BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Progressive income taxes are just

This is part of Tim Spin's debate tournament. A brief note before I begin the round: While the resolution can be evaluated with any number of arguments, if my opponent agrees, I would like to have the debate focus on the clash of two broad moral ideas. This helps filter the arguments so that the cases are more cohesive and fosters debate education by helping debaters link their contentions to broader philosophical principles. If my opponent does not agree, then we will not pursue this course of action. Definitions: 1. Progressive income tax: a tax by which the tax rate increases as the tax base increases. Essentially, individuals who earn more have more money, or a larger tax base, and they thus pay more taxes under a progressive system. 2. Just: to be in accordance with the principles of justice 3. Justice: Giving each his due (Aristotle) Thus, we must determine if progressive taxation "gives each his due" and is fair to all. I look forward to debating my opponent and would like to congratulate him for advancing to the semifinal round of Tim Spin's debate tournament. Progressive income taxes:
Being Black is a Disability

Being black is not a disability. It does not impede a person's thoughts or actions in any way. Black people are not filled with hate or violence, but white supremacists like yourself, I could say, are. They do qualify as human beings, actually, they're the same species as us, Homo Sapiens. And the IQ of a person does not determine whether somebody is considered a human being. Still, there are no statistics which say that black people have lower IQs than white people. They are not apes. Some black people, like people of all races, have disabilities. Some white people have disabilities. Just because one black person has a disability, it does not mean we should count them all as disabled. We are not going to classify black people as disabled, and we are not going to bring back segregation, or force them to sit at certain places on the bus. You are a psychopath.
Being Black is a Disability

Really? Why do you think that being black is not a disability? Black people are filled with junk and violence in their brains, and they ate so ugly and have so low IQ's that they don't even qualify as human beings. They are mere apes. Also, many black people have disorders, so they should definitely count as disabled. So what application does that have in society or their daily lives? It means that black people are not allowed to drive, black students have to go to special needs schools. Also, on buses, the, black people have to sit on the seats for disabled people, as shown here: http://c8.alamy.com...
Being Black is a Disability

Is being black a disability? Yes, I think so. Welcome to debate #18 of this year. I think that being black or African truly is a social disadvantage and also a physical/mental disability. Why is being black a disability? Because black people are violent, stupid, and ugly and overweight. That is all black children should be in special need schools. You have 3 rounds to debate, and a max of 6000 characters.
is deforestation necessary for development

Deforestation is a two-sided gamble, as are your arguments. You claim deforestation would damage the "economical system", but wouldn't deforestation help? The influx of raw materials to be traded would damage the system? How so? If you could please expand upon that, that would be helpful. And as a follow-up, I will be presenting several arguments of my own as to which deforestation is somewhat necessary for development. 1. It gives lots of people, who would otherwise be jobless, employment, which in turn increases their standard of life etc. 2. It supplies the economy with raw materials, such as pulp for paper, wood for chairs, desks, etc. 3. It gives room for grazing land and land for crops, which can give someone a job, which increases their standard of life (particularly in 3rd world countries) 4. Some forests are full of plants and trees which are not native to the area, which destroy animal habitats and other plant life, such as Ageratina Adenophora. 5. In relation to points 1,2 and 3, deforestation gives many communities the opportunity to make positive changes in their lives, like building a community. 6. Deforestation often occurs to make communications or transportation easier, which improves an areas accessibility, which in turn helps their economy etc. 7. It gives room for things such as offices, hospitals, schools or whatever to be built, which help a community a lot more than a bit of forest. 8. On a very small scale, such as practiced by the native people of the amazon, deforestation leaves the ground more fertile, so crops can be grown. (However this is only done on completely different patches, with years between when they deforest the same patch again.) 9. Often, it helps the transport of a valuable material, such as oil, which is clearly much more beneficial than a few thousand trees.
is deforestation necessary for development

is deforestation necessary for development, yes of course the deforestation increases then the economical system will be damaged and the forests will be cut down.also you know, the deforestation is the main reason for global warming . because the humans are cutting down the trees so the CO2 will increase and the ozone layer will be depleted.if plants are not there then the oxygen in the atmosphere will fall down.so the humans cant live on earth.so i finally conclude that without deforstation devolepment will happen.
smoking should be illegal around children

I barely even know what the fuï¿½k you even said. How does smoking around kids cause people to go postal at their job? And that era of cancer victims, tar breath and retardation is here now. And I'm pretty sure you pulled retardation out of the top of your head. PS, you should really try out this thing called grammar/punctuation, its pretty cool. And if NO ONE IN ALL CAPS believes me, ask the man named Phil in my basement.
smoking should be illegal around children

Smoking is great sport around children. Blowing smoke in their faces arouses me. If the kid doesn't want to get smoked on, he shouldn't have stuffed his face in my cigarette bud? When they complain, I burn them with the lighted end of the cigarette, and make them buy me a new pack. If we illegalize smoking in front of kids, it would be pointless. Smoking is not illegal at all, and if someone is caught smoking in front of a kid, he/she could just say "I didn't see them," or, "They saw me smoking, walked up to me, framing me", or "He/she saw me smoking and walked up to me, and wanted me to buy a pack for them. Plus, if you make it illegal, I will shoot up everyone at my job and then turn the gun on myself.
Obama is lost.

Obama was only elected president on the fact that people saw a new opportunity with him. They did not realize socialism, and eventually worse are on the way. I do not agree with the big government changes already in place. He even wants to ban smoking for the military. Of course its a healthy choice but have you ever had a angered Marine on your hands?....try one with out a cig to calm him down... especially right after losing 3 of his buddies at the same time. I realize some people need government help, but most people using government help are taking advantage of the system. Shrinking our nuclear arsenal isn't about how many times we can blow up the world, its looking weak. The nuke's we have right now are getting close to their expiration date. We need those weapons to keep other countries from trying to mess with us. Obama doesn't even realize he is hurting our country and that fact that the budget deficit he created is a huge problem and that his kids grand kids will be paying off that debt for years to come. Thank you for making the worse decisions in United States history.
Obama is lost.

First of all global warming is a whole different can of worms. I happen not to believe in global warming. From what I know of this "global warming" smoking is not even close to a cause of global warming. The choice to or not to smoke should be based on each person in this country. I for one being a former Marine picked up smoking in Iraq, quit when I left, picked it up in Afghanistan and quit shortly after again. I can honestly say as well as every other service member that smokes, (which is a lot of service members) that smoking is a very great escape while in a very stressful situation. I have even had people ask me for a smoke that didn't smoke because they were so stressed out. Messing with the morale of the troops is never a good thing either. By banning the selling of tobacco products on military installations will kill morale indirectly as well. The PX on base is a non-profit organization. The money they do scrap off the top goes to entertaining the troops, helping the troops with various programs. I could go on but you could also visit www.MCCSlejeune.com Now that I covered that, lets look at the bigger issue Obama is causing this country as well as our kids for years and years to come. He has brought our budget deficit up to a record high, and he did it before being in office for 6 months!! Also I consider myself a free thinker and like to do what I want, when I want. Obama also wants to take that a way little by little. If he forces us to get medical coverage so employers can pick up the tab, what will that do for the company's who are already struggling?? Are we going to see more company lay offs because of this? I think it will on a short and long term level. Thank you for your quick response.
Obama is lost.

People saw an opportunity in Obama because the people wanted change, perhaps. The thing your saying about banning the Marines/Soldiers to smoke is not yet final, he just 'want' it. Meaning, he is just in the process of thinking about it whether good or not good. Another thing, it is not just the soldiers health that would be spared if he bans smoking among them but also the current big issue about Global Warming. I'm not saying that if he bans smoking among his troops it will stop Global Warming, but Only be lessened. What Obama is trying to do is not hurt the country, of course, if he hurts his country he shall also be hurt. Obama just wants to clear the nukes because it's way to dangerous, in fact, although it is not yet exploding it can already affect your body because of the radiation. What he wants to prove is that he is just concern about everybody's health and not to make America the weakest country in terms of war etc. Say, you take the place of Obama and you'll know how hard it is to be the president of the most powerful country in the world.
Funding to Nasa Should be Increased in Order to Stimulate the Economy

Argument: Spending millions in tax money on unneeded and often unproductive National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) missions is ridiculous. Funding NASA siphons money from other worthwhile, terrestrial programs such as helping the nation's poor. While NASA tries to sell its missions as patriotic endeavors, America must realize that it needs to help itself through hard economic times before investing in theoretical tomorrows. Good sense is a terrestrial phenomenon, as the expression "down to earth" suggests. Outer space, on the other hand, provides metaphors of madness. "Lunacy" originates from lunar, or the idea that the moon's gravitational pull adversely affects the brain. That perhaps explains the insanity that typifies American space policy. Forget giant leaps for mankind, NASA is a machine for spending money. That fact has been driven home by the ignominious failure of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory, a $278 million package which blasted off from Vandenberg air force base on Tuesday and promptly crashed into the Pacific. The satellite, we were told, would advance the study of global warming. But NASA isn't interested in global warming; it simply realises that wearing green is a way to get government money. While most Americans have moved on, NASA is stuck in the 1960s. That explains the desire to go to Mars, an aspiration given the seal of presidential approval in 2004. Bush's project, priced at $400 billion, was inspired by his desire to stay ahead of the Chinese in the new space race. Just as in the 1960s, the ability to make shallow gestures in space is still assumed to be an indicator of a nation's virility. During a recent radio programme, a NASA astronaut asked me how the American people might react if the next man on the moon were Chinese. I replied with a question: "why are Americans so insecure?" If the Chinese want that worthless rock, so be it." The time has come to pull the plug on meaningless gestures in space. Thank you... P.S. i don't agree with this viewpoint I'm just having fun:) (don't use this fact in you rebuttal, Thanks)
I'm Pro Gun: Try to Change my Mind

First of all, I am talking just about America. I apologize, As I should have stated that in round 1. " Imagine if guns became legal, People would be shooting each other for the smallest things. Fights would break out of nowhere. Instead of stooping down to the level of the criminal how about we increase the efficiency of the military against terrorist attacks. Increase the salaries of policemen and stop wasting that money on useless things. " Since I am talking about America, Guns are already legal. Sure, There are some shootings and fights with them. What would we be wasting money on? However, Although guns take lives, Many more are saved by them. There are over 2. 5 million DGU's per year. (https://www. Lawenforcementtoday. Com/unpublished-cdc-study-confirms-2-million-defensive-handgun-uses-annually) "Pro-gun is pro-violence. We never fight bad with bad. That is not our way. Most governments are selfish for their own countries in a good way but the countries who are not like South Africa and Pakistan will need help from other countries, From other nations, If only our world wasn't inconsiderate. " I would argue anti-gun is pro violence. You are not fighting bad with bad, You are fighting bad with good. Good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns. And again, I wasn't talking about other countries, Just America, Which is my fault. Gun bans have proven not to be effective, Such as Britain, Australia, Etc. After the ban in Britain, Homicide spiked up and then eventually went back down to the pre-ban rate, Proving not effective. Violent crime in America has decreased 50% in the last 20 years as concealed-carry goes up during that time. I'm not saying correlation equals causation, But it is proven concealed-carry does not increase violent crime. "Carrying a pepper spray or a taser is a way safer option for our world. Plus when we will have guns we will have to change so many laws and regulations, That time should be spent trying to abolish poverty and improve education instead. Or even increase the efficiency of the military instead. When you will have the gun you will feel like it's your safe treasure and the smallest thing may lead you to possibly kill someone. For example, A slight movement of the hand and you have shot someone" I'm pretty sure guns would be more effective than pepper spray and tasers. Gunman can power through pepper spray, And tasers are no good if they shoot you from a distance. Guns are already legal in America. That's not what happens when you have a gun. Gun owners are very responsible and know the risks. Concealed-carry holders even commit crimes 14% less than police officers. That's how law-abiding they are. (https://www. Gunstocarry. Com/concealed-carry-statistics/) "Governments will have to increase prison space for the increased crime which will break out. " Violent crime has decreased 50% from 1990 in America.
I'm Pro Gun: Try to Change my Mind

You may be a very trusted and helpful citizen in your city. You may have no bad intentions at all. However, You need to keep in mind that you are not alone in this world. If the world was to come to some type of agreement on making guns legal then that's it for the rest of us. There are evil minds out there. I have researched criminal cases and their capability is larger and slyer compared to the police force of still many developing countries. Imagine if guns became legal, People would be shooting each other for the smallest things. Fights would break out of nowhere. Instead of stooping down to the level of the criminal how about we increase the efficiency of the military against terrorist attacks. Increase the salaries of policemen and stop wasting that money on useless things. More money and people will immediately want to work more efficiently and more people will apply for the job. Pro-gun is pro-violence. We never fight bad with bad. That is not our way. Most governments are selfish for their own countries in a good way but the countries who are not like South Africa and Pakistan will need help from other countries, From other nations, If only our world wasn't inconsiderate. With the help, They get they can increase security and efficiency. Carrying a pepper spray or a taser is a way safer option for our world. Plus when we will have guns we will have to change so many laws and regulations, That time should be spent trying to abolish poverty and improve education instead. Or even increase the efficiency of the military instead. When you will have the gun you will feel like it's your safe treasure and the smallest thing may lead you to possibly kill someone. For example, A slight movement of the hand and you have shot someone. Governments will have to increase prison space for the increased crime which will break out. I do respect your opinion but you need to keep in mind that while you fight for your freedom just be sure that you not interrupting the freedom of others especially in a problem like guns.
THW ban the civilian use of nulear power

I negate, "This House Would ban the civilian use of nuclear power". (I'm going to assume you have no spikes in the mispelling of "nuclear". ) Definitions: This House - The voters of Debate. org. THWill vote for who they think is the winner. Civilian Use of Nuclear Power - Commercial nuclear power plants Observations/Burdens: The PRO has the burden to give reasons as why to affirm. If I take them out or outweigh, then he does not reach, therefore I win. Args: He comes up in R1 and gives this short and concise little arguement about how nuclear power creates waste that can cause cancer in humans, and basically says that we can't take the chance in using this sort of power if it's going to hurt people. I have three responses to this. 1) His warrant is an insufficient reason to stop using nuclear power. Just because has the chance to hurt a few people doesn't mean that we should stop using power. (Insert generic Util warrant here) We have rad suits when we work near radioactive materials, and that's only when our machines fail to work. We are no longer in the age of Marie Curie; we do not handle uranium with our bare hands. 2) He also assumes that we're going to be consuming contaminated food. I don't think that this is sufficient either; we can just solve the problem by enforcing regulations so that safety and containment standards are met. This also applies to his "inefficient dumping" argument. He's just making a conditional contention. 3) Impact turn: His thesis is that we shouldn't be using nuclear power because it can hurt a lot of people. Under this line of reasoning things would become extremely insensible, because absolutely everything has the capability of hurting people. His usage of the precautionary principle is bad because under the concept that "we shouldn't take any actions that will hurt people", everyone would end up just not moving at all due to Chaos Theory (the Butterfly Effect). Even if that's not true, his line of reasoning would AT LEAST lead us to not use the following: Missiles - They can fly to the wrong place. Cars - These cause the death of quite a few people. This is a well known fact. Space Shuttles - Challenger. Coal - Exhaust fumes, child labor. Electricity - Electrocution. Fuel Cell - Hindenburg. Guns - These kill people. This is a well known fact. Paper - Deforestation. Medicine - MRSA. Fertilizer - Lowering of fish population in bays. English - Limits people to certain areas. Cruise ships - Lusitania. Plastic - Too much oil consumption. Leather - Lowering of cow population. 767's - World Trade Center. Liberals - Steer the country in the wrong direction. Conservatives - Steer the country in the wrong direction. Motor boats - Disturbs the fishies. Fishermen get mad. Airplanes - Disturbs the birdies. Birdwatchers get mad. And more!
Year round schooling

Great arguments, however, the trend is to be more not traditional as ever, and we no longer live in an agrarian society so kids don't need to be home all summer wasting their brains away... so go to school and prosper. Family Education says" students in year-round schools that have everyone on the same track have shown improved achievement scores over those in traditional schools. Read more on FamilyEducation: http://school.familyeducation.com... Go School!
Year round schooling

In a recent poll as stated in the Washington Post "among respondents, those in two-income families with children in school were most likely to oppose year-round schooling, expressing concerns about child care during the nontraditional vacation days that might be assigned." Furthermore teachers who are living in a district that do not include a full year school plan are having to secure child care coverage for their own children during the summer months when they are used to staying home with their children. This extra step a teacher needs to make will affect their overall well being, thus resulting in low morale in his or her job.
Year round schooling

Some people have a misconception of what year round education really is... IT IS NOT school all year long. What it is, is school that is evenly divided through out the year. "Year-round schooling " many Americans assume that means school all year without any breaks. That is untrue. Just like there are around 180 days of school with the traditional system, there are also around 180 days of school with year-round schooling."pantagraph.com Year round schooling actually give students and teachers the breaks they need throughout the year. 2 weeks in the fall, 1 month at Christmas, 2 weeks in the spring and 5-6 weeks in the summer. Sounds Great!!!
Year round schooling

Data shows that there is sufficient evidence to consider year round schooling. One reason is to share resources. Bigger bang for your buck. According to Scholastic.com "Schools in fast-growing areas transition to year-round schedules as a way to ease overcrowding. When that occurs, kids are placed on multi-tracks, and alternate tracking in and out of the school, a process that keeps the buildings in constant use." Additionally research shows that kids lose up to 1/3 of previous knowledge during a 8-10 week summer recess... (insert citation here)