BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
increasing taxes, as a practical matter, is necessary for the financial well being of the USA*

a couple points. one. i don't see any reason your single study should trump years of consensus. at best, you have an outlier study. at worst, you're disagreeing with tons of reputable people, people more reputable than us. you have not specified enough fo the reasoning that we must all the sudden accept a single study. you've presented a blanket citation, without much to back it up in terms of reasoning etc. second. even that study says while it thinks we must magically be at the tipping point of the parabola, increasing taxes to reduce the deficit isn't necessarily a wrong approach. why not go with that exception, what's preventing us? who knows why that's the case, maybe cause it's better to accept less revenue with the certainty we will pay the deficit and take care of our obligations. i dont know, but even that study says so. http://www.motherjones.com... last. it's hard to get around raw data. years of revenue to the government at an average of almost seventy percent, and the revenue has been around 18%. this is not really disputable, while the methods and such of that study are disputable, especially again with so much argument against that study. this almost necessitates that it's skewed to the right parabola, cause it's not gone down much just stays the same roughtly, skewed a bunch to the right. with so much uncetainty, it seems the best decision is to defer to social security workers, and others. sure we can have everyone have some skin in the game to some extent, cuts and increases, a balanced approach... but the bottomline is we should at least see what happens if we increase taxes, before we ask the poorest and everyone else dependent on programs to such it up. you're asking so much based on some obscure study to risk you being right. at least, all this must be the case as you've not really established how we can keep all these programs as they are, and still cut taxes, or even keep taxes as they are. you keep ignoring it, almost making it seem like a polititican who faces the truth and doesnt want to state what he must be really thinking, that he expects the elderly and poor to suck it up in terms of lifestyle and health care.
increasing taxes, as a practical matter, is necessary for the financial well being of the USA*

My CaseThe Laffer CurveMy opponent's first refutation is about government revenue. He says here:"so, if we are going to get the same revenue with higher taxes, we might as well increase taxes. this would all mean we are probably on the left side of the curve."Here's the problem with that. You don't want to raise the taxes too high because then people will move some of their income and assets to tax shelters. This means that the economy will slow down and that's the negative effect of high taxes.My opponent also said that I did not bring in the best rate to tax and later he shows a graph that finds the best rate to be at 70%. Generally, this rate has been accepted by many, but now its considered too high by many including Dr. Laffer himself. A recent study has found that the best tax rate is far less than 70% and this is explained in the Prager University video I will provide. In fact, the rate should be 33% because if it is higher, the government gets less revenue. Let's move on to the history.History"most of your points like this president or that president cut taxes and there was a boom afterwards, appears to be just empty words. you didnt cite anything usually, and the bottomline again is the tax rate v revenue comparison."My opponent claims that I did not cite anything here, but this is incorrect because I divided my history argument into four sections for different eras (Harding-Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, and Clinton). At the end of each section it put footnotes and then the sources were in my sources section. My point here is that these tax reductions made more revenue, but it is also important to understand that we should not raise them too high or else we risk economic growth."on a last point about capital gains, and i address this as it's a specific argument besides taxes and revenue generally. yes there was a lot of capital gains after the cuts. but that only means people were taking their gains due to the opportunity. that means it was temporary. eventually revenue from gains went back to the normative rate increase. as proven by this graph."The dot-com bubble had burst in the early 2000s, so there was a recession. With this recession came less investments because no one wanted to risk their money. After that the revenue increased again. ConclusionI have proven that the proper rate should be 33% or less because that gives us maximum revenue. To raise it higher means less revenue and less economic growth. At the same time, my historial arguments have held.http://www.youtube.com...
THBT: Voluntary Euthanasia shall be legalized.

Thanks for your reply and it is good we are taking the debate a global level without referring to one country. It is also good that you have based it only on voluntary euthanasia in which the patient chooses to live or die. I didn't have an argument because I was waiting for yours as the proposition to tell me all you want because you only stated that a person whose life is depending on machine for instance should decide to live or not. My question to that is how will someone whose life is depending on machine make the right choice?? Is he or she in the right state of mind?? I don't think so. I oppose the legalization of euthanasia in any circumstance and believe that doctors should always look for a solution and not just abandon research because that is what is going to happen in the long run. I am supporting the status quo because right now it is not allowed and that is why you are proposing to legalize it. People might talk of freedom to choose and so what but it is not absolute. People might also think that people should be allowed to end their suffering but we have to know that there are always possibilities to solve things. My arguments to against this are: 1-killing is wrong: One objection to voluntary euthanasia is that it involves killing, and all killing is morally wrong. This principle may be based on religious views (e.g., the sixth commandment) or maintained on purely secular grounds. It also violates our duties to God if we are believers. It violates our duties to our families and our society too. 2-An incorrect diagnosis is possible or a new treatment might be discovered. There is always the possibility of an incorrect diagnosis or the discovery of a treatment that will permit either survival or recovery. This should be actually be the doctors' focus and never give up. They should do everything possible to save lives instead of being lazy by allowing euthanasia. 3- State of mind versus the right choice: i asked this question earlier and how do you expect someone in this critical situation to make a right choice for himself. he or she might be depending on drugs or machines and so on.... 4- It goes against the doctors' job: Physicians don't want to be nor should be involved in this kind of activity. The medical profession exists to provide important professional services, and neither wants to be nor should be involved in the kind of bureaucratic activity involved in responsibly administering voluntary euthanasia. it will also discourage the search for new cures and treatments for the terminally ill.It will encourage patients to give up and significantly decrease their chances for recovery. i hope to hear from you and will have more arguments in my next too. thanks
THBT: Voluntary Euthanasia shall be legalized.

Good day to you too, Mr. Sano. Maybe we could say that we could legalized it in the Philippines (since that is my hometown). However, since this site is for all, which I mean would be world-wide, then defining which country it would be legalized might prove to be useless. Since the parameter was set to be in the 'Voluntary Euthanasia', I believe that you should have mentioned 'why' you oppose to the status quo. It would be hard for me to rebuttal your argument since there is no 'real' argument in it that I could hardly oppose to what you might say. Thank you very much and have a good day to you too.
THBT: Voluntary Euthanasia shall be legalized.

Hello Lianfex my name is sano and would like to go against your case.I hope we all gave gonna gain something at the end. I believe that euthanasia should not be legalized in any circunstance. Thanks for telling me about the different types but still feel that even under the one you chose, we should not legalized it. so maybe we can debate this on a general level by not referring to a single country but if you like you wanna choose a county, it is fine with me. I will like to hear from you and yeah then i reply with my arguments. have a nice day
THBT: Voluntary Euthanasia shall be legalized.

There are three kinds of Euthanasia: Voluntary Euthanasia, which means that the person's death is at that person's request. Non-voluntary euthanasia, which is the person is not capable of making a rational decision about their own fate (eg,new-born infants, people suffering senile dementia) and the decision to let them die or to end their life is taken on their own behalf because it is judged to be in their best interests. And lastly, Involuntary euthanasia: the person is allowed to die or killed against their will. See also: http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk... The parameters are only to be set with the Voluntary Euthanasia which meaning is stated above. I believe that if the person is in his or her death bed and that his or her life is only supported with machines, it is only merciful that we should at least end his or her pain. Also, since we gained the permission of the patient to perform euthanasia, which means that the person is either too tired to keep on fighting or that the person no longer wanted to be in pain, it is only natural that we should at least honor his or her request.
comunissium

Glad to see your return Sedvodka! <(||<) (>||)> First, I must unfortunately point out that you have not addressed my first critique of your argument - namely that the fact that Communism has (according to you) failed in one country does not imply it will fail in another (and indeed fail completely). As for my second argument, do you too find the Sickle and Hammer schnazy? <(||<) (>||)> You state that, "the problem with communism is that it does not give one a chance to better themselves...you take away the difference between the rich and the poor, what will people aim for?" I believe that money is a motivator for doing what you do not enjoy doing (namely work). It does not follow though that money is the only motivator. Here is a list of the top 7 reasons why employees leave their jobs (1): 1. The job or workplace was not as expected 2. Mismatch between job and the person 3. Too little coaching and feedback 4. Too few growth and advancement opportunities 5. Feeling devalued and unrecognized 6. Stress from overwork and work-life imbalance 7. Loss of trust and confidence in senior leaders I fail to see "lack of pay" as one of those. I do think Communism attests to one important feature of the working class: work we enjoy is work we'll do. For instance, I am a large fan of Excel spreadsheets. If I could spend my days in Excel and earn enough money to satisfy the needs of my family than what do I have to complain about? I love Excel, I love my family - my two chief loves(2) have been met. Senator Tom Coburn, another man who does what he loves, delivers babies in hospitals for free simply because he enjoys it (3). In a Capitalist Society we advocate the love of money (and the desires it feeds) as a driving factor for our economy. What has this produced though? - Poverty - Starvation - Murder - Abuse/Wide-Scale Violence - Class Division - Racism - Sex-ism - Child Prostitution - Slavery The list can go on, I assure you. What have you claimed Communism has produced? Laziness. I will gladly take this character flaw over the atrocities mentioned above. Communism for our Future! -Y 1. http://www.leadershipconsulting.com... 2. I must note here that these are not my two chief loves but this closely resembles them. 3. http://thehill.com...
comunissium

i apologize for missing the second round. i was away for the weekend. yaunti you state an exellent case. but i still belive that communism is not the answer. the problem with communism is that it does not give one a chance to better themselves. plus, if you think about it, the world will fall apart! if you take away the difference between the rich and the poor, what will people aim for? kids want to be rich and successful. so they study hard, and work hard. if you take away the difference between the rich and the poor, you take away people's ambitions. would you work as hard as you could, for your whole life, for nothing more then a pat on the back and a goldstar? no you would not. face the facts. money motivates. an example. say you are offered work on a farm. you must sow seeds and take care of the farm animals. lets say you get paid 150$ A month. you work hard, but not to the best of your capacity. now lets say you get paid 500$ a month. now you work your fingers to the bone. you dont want to lose this job, and you do everything to the best of your ability. i now close my argument.
comunissium

I would be glad to participate in this debate Sedvodka, I have not had the opportunity to debate a topic on this site, so I took the liberty at looking at the format of other debates to obtain an idea. With that in mind, let me define the term of Communism from the Oxford Dictionary. Communism: First, it is a noun. It also has two definitions. They are as follows: 1. a political and social system whereby all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs. 2. a system of this kind derived from Marxism, practiced in China and formerly in the Soviet Union. My first argument against your statements against communism is as follows: Why does the failure of an ideology in one country imply that it will persist in being a failure (if established in other countries)? I do not think this is an appropriate stance to take, and I will give an analogy that hopefully will prove helpful: I believe the use of currency is a more effective method for business (commerce). In current day Zimbabwe the inflation rate is about 300% and therefore currency is useless (without value). Therefore, the use of currency is not a more effective method for business. There could be many confounding variables that lead to the social and economical problems seen in Russia today (and of course in the past). There are many problems in non-communist countries today, does this mean we should abandon those systems and accept communism? I would argue that there were benefits that came through Communism in the Soviet Union; this ideology Stalin industrialized the Soviet Union in 10 years - a record pace and I doubt it would have been possible without the Utilitarianism-based Ethics system that supports Communism. My second argument is entirely without substance, but I find Communism in the Soviet Union attractive due to the schnazy Sickle and Hammer flag. Communism for our Future! -Y
comunissium

while i believe that everyone has a right to their own opion, i do not belive that communism is an effective means to solve a soloution. look at russia. a long time ago, russia hit the craps. they turned to cummunism to fix their country. it did not work. in fact it made things worse! the rich did not want to give up their money, and the poor were not willing enough to work without pay especialy when food still costed money. the whole country failed, and infighting started. i understand the idea of communism, but it really isnt that hard to make money in the U.S. how do you think illegal aliens survive? people pay good money for others to do jobs that they dont want to do. and you really dont need any education to be a garbage man do you? or a schoolbus driver? they make good money, and dont even need to speak english!
Your choice.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL I do not have time to respond to this. Sorry once again we'll need to start another debate, though I am for the 64 being a better console than the PS1, here is just a couple of quick reasons why. 1) More memorable games. Sure they were not a high geographic as the PS1, but they were allot funner, sure this is a opinionated statement but that is what debates are. I have 1 min left so I need to post this now.
Your choice.

I will be taking the side of the Playstation 1 while my opponent will be taking the side of the Nintendo 64. As a clarification this is not a debate that we are comparing the company Sony to the company Nintendo. We are simply comparing the two consoles that were the top sellers and our personal favorites so I expect us not to bring up prior or newer generation games/consoles in this debate unless there is good enough evidence of why the topic is brung up. I hope to have an enjoyable debate with you my friend.
God exists

Tell me, do you not see that the body looks designed? Do you not see that you are fearfully and wonderfully made? Tell me, do you not know that there is good and evil in the universe? For If there is no moral law giver, from whence come good and evil? Tell me, do you not understand? What caused the universe to exist? Everything that exists has an explanation to its existence, except things that don’t out of their own nature (such as abstract entities like numbers and such). For if there is an explanation, the explanation is God. I believe in a personal God. For if the universe shows intelligent design surely it has to be the work of conscience personal God, not a mindless impersonal deity that lacks intelligence.
frankfurter50 is a jerk

I did not say you were a human or a polar bear. I am positive about one thing, though. You are repulsive. It's fine if you're a polar bear. It's not OK to be a racist, or suggest segregation or mass genocide. Your mind is a twisted mess of wires, and when this debate is over, I hope you feel lots of guilt as to who you are and what you think. You certainly have the intelligence quotient of a polar bear. You are being racist, and a disgusting troll. You have opinions about the One Child Policy and black violence, but they are bad opinions and they will lower your popularity. Members of the KKK have opinions, but their opinions are vile and they do not get to share them at the expense of others. White people are just as violent as black people. Do you realize that, you thick skulled galoot? Skin color does not affect the personality of an individual. That's kindergarten level thinking. I do not pay attention to you, and I do not stalk you, nor do I treat you with less civility than anyone else. Your debates are appealing to me because I always win them. I cannot lose, the topics you give are riotously ridiculous, and I have a strong urge to accept. That is all. If I could say one nice thing about your debates, it would be that they're very unique. And fun. I do enjoy witnessing your reactions to my intellect. It's a game of chess, sir. And I keep capturing your pieces. You're very weird. Vote fairly, judges. I'm outta here.
frankfurter50 is a jerk

I am not a human being. I am a polar bear; I repeat-a polar bear. And also, how am I being racist or being a disgusting troll? I am genuinely expressing my viewpoints on society. Just saying, I support the One Child Policy, and I am concerned about black violence. I don't have time to say everything about frankfurter50, but he/she also always is paying attention to me and being a stalker and a troll.
frankfurter50 is a jerk

Welcome, everyone. I am proud to debate, and I hope we can both act with civility. I am not a jerk. As a matter of fact, I might be one of the only sane people here. My opponent, clearly, is much less kind for making this humiliating debate, which, as we can see, is a bad attempt to reclaim his dignity. He seems to resent me because I am good at debating, and I continue to debate better than him. He doesn't want to improve, so he insults me, with the hope that my ego will be damaged. Unfortunately, my ego is small, so he can't throw any spears at it. He also seems to resent me because I keep accepting his debates. This is not my fault, I simply enjoy debating with him, because his debates are always eccentric and enjoyable. If he does not want me to debate with him, he should challenge somebody else. It's as easy as that. I enjoy his debates. They're pretty neat. What else can I say? He can't win. That's another reason for his resentment. The topics he wants to debate show that he has many wrong conceptions about the world. he debates things that, with all honesty, cannot be proven. Furthermore, he refuses to try to debate even slightly better when I prompt him to. There is a lot of room for improvement on his side. He could provide more evidence, he could be more opinionated. His debating style is bland and lifeless. To give you some examples of the bizarre things he tries to prove, here are some links: http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... You can interpret these as you wish, judges. I do not post them here as evidence for my side, but rather, as a record for you to observe in order to make your decision. If, in reality, you believe that he is a better debater, then by all means vote for him. I don't think he knows beans about the world. This was best shown, perhaps, in one of his most recent debates: http://www.debate.org... This is more than idiocy, he's also a clear racist. When he first arrived at this site, I assumed he was just an inexperienced lout, but then I noticed this debate, and knew that he was a genuine troll. This is not just a sick debate, it shows how racist, vile, and reprehensible he is. He is not an awesome ice bear. He is a disgusting ice bear, and I assume he's a member of the KKK too. A pro-racism polar bear. Insane. Just insane. How can you vote for a person like this, judges? How? I'm not a jerk. I'm just a normal person who recognizes insanity. And I can tell that my opponent is in the first stages of a mental breakdown, or worse. He's a sad person who cannot admit defeat, so he creates debates like this, which strengthen his beliefs and undeserved pride. I await our last round, sir. I'm bored.