but widely accepted) taxing authority gives otherwise worthless Federal Reserve Notes "real" value by virtue of the government's acceptance thereof for income-tax purposes. We have to work for worthless pieces of paper so that we can use them to avoid going to jail (i.e. paying our taxes). However, the Federal Reserve System is a systematic racket designed to redistribute wealth from the working classes to the elite via credit expansion. Thus, the income tax -- like most government interventions -- has served the opposite of its stated intended purpose. My argument is that Wesley Snipes was not guilty by virtue of points 1 and 2 above. And furthermore, Americans should all go on strike from Uncle Sam. Perhaps Mr. Snipes's example can lead the way.
President Obama is a Socialist

Unfortunately Pro, like my last two contenders on this topic, has forfeited a round. This is especially surprising as Emilirose has forfeited a round despite currently being online and participating in and commenting on other debates. Closing statement: Typically, those who claim the president is a Socialist, belong to fringe groups that contain little to no expertise in the fields in which they write. Association with socialist does not make one a socialist. Progressive taxation is not exclusively socialist. As I concluded in round 3, "Political science experts say President Obama is not a socialist. Socialist's say that the President is not a socialist. President Obama says he is not socialist. His policies are empirical evidence that he is not a socialist. President Obama is not a socialist." Thanks for taking the time to read and vote.
President Obama is a Socialist

You're welcome. Concerning more links, they're available. So I will include them within this next round. Everything I have mentioned is fact, including reference to Obama's upbringing and his early political career. (1.) http://www.frontpagemag.com... (2.) http://www.frontpagemag.com... The above links are confirmation of Obama's heavy involvement with Socialist projects and alliance with people subscribed to the belief of Socialism. The first link also clearly outlines his involvement with ACORN. (3.) http://m.thenewamerican.com... (4.) http://m.nationalreview.com... (5.) http://freedomoutpost.com... These links outline that he was in fact associated with the New Party. And also outline that both his parents actively endorsed socialism and communist. "Both of my parents were staunch republicans and "raised" me as such, and yet I am no republican". The major difference being here that you're also not the leader of the United States. Presumably, you did also not absorb your parents political beliefs on a personal level and then apply them to your career. As I have stated (and supported) Obama has. "I have many friends that I respect greatly that are Libertarians, Republicans, Democrats, and even Socialist. Yet I am none of these". The key word being here "friends', not people you have been formally mentored by. This what Frank Marshal Davis was to Obama, his teacher. (6.) http://www.theblaze.com... "Progressive taxation can hardly be attributed to the ideo socialism as it has historical roots in Rome", its stated origins may be true but historically progressive taxation in fact has been connected to Socialism. An example being in 1848 when Marx and Engles proposed that progressive taxation, be used to "wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeois, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state". (7.) http://www.cato.org...
President Obama is a Socialist

Accepted. Opening Argument One of the finest examples of Barak Obama being a socialist is his previous involvement with it. He was raised as a socialist, and was mentored by Communist Party USA member Frank Marshall Davis. Before he became a member of the democratic party, he worked with ACORN (the Democratic Socialists of America) as a community organizer and was an active member of radical socialist group "The New Party". Socialist Policies One such example is Obama's proposal of new taxes on families on more than $ 250,000 per year. Another major idea included the "Buffet Rule" which would require those with incomes of $1 million or more to pay a 30% tax on their home. Obviously this would include business owners. In his 2013 budget, Obama proposed raising the dividends tax by 15% to the highest personal income tax rate, 39.6%. In addition to this Obama has also expressed a strong interest in eliminating tax breaks and increasing taxation on financial and oil companies. Another stated plan is the increase of public subsidies to small businesses. All things that coincide with the concept and practice of socialism.
President Obama is a Socialist

Resolve: President Obama is a socialist This is the third time I have attempted a debate on this subject. The last two times my opponents have forfeited for one reason or another. I would really like to debate someone who not only believes that President Obama is a socialist, but will actually complete the debate in its entirety. Clarification: This debate is not about support for or criticism of the President, just as the resolve states this debate is about whether or not President Obama fits the definition of a Socialist. pro will argue that President Obama is a Socialist Con will argue that President Obama is not a Socialist. Definition of terms: Socialism: "A way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies"(1) Socialist: "A person who believes in socialism"(2) Format Round 1: Con: acceptance and definitions Pro: acceptance and opening argument. Round 2: Pro/Con arguments and rebuttals. Round 3: Pro/Con arguments and rebuttals. Round 4: Rebuttals and closing statements, No new arguments. This does give pro and extra round... good luck to whoever accepts. (1)http://www.merriam-webster.com... (2)http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Color War: Red vs Blue Why Red is better than Blue

Going on from what you said in the previous arguement. ill have to disagree. The color red is used in alert and danger sign because Red is because our eyes tend to focus on brighter and a color most different from our surrounding. Take the fire truck for example. they're red and uses red light because they have to let make other drivers be aware of their presence on the road. Additionally stop light also work the same way. The flashing red can easily attract our attention to prevent us from walking into a street with cars still driving. But Define your definition of "better"
Girls All around the world get a education no matter what

First of all it takes a man and a woman to reproduce hence I think it is the duty of both the man and the woman to raise the kid. The task can be shared where the man can "pay for the kids" like you said whereas the woman uses the opportunity she has to raise the child to be an ethically and morally upright child. Also what is the point in educating yourself as a woman if you're going to be focused on furthering your career which means you are not going to have the time to properly raise your kids to imbibe what you have learnt.
Girls All around the world get a education no matter what

First of al I want to know the fact you have to back your statement "Us women are going to be the future of this world it is in our hands so every girl should be getting a education to make this world a better place in the future". I think educating women is a waste of time because it does more harm to them than good. Educating women motivates them to be carrier oriented. When this happens, it pushes them to climb the career ladder higher which makes them get too involved in the career aspects of their lives while putting the other parts such as taking care of the home down the drain. They focus less on having children and taking care of their children which can be very dangerous on their emotional and physical lives. Mostly, when they come to the realisation of the consequences of their actions, it is often too late.
God Does Exist

Let's go back to definitions and fundamentals. Pro has claimed that I have not rebutted these - for the very good reason that I largely agree with him: >>>"God - "a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes";" Accepted. >>>"Firstly I showed that God is a being that is worshipped" Agreed, I see no reason to dispute this. >>>"I then went on to show that God is superhuman and has power over human fortunes" Again, this would appear to make sense. So basically, we agree that gods are more powerful than humans, that they influence the lives of people by their actions, and that people worship them. The thing we don't appear to agree on is whether they actually exist. Let me quote the closing argument in Pro's case: "god becomes real in the impact it has on the world. Con has not refuted the impact god has on the world or that the impact is real. " Pro quotes three articles in support of this idea. The first points out that the laws and customs adopted by society are largely rooted in religious origins. The second is a discussion of whether Christianity or atheism have been responsible for the most deaths throughout history. The final article is a discussion of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The only thing that all three of these articles have in common is that not a single one of them uses their discussion to prove the existence of a god, or even makes the claim that a god exists. I am therefore at a loss to see how these support Pro's contention. There is a glaring error of logic in Pro's attempt to show that "god becomes real" by virtue of some impact belief in him (or her) makes. Essentially the argument boils down to this: God has an impact The impact is real Therefore god is real The placebo effect totally disproves this argument. Fake "medications" (e. g. sugar pills) have been shown to have real effects on various ailments. That does not make the fake medication real. The cure or improvement is brought about by the response of the patient(s). In the same way, an effect on a population because of belief in a god does not prove that the god is real, it proves that human behaviour is affected by that belief - and that is all it proves. In short, non-real (imaginary) things can have real impacts. I might believe (incorrectly - based on totally irrational conclusions about supposed "evidence") that my spouse is having an affair. I might, based on my erroneous conclusions, decide to commit homicide with respect to both my spouse and the golf pro. One could argue that these are very real impacts, however the affair is not real, it exists only in my mind. And no matter how huge or widespread the impacts, or how passionately held is the belief, it doesn't make the object of the belief real. Pro has not provided a single shred of evidence to prove the objective existence of a god, nor does his idea of a god "made" real because of belief hold water. God (still) does not exist.
God Does Exist

Before I turn my attention to rebutting Pro's arguments for the existence of a god, there are a couple of points of order which require addressing. Firstly, pro has taken me to task for not answering his arguments in round two. Yet Pro himself set the rule that round two is for initial arguments. Therefore, I restricted myself in that round to outlining my case. If anyone has committed a "violation" here, it is my opponent, who defined the meaning of the terms used in this debate in round one, and then redefined them after the debate was accepted in his second round argument. Secondly, my opponent has now twice pointed out that he is arguing something which he does not actually believe. Of course, he is perfectly entitled to do that, but I do not understand the point in mentioning it here not once, but twice. Surely Pro is not under the impression that there are bonus points available for playing devil's advocate - or in this case, God's advocate? Concerning Pro's rather interesting contention that if a single person or the majority of people (he is not clear as to which) chooses to believe in a god, that by definition means that a god exists - I scarcely need to refute the idea, as Pro himself refutes it in the third round. Introducing his example of the Higgs boson, he states "nor does our knowledge of such a thing either determine it's existence" (sic). In other words, the Higgs boson did not magically spring into existence in 1964 when someone imagined it, nor in 2012 when its existence was proven experimentally. If we take this ad populem argument to its logical conclusion, we are forced to accept a large number of ridiculous contentions, such as - the sun really did revolve around the earth prior to Copernicus proving otherwise; and prior to the voyages of Columbus, the earth really was flat. As to the issue of which particular god or gods we are talking about in this debate, it scarcely matters. If Pro can prove the existence of any one, he will have made his case. It could be the Christian god, or Ba'al, or Kali, or Thor, Ra, Osiris - or any one of thousands of others. But since millions of people have believed in all of the above at some point in history or another, do all of these gods exist? The pitfalls of the subjectivist approach, and the difficulties caused by conflicting religious experiences are discussed at some length by Tim Holt [1]. Pro's argument amounts to nothing more than word games - people imagine a god, therefore a god exists (in their mind). The same argument could be used to prove the existence of unicorns, the tooth fairy and Santa Claus. Any sane adult knows that none of the above exists in reality, so if Pro wants us to believe in a god, he doesn't have much time left to provide some tangible evidence. References: [1] http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...
God Does Exist

Con seems to have not addressed any of the points that I have made. With regards to evidence The evidence and reasoning behind existence is clearly shown within my opening statement and has not been refuted. I am arguing here that god exists within the minds of people, which in turn effects their behaviour, having impact on other humans, thus fitting in with the definition at question. Con seems to be under the impression that I am discussing a Christian god specifically, I never stated that I was. With regards to Cons comments regarding witnessing and proving Something not being visible does not stop it's existence nor does our knowledge of such a thing either determine it's existence. For this argument I will back it up with an example, the Higgs Boson. Prior to 1964 humanity was completely unaware of it's existence and going back further, that it had any effect upon us. Prior to 2012 we had no proof of it's existence either. So I would argue that not being aware of something, being unable to measure it and being unable to prove it does not prevent it existing. Occam's razor does not lead to conclusions but assumptions. Once again as I stated in my opening statement, I am an atheist. I am participating in this debate from a point of view different to my own in order to give myself a more challenging debate. Unfortunately, my opponent is not addressing my line of thinking.
God Does Exist

In order to prove that a god exists, Pro must show that there is credible evidence to indicate the existence of one. No one who has lived during the past almost two millennia (other than inmates of mental institutions and crackpot cult leaders) has claimed to have seen God with their own eyes. We only have anecdotal evidence and "personal testimony" that such a being exists. Surely an all powerful being who sits in judgement on the entire human race, and bases their destiny on whether or not they believe in him would be capable of providing better evidence for his own existence. Where are the burning bushes and the flaming chariots from heaven in the twenty first century? Thanks to advances in science over centuries, there are now very few mysteries that require a god figure to explain them, and Occam's razor leads us to conclude that if any particular occurrence or phenomenon can be explained with or without a god, we should choose without by default. If we are to accept that a god exists, we should only do so in response to solid evidence. I look forward to Pro introducing such evidence.
God Does Exist

First of all, I am an atheist so this should be fun. I will be concentrating on the broader second definition of god, which needs some further clarification on it's definintion. superhuman - having or showing exceptional ability or powers Being - A real or imaginary living creature or entity, especially an intelligent one Worship - show reverence and adoration for Also a definintion of exists is required Exist - to have being or reality; to be To give an expanded definition of god. A real or imaginary living creature or entity having or showing exceptional ability or powers, shown reverence and adoration for having power over human fortunes. By these definition the shear fact that people believe in a god defines the gods existance. Being & Worship People believe and actively worship god or gods - https://humanism.org.uk... Superhuman People make actions based on their beliefs - http://www.econ.ucsb.edu... The action of many poeple is greater than any individual could achieve - I don't believe a study is required for this, it's basic maths These actions affect peoples fortunes - Again I don't believe this required citing Existance is defined by being