BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
THW implement mandatory military service

I thank Agonist for his defensive rebuttals, and now I will be comparing and analysing the major clashes in this debate. I see a major clash in the debate: The importance of Freedom. As I have said repeatedly, Freedom is important, and on Prop, I value freedom. It is just that freedom of choice is very much abused. Agonist has tried to tell us that Freedom is what drives a society forward. I accept that, though there is a problem: Military service will not destroy your whole life, contrary to that. In fact, you can learn many skills, though that is not the point. Working in the military for 3 years will not end your life, wars are not very common. Your life has many more chances to have freedom, to learn and improve your life. I believe that Prop should win in this debate because: 1. Prop gave you a wider perspective of looking at mandatory military service. 2. Opp has only one argument: Freedom, and that was a) rebutted b) not important when you look at the cost and benefits of everything else I brought to the table Basically the debate was this: 3 Benefits of mandatory military service vs Freedom We accept that Freedom is important when debating this topic, but we believe that the benefits of mandatory military service outweigh the harms of mandatory military service. I thank Agonist again for accepting my first ever debate, Please vote Prop
THW implement mandatory military service

In regard to the equality argument: I posited that equality is insufficient to justify a mandatory act. The accuracy of my analogy withstanding or not, I entreat my opponent to give reason why equality is an higher order value than freedom from enslavement (mandatory service). In regard to the tradition argument: My opponent states that mandatory service results in an individual not only serving those who served before himself/herself, but also those serving after himself/herself. This tidy delineation of generational duty, however, is not sufficient cause for the policy. It implies that reciprocity is inherently necessary to the act of protecting. However, if a fraction of the population is capable of providing protection for both the prior and succeeding generations, then not all the population is obligated to provide protection. Therefore, mandatory military service is not necessary for this reason alone. In regard to the skills argument: There is a problem regarding what skills we consider desirable versus what skills an individual may consider desirable. There is a balance to be struck here. For example, some may consider literacy to be an unnecessary skill, but many consider mandatory nonetheless and the skill is mandatory in public education. I posit a weak version of the argument: there are some skills that should be mandatory, but it is not necessary they be taught via military service. In regards to the government participation argument: I am unsure what my opponent's rebuttal means, yet I retain my stance that increased government participation should be only be a second-hand benefit of a democratic government's policies and not a determining factor. Before summary, I will entreat the audience to believe that freedom from coercion creates a better society. As long as systems are able to ensure the basic needs of a sovereign society, freedom should be the primary goal. As such, mandatory military service should not be implemented.
THW implement mandatory military service

I thank Agonist for his rebuttals, and I admit they have been really good ones. My 3rd round speech will defend my previous points. Agonist's rebuttal: Equality is insufficient to justify a mandatory act. He used the example of tonguing of toilets. However, toilet seats are not an accurate example. The main point of equality in military services is that in life or death situations, rich people and poor people will be in the same crisis. Toilet seats, however, are something clearly disgusting, the rich and the poor are not sharing a crisis that they have to work out of. In the military, their lives may be under threat, and they will seek to get out of the crisis. Agonist's rebuttal: Tradition is not desirable in-and-of-itself. I accept I have not made any explanation of why tradition is importan. I will explain that further now. Protection of the next generation is important because they will grow up and serve you, help to protect you. If you serve in the military now, not only are you protecting the people who will protect you later, but also people who protected you before, e.g. the elderly. You are now: 1: protecting people who will protect you later on 2: protecting people who have protected you before. Agonist's rebuttal: one may learn something, but learning the skills one desires is better nonetheless. Not everyone can have what they want, working in the military can give you skills that may be something you need. In school, if you want to learn Algebra, but you have to learn sequences first, that doesn't mean you should ban school. This again a prime example of opp abusing the freedom of choice argument. Just because I want to, I will. Because I don't want to, I won't. Agonist's rebuttal: Ensuring more government participation is not sufficient to establish a policy. I disagree, as with people in an age where they seek to know the truth, the reasons behind the actions being done, with their lives in the balance, no objections will be given against the goverment, therefore a more productive military force will be formed. In the next round, I will be summarising this debate. Please vote prop. P.S. Agonist, is it okay to challenge you to more debates?
meemz r esentshol for beby devullepment

Mames r nerot hearmferl 2ull babes snop doge doz da crackety weed pot smokertyu soas and cant not cant think ign a94;A039;STRAIGHTa92;A039; BAD LOONGWHICH?! BABEEIS R FIIIIIIINEE THEY NEED NAWHT SWEAR LAMSDNGAUAGGE LIKE WOT IN TARNATIION AND WE R NUMBER 1 MEMZ WIL HALP EEM GET HED STURT ON POOB3RTY N SOSHUL STUDIS LIEK THE GUYB FOR,M DEEZ NUTS HA GOTTEM DID ILL BEAT U, K?!?!
meemz r esentshol for beby devullepment

Thank you for posting this debate-worthy motion and I will be glad to accept and respond, and may I remind you that I shall represent the oppositional side, and we believe that memes are not only non-essential, but can be harmful to baby development. I believe that the burden of proof is on you, the proposition to prove that memes may not hinder the academic progress of a child, and my stance on this debate Is that children may be exposed to inappropriate language at a young age, and being young minds are very impressionable. I await your opening speech with anticipation, and good luck!
meemz r esentshol for beby devullepment

OMG0$h Thos sdtoooody sdot they did in q2013949032895u AD siasdsss thattt BABIES r ned mems luk DAT BOI n pepe 4 da bren growing helfps BUT SNUP DOUG is saysing this th@t mEm3s r b@d :O n0 d3r NAWHT FIETH ME RULES R FOR FOOLZ 1: no swars or cersing 2: i leik goldfish crackers
Should the U.S. reduce its military

Why the US should reduce its military-----------------------------------------------------------1. Because we have a higher defense budget then thee 10 next highest behind us.http://pgpf.org...2. Most nations are either friendly to the US, or are allies.http://www.washingtonpost.com...3. Even a 1% cut would rack in billions of money.http://www.huffingtonpost.com...4. We have a lot of outdated hardware still in commision, such as a couple hundred tanks, and aircraft carriers.5. We already have 1,400,000 personel, the chances of a war involving all of them is unlikely. Cutting back would make us the third largest army on earth, but due to the advancement of are hardware, we would still be the strongest. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Should the U.S. reduce its military

The United States has the strongest military as far as I know. We need to be this powerful because anything that happens over seas in other countries will affect use here. we need to remain dominate. also if the U.S. reduces the military and another war breaks out many people will have to be drafted back into the military and go though the training. this would cause more conflict between the people and the government due to poor decisions (a little off topic).
New Zealand's decrease in income tax and increase in GST is unlikely to stimulate the economy

Arguements The recent change in taxes after a 7.1 magnitude earthquake hitting Christchurch, the largest city in the south island leaves (ref 1)17000 people unemployed. The intention of these tax changes are to increase disposable income (income - savings) hence increase consumption of goods and service stimulating the economy but this will lead consumers into larger debt/financial trouble such as these unemployed. There is also as many as 9 out of 10 homes on the city level becoming water damaged, and The Earthquake Commission (EQC), the state-run insurer, had received 4,164 claims for damages as of the night after the earthquake and a estimated 10% of households being uninsured. All these values contribute to the million dollars in damage and increases in homeless which will lead to doubts that the tax changes will even have a positive effect on the overall economy as consumption will not increase as the income tax decrease intended. It is also reported that many business have been destroyed and with these increased costs will lead to shutting down off businesses and laying of staff meaning a decrease in the contribution to GST and unemployment. The government will find itself having to issue more transferred payments and receiving less revenue this will lead to a budget deficit , not healthy with New Zealand's already large overseas debt. The intention of these tax changes are to increase disposable income (income - savings) hence increase consumption of goods and service stimulating the economy. This increase in demand will lead producers to bid up there prices and will stimulate inflation. Of course with the increase in GST from 12.5 - 15% all prices will increase for goods and services. This due to the increase in cost of production being shift to the consumers hence there becomes a large raise in inflation. According to reference (3) A person in a wage of $30,000 annum will receive $5.19 weekly. I am sure this will not cover the inflation caused by the two tax actions. Reference (3) also says someone on $120,000 will be $52.78 better off. This makes it easier for the richer to cover the increased cost hence becomes a situation of rich get richer, poorer get poorer. 'Consider the relentless upwards march of what we dish out for essential goods and services, and it is easy to see why. Along with the GST rise, there have been increases to ACC levies, the Emissions Trading Scheme has pushed up electricity costs (costing an average household $165 extra a year), petrol stations are charging 7c/litre more this week, because of the rise in GST combined with a 3 cent fuel tax, and mortgage rates have been increasing through the year. ' This is a quote that shows that there is many stacks of costs which have lead to inflation. Although the GST has only raised by 2.5%. The market are putting out large increases in price. . http://www.wsws.org... . http://www.nzherald.co.nz...
New Zealand's decrease in income tax and increase in GST is unlikely to stimulate the economy

The current economic climate and the so-called "recovery" is fragile almost all over the world. There is no "silver bullet" that is guaranteed to work and return us to an age of endless growth. As long as one accepts the dominant economic model (capitalism, free markets, central banking) as "sine qua non", shifting some of the burden from a progressive tax to a regressive one will have a positive effect on the economy. This measure alone will most likely not singlehandedly return the Kiwis to the first echelon of growth, but it is a step in the right direction.
New Zealand's decrease in income tax and increase in GST is unlikely to stimulate the economy

This shall be about New Zealand's recent decrease in income tax and increase in GST (goods and services tax) from 12.5 to 15%. My reference shows how much the decrease in income tax are for each income bracket. I shall wait for a opponent before beginning my main points. definitions: Unlikely = Not likely to happen stimulate = Encourage interest or activity in. (1)http://www.ird.govt.nz... is the values of the decrease in GST
New Zealand's decrease in income tax and increase in GST is unlikely to stimulate the economy

As stated in Round 2 – which my opponent forfeited – I believe that the Kiwi Government is doing the best it can under the circumstances and its initiative of increasing the sales tax and reducing income tax apart from being as close to revenue neutral as possible, is the best it can do under the circumstances. The fears that inflation might erode any economic gain are unfounded, since inflationary pressures almost always accompany economic growth. It is not the Government's job to fight inflation, in a modern economy that is left to the Central Bank to tackle. The decision to rely less on progressive taxation and more on sales taxes is indeed a wise decision, one of the very many the New Zealanders seem to be taken.
Progessive Tax

The progessive tax is wrong. It calls for people to bay a higher income tax based on teir income. This was proposed by Democrats and hopefully it won't get threw Congress. You can't make people pay more taxes just because they make more money. Here are some facts: 1) The top 1% wealthiest tax payers pay 39.38% of taxes in 2005 2) The top 50% payed 96.93% of the taxes 3) The bottom 50% pay only 3.07% So, why should the rich pay more?
Progessive Tax

Hello Julius: Let me just say that this has been a good debate and a rather tougher one. Thanks for debating. I'll break down your argument now: "After that tax, a person making $1 million would have $750,000 after taxes and a person making $10,000 (below the poverty line already) would make $7500 after taxes. Some people would consider it more fair to make the person who earns $1 million to pay 50% and the person making $10,000 to only pay 5%"-Julius That is really unfair. Just because a person is rich doesn't mean that they don't have to save up for things. They still have car, house, mortgage, college payments to worry about. Sure they will have more money, but it doesn't make sense. First if they have 3 kids that each go to college for $30,000 a year for 4 years, that is $360,000 right there and on top of that is a $400,000 dollar house to that they have to pay for. Just because they're rich, doesn't mean they should have to give up HALF of their earnings to the government. Now that person probably worked hard all threw college and his early years to make $1,000,000 a year. The person that is making $10,000 a year was likely to think that life was a joke all threw school and thought they were going to have it made, well it didn't work out now didn't. I will acknowledge that there will be some exceptions to that statement, but not many. You also say that if we didn't have progressive tax, no one could get rich. Well that is untrue. If you look at all the richest people in the world (a good example is Warren Buffet) they weren't that rich to begin with, but they got rich by working hard. This is what is wrong with my generation, we all think once high school is over we will make millions, that won't happen. It will down the road if you work hard. Hard work will all ways payoff and if the poor works hard, they can make millions with or without a flat tax. For the people who can't payoff their mortgage, it has nothing to do with taxes. If they got a fixed rate they would be able to pay it off every month, because they know what they'll have to pay every month, because it'll never change. Adjustable rates, you don't know how much you have to pay every month. SUre, it could be lower, but it can be higher (most of the time). By saving money this way they will be able to pay for health care, and send their kids to college, it's just with a little hard work. Another thing with the progressive tax, their wealth would stay the same most of their life, because their taxes would go up everytime they made more money. For example if a person makes $500,000 in 2007 and payed a 45% tax rate, they would have $275,000 left. In 2008 they make $1,000,000 and their tax rate jumps to 65% they will have to pay $650,000 in taxes, now is that fair when their total income would be $350,000. They double the amount they took in, but only made $75,000 more than last year. Thanks again for debating.
Progessive Tax

Hello Julius: You read my argument totally wrong. I believe in taxes and don't mind paying them. What I'm arguing is that the bottom 50% of tax payers need to stop whining and saying the the rich keep getting richer. No doubt over the years the numbers will grow on how much we have to pay, but that is the way it is. For example $100 was a lot more in 1800 than in 2007. "Making lower and middle income people pay a larger share of the taxes is not efficient." -Julius This isn't what I'm arguing (I now relieze that it wasn't that clear). But this is what makes the United States of America the greatest country in the universe. If you work hard enough you can go from the lower class to the upper class. The taxes must be raised and the amount you pay should be one fixed percent for everyone. The way the Democrats want it will be the upper class will pay a higher percent than the lower class. For example( these a fake numbers, just using it as an example) the upper class will pay the federal government 50% on the dollar, the middle class 25% and the lower class 10%. Now how's that fair? If you ask me that sounds like a communist system.
Progessive Tax

1) Your conception of right and wrong is a poor way to set up a tax system. Taxation is perfectly legal and constitutional. Just because you don't want to pay taxes, doesn't mean it's "wrong". 2) The richest 1% control 35% of the country's wealth. The fact is that they pay slightly more taxes than the amount of wealth that they control. Your figure is hardly staggering given this fact. 3) Making lower and middle income people pay a larger share of the taxes is not efficient. We provide government services like Head Start, Medicaid, SCHIP, and student loans not only because they benefit individuals but because they benefit society as a whole. If we raise taxes on lower and middle income people, more people will need these services since they will have less income. If we don't allow more people to lose these services then we lose the public benefit.
Cheerleading is a sport

Here are the requirements in order for an activity to be a sport. * A physical activity which involves propelling a mass through space or overcoming the resistance of a mass. We throw 100-130 lb flyers into the air BOY OR GIRL...so check that one off * "Contesting" or competing against/with an opponent. There is competitive and school cheer, both can compete...Check that off too * Governed by the rules which explicitly define the time, space and purpose of the contest and the conditions under which a winner is declared. We are on a mat for 2 minutes and 30 seconds, there is your time, We have a 9 panel floor, and if we step off, its bad, like football or soccer, there's your boundaries, and there is first, second, third, and sometimes fourth place...therefore a winner is declared....Nationally, state wide, or district wide * Acknowledged primary purpose of the competition is a comparison of the relative skills of the participants. W are not allowed to compete in a division if it doesn't have our skill level, therefore there is comparison in skills Take another look at your Merriam Webster Dictionary argument!
Cheerleading is a sport

Before I begin, allow me to provide some definitions provided by the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Sport: an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. Cheerleader: a person who is a member of a group (typically a group of young women) who shout out special songs or chants to encourage the team and entertain the crowd during a game in sports like American football and basketball. The dictionary definition of cheerleading has absolutely nothing related to the dictionary definition of sport, therefore, I have already proven that cheerleading is currently not a sport. But perhaps that is not enough. According to an article on the official website of ESPN written by a former cheerleader as well as the NCAA, the National Federation of State High Schools, and the Women's Sports Foundation, a sport must "include some focus on competition". By definition, cheerleading has nothing to do with physical exertion nor is it very competitive; for something to be considered cheerleading, all one must do is "shout out special songs or chants to encourage the team and entertain the crowd during a game in sports like American football or basketball". Also, according to cheerleading,lovetoknow.com, the Department of Education "actually told schools not to include cheerleading as a sport". Why? Because cheerleading creates a gender bias considering it appeals almost completely to girls and is almost completely rejected by guys.
Cheerleading is a sport

Let's go back to one of the definitions I provided: Cheerleader: a person who is a member of a group (typically a group of young women) who shout out special songs or chants to encourage the team and entertain the crowd during a game in sports like American football and basketball. By definition, cheerleading has NOTHING to do with competition, physical exertion, or anything else you mentioned. The activity you are talking about is NOT cheerleading based on the DEFINITION of cheerleading itself. When a FORMER CHEERLEADER WRITING FOR ESPN, the NCAA, the National Federation of State High Schools, and the Women's Sports Foundation all claim that cheerleading is not a sport, I don't think cheerleading is a sport. When the Department of Education tells schools NOT to list cheerleading as a sport because of a gender bias (go back to the definition I provided and look at the words 'TYPICALLY A GROUP OF YOUNG WOMEN') , I don't think cheerleading is a sport. The activity you just discussed is NOT cheerleading - it may be a variation of cheerleading and you may refer to it as cheerleading - but by definition, it is NOT cheerleading. If the Merriam-Webster dictionary were wrong or contradicted popular belief than it would be changed by now. But it appears the majority accepts this definition, and by this definition, cheerleading is not a sport.
General Relativity Implies that God does not Exist

For some time, Sargon has contended that general relativity supplies an argument for atheism; that is to say, implies that God does not exist. Him and I have debated this issue else where, and I am more convinced than ever that general relativity implies no such thing. But for the convenience of DDO users, a debate here would be helpful. First round is for Sargon to present his argument as Pro. For an equal number of rounds, Sargon will not be posting a reply on round four. Plagiarism is of course not tolerable, though him or I may reproduce material from our previous writings. All normal rules apply.
Guns should be banned in the USA.

UnconstitutionalRegarding the relevancy of a 'can' and 'should' in a debate, we won't convince one another. Let us just leave it to the voters to decide. As for the Bill of Right, it counts as an amendment to make an additional amendment that alters the Bill of Rights.As for the sources argument, my source still states statistics and they are then interpreted. Your sources are useless to me and the constitution.Thanks for this debate!
Guns should be banned in the USA.

UnconstitutionalYour argument talking about 'Should's and 'Can's is still irrelevant. Should means that it is a good idea and it is beneficial. It is not affected about whether or not it is possible. About the Bill of Rights, there is such thing as additional amendments that can repeal the first 10.You also admit that your source is biased. My sources may be biased but I have two sources against yours and they both have statistics.Thanks for your rebuttals.