BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cutting Taxes Would Stimulate The Economy

The thing is about your sauce is its biased. Do you even know what Cato institute is? Its a libertarian website associated with right wing groups. Basically your augment is you repeating the same stuff, mostly cherry picked facts with a biased source. But then again isn't that what most debates are? These almost perfect polite seeming people making empty promises with cherry picked facts. However this is my opinion. Look at Germany, Denmark, Norway and Netherlands economy all have very high taxes and are doing great. If we had higher taxes the working class would be doing better, roads schools ect ect would be better. See I can cherry pick too. http://en.m.wikipedia.org... http://en.m.wikipedia.org... http://en.m.wikipedia.org... http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Cutting Taxes Would Stimulate The Economy

I would like to remind myself and the Contender that you can not bring up any new points for Round Three. It is only for rebuttals and conclusions. Thank you. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ First of all, I'd like to point out the statistics I put previously on my Round Two post were ignored by my opponent. He or she states that the effectiveness of tax cuts are in theory and idealistic; however, the results prove his argument wrong. Just refer to my source I posted in Round Two.[1] The results of cutting taxes worked as expected and when Michigan did it, they had 10 years of an unprecedented flourishing economy and being ranked as the top third state in job growth during the 90's. Also, most people in the United States that work get their income from the private sector; and the middle class generally don't like their taxes. At the end of the day, the economy is stimulated because of tax cuts and the economy booms, just as I explained with the case of the economy of the state of Michigan. And yes, job growth does increase significantly with tax cuts, and I just explained why. And of course we need taxes so we could fund many things, I'm not saying we should abolish all taxes, just cut them significantly enough to stimulate the economy. That would be cutting income tax and corporate tax by 5%-10%. And as I mentioned many times, the statistics and results have proved my case true and working. Just look at the Michigan case in 1991 with John Engler, and even look at the other states that had their taxes cut, which resulted in an economic boom and exponential job growth. And of course, tax cuts work very well with limited spending, which is another story. In conclusion to my case and to this debate, I firmly believe that tax cuts will stimulate the economy, create jobs, and even increase revenue for the government as I mentioned in this debate. Thank you all for your attention and good day. Sources: 1.) http://www.cato.org...
Cutting Taxes Would Stimulate The Economy

"With tax cuts, business owners would either expand their business or lower the prices." Yeah in theory but they don't. In an ideal world maybe big business would give us a break. But people are greedy and immoral. The money wouldn't go to expanding business to give people jobs like you think your ideal world. The money goes to shareholders. And where do you think the working class get there money from huh? Taxes. They wouldn't be enjoying the tax cuts from the rich they get less money. With what your saying everyone would be paying less in taxes so who is paying taxes then becuase the government wouldn't have money to help up keep schools, roads ect ect.
Cutting Taxes Would Stimulate The Economy

With tax cuts, business owners would either expand their businesses or lower the prices. An overwhelming majority of businesses will take advantage of tax cuts for the sake of profit, either it be expanding themselves or lowering the prices. If they expand, it requires more jobs, which reduces the unemployment rate, as I stated previously. If they lower the prices, more consumers will be happy to take advantage of it and go out and buy their products or services, which increases the purchasing power in the country. As it seems that my opponent doubts the effectiveness of tax cuts, I would like to give him and the voters of this debate an example of working tax cuts. My example is going to be the state of Michigan, which before the 1990's experienced having the second highest unemployment rate in the United States and an appalling economy. In 1991, when John Engler was elected to become the Governor of Michigan, he slashed taxes in the state to a cumulative tax savings of about $20 billion. The result led to Michigan having ten years of unprecedented prosperity. It even became the top third state in job growth.[1] I'd also like to mention about the part in your statement where you mentioned that some people would be left out of the tax cuts. I'm not sure who you're referring to, but I assume you may be referring to the low income, the poor. First of all, the poor will be enjoying their tax cuts. They will feel the tax cuts on their part and they will have more money to save up, if not spend them. Sources: 1.) http://www.cato.org...
Cutting Taxes Would Stimulate The Economy

People don't always spend more when taxes are cut. If there worried about the economy in the future they tend to save not spend more. Also just because business save more money doesn't always mean they will spend it to increase jobs. History epically recent shows that business use these benefits to benefit shareholders directly. Why in the mid 20th century, when corporate taxes and personal taxes where at its highest booming economics. Here's a philosophical question for you to.. That even if what you said was true don't you think that some people, some where would be left out? What your describing is trickle down economics, which doesn't work.
Cutting Taxes Would Stimulate The Economy

Rules: I will write an essay and my opponent will rebut on Round One, along with his or her acceptance. By Round Three, there will be no new points, only conclusions. Good luck to both sides! Cutting taxes would increase the purchasing power of the people. This means businesses will profit more from consumers and with more money, we can experience increased overall wages, increased earnings for everyone, and this will be beneficial to the country's overall prosperity. This will also lead to increased employment. Businesses, with tax cuts, will be able to spend their tax cuts on expanding. And what do you need when you expand? You need people, which means more people get hired, in other words, more jobs. This will obviously decrease poverty levels, homelessness, and America's overall prosperity. The government can also benefit from this with increased revenue. With tax cuts, I mentioned that more people will have jobs, which means more people will be paying their taxes. This will be a winning game to both the people, their economy, and to the government. In conclusion, tax cuts will increase jobs, encourage or increase economic growth, increase government revenue and benefit us all in the long run.
Serving in the military does more harm than good.

This debate is on whether serving in the military is more harmful than it is beneficial to the person serving. I will use the United States Armed forces as an example. I will be taking the Pro side and arguing that the people should not enlist in the military because they have more to lose than to gain. Note: this refers strictly to whether military service is useful to the individual, not the nation. This is because all countries require militaries to defend themselves and the benefits to the nation are for most purposes, not debatable. Con must argue that serving in the military is beneficial, not just argue that benefits and harms are equal. The limit is 6000 characters so that people can read it quickly. First round is for acceptance and any clarifications/definitions though you can also do these in the comments section. Second round for opening arguments. Third for rebuttals and cross examination. Fourth is for defending your original arguments against the rebuttals, answering cross examinations (if any) and conclusion. My argument is going to be along the lines of risks to life and limb, PTSD, delay of veteran's benefits and more.
Oppositional defiance disorder is a fictional disorder created by statists who want to control peopl

My opponent has again failed to post any argument actually supporting the resolution, and has pivoted (weirdly) to homosexuality, which has nothing to do with ODD. In any event, the DSM never listed homosexuality as a "sin." "Sin" is a religious concept, not a medical one. At one point, the DSM listed homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder. That diagnosis was removed in 1973 as studies of human sexual behavior demonstrated homosexuality to be a natural part of the spectrum of human sexual expression. [1] That is the nature of all science; revisions are made as new studies and new information lead to better understanding of how the world operates. But again, none of this has anything to do with whether ODD is "fictional," "created by statists," or used to "control people." It would be nice if my opponent would make an argument, any argument at all, supporting any one of those central contentions. [1] http://www.aglp.org...
Oppositional defiance disorder is a fictional disorder created by statists who want to control peopl

Oppositional defiance disorder ("ODD") is a clinical disorder defined in the DSM V according to specific diagnostic criteria, which includes a pattern of angry and irritable mood, argumentative and defiant behavior, or vindictiveness lasting more than six months and having a serious negative impact on social and academic functioning. [1] The disorder has been linked to genetic factors, prenatal smoking, and other biological / neurological risk factors. [2] In this way, it is no more "fictional" than any of the disorders categorized by the DSM, like learning disorders or PTSD. ODD has nothing to do with "statists." There are no laws restricting the freedoms of people with ODD; no mandatory treatment. To the extent any treatment is necessary, it mostly involves therapy. [3] Nobody uses ODD as a way to "control" anybody. In addition, ODD is mostly diagnosed in children and adolescents. [1] If ODD was a "statist" conspiracy, it'd be a poor one - you'd think the "statists" would want to go after people who can vote and exercise political power. My opponent doesn't talk about ODD at all in his argument, but only about "free thought" and "examining a variety of ideas." I agree! Free thought is not a disorder, and everyone should be (and, you know, is) free to examine their own beliefs and form new ones. But ODD has nothing to do with free thought or expressing unconventional opinions. It's about a particular symptom set that makes it difficult for some people to succeed in academic and social contexts. People with ODD may be politically radical or completely conventional; it has no bearing on the diagnosis. Treatment for ODD - which again, is therapy, and voluntary - would only make it easier for someone to succeed in social contexts. Presumably, this means that people with unconventional opinions would become better and more effective at communicating their ideas and putting them into action. No one is stopping people with ODD from believing whatever they want. No one is using ODD as a fig leaf for "control." No "statist" bogeymen are hiding in the hallways of psychiatric offices to send people with ODD to re-education camps. It's just a childhood psychiatric disorder, and children with it benefit from seeking therapy to correct it. [1] http://www.mayoclinic.org... [2] http://www.aafp.org... [3] http://www.mayoclinic.org...
Oppositional defiance disorder is a fictional disorder created by statists who want to control peopl

My opponent has added nothing of substance in Round 3 which I have not already refuted above. But, to repeat myself: 1) I agreed with you that homosexuality used to be in the DSM - I just disagreed that it was a "sin" in the DSM, since the DSM does not catalog "sins" 2) The DSM is certainly open to revision as we learn and study more, as it was when it eliminated homosexuality as a disorder. That does not make ODD "fictional." Even if it did, that doesn't mean it was "created by statists who want to control people," which is a ridiculous claim for which you've adduced no evidence. 3) Agreed, liberty of thought is not a disorder. But ODD does not pathologize "liberty of thought." You can have all the off-the-wall opinions you want, and it won't lead to a diagnosis of ODD. You can have completely conventional opinions and be diagnosed with ODD. ODD has nothing to do with what a person believes, but with chronic exhibitions of anger, vindictiveness, and defiance. Those behaviors are not the same as "freedom of thought" My opponent has yet to advance a single argument in support of the actual contentions of the resolution, which is that ODD is "fictional" and "created by statists" as a means of "control."
Creationism(Pro) vs Evolution (Con)

Thanks Pro for this debate, I accept. I affirm that evolution provides not only a more plausible explanation for the biodiversity of life on earth than does creationism, but that evolution by way of natural selection is a demonstrable fact. natural selection - the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring; this is the main process that brings about evolution. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... evolution - the process by which different kinds of living organisms developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... life - the condition that distinguishes animals, plants, bacteria, and archaea from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth and reproduction. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... creationism - the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Creationism(Pro) vs Evolution (Con)

As you can see I made this debate impossible to accept. Anyone who manages to accepts forfeits this debate. Comment below if you are interested.Full Resolution: Which model, evolution or creation provides a more plausible explaination for the variety of species we see today.Round 1: Acceptance + Both sides define their modelsRound 2: ArgumentsRound 3: RebuttalRound 4: Each side defends his/her original case Creationism: The biblical belief that the universe and all kinds of animals came into being over the course of seven days.BOP will be shared as both sides argue why their model works and why the other doesn't.
Arguments from change for God's existence. Part 1

Your first two paragraphs to me with all due courtesy were simply ramblings. I will answer your questions 1st: God as most Christians including myself believe is omniscient so he would exist everywhere and anywhere. 2nd: The God presented in the cosmological and similar first cause arguments argue for a being who is not made of the matter that our universe is made up of and thus is not bent to the will of the Laws of Physics and Chemistry. 3rd: The many cosmological arguments and First cause arguments argue for a being who is necessity meaning that such being did not need to be created. The Scientific evidence we have on the Universe shows that the Universe is Contingent and not Necessary and thus could not be eternal or cause itself.
Arguments from change for God's existence. Part 1

Theory is as theory does. That is to say theory, Is suggestive and not proof of anything. Theories that are based on assumption only and are accepted on faith only, Without any real evidence are basically fantasy. Nonetheless a rational thinker also has to admit, That scepticism is also not proof of anything and will therefore never dismiss the God theory out of hand. Though the audacity of the implication proposed in round 2, From a sceptics point of view is simply a huge leap of faith too far and cannot be regarded as credible theory and has to be regarded as an incredible assumption. The reality of space and time as far as I the sceptic am concerned is still very much up for discussion, But that is another debate. But based upon Pro's presentation of the big bang and space-time and universal implications I think it fair to ask some very simple and obvious questions. In the timeless, Space-less, Matter-less pre big bang state. Where would a god have existed? What would a god be composed of? And of course, There still remains the unanswerable question. How was something created out of nothing? And this final question applies just as much to a god as it does to the matter of the universe.
Arguments from change for God's existence. Part 1

To be honest I was actually going to debate the Case for the Soul but instead, I choose the twenty arguments for the existence of God. God created man and man made "Gods" to try and represent their creator. If I am correct you are asking me how do we know there is an uncaused mover who we call God? I will keep it short. The evidence suggests that space-time and matter began in an explosion called the Big Bang and the Laws of thermodynamics shows us that the Universe is running out of reusable energy this implies a being outside of space-time caused the universe and this being is God.
Arguments from change for God's existence. Part 1

Man created Gods. Gods did not create Man. It's pretty obvious if you care to think about it logically. Matter exists and we do not know why. Gods are but one theory. Change: Pro uses a lot of words to say very little. Basically what they are saying is events cannot occur by themselves, They require an external influence such as a god to facilitate the event. But surely god's must also be subject to the same principle. As ever in theoretical creationism the buck never quite stops or starts at the beginning, We are always left dangling on an extravagant, Magical assumption. Nonetheless, What Pro refers to as change is not actually change, But alteration. Altered states of matter, Caused by processes of growth and development and eventual decay. The Argument from Efficient Causality: Basically, Once again Pro is using a lot of words to reiterate the same argument as before. That is, Events cannot happen unless a God makes them happen. A valid theory maybe, But a theory that always fails to start at the beginning. Gods start at one and the beginning is at zero, therefore to prove the existence of gods, It must first be explained what occurred between zero and one. This is a very simple argument which Pro will no doubt overburden with far to many unnecessary words and repetition. To really and seriously move forward with this type of argument. Pro must first explain how a god can magically exist without causality.
Arguments from change for God's existence. Part 1

And what created God? For if a god can exist without creation. Then anything can exist without creation. And I babble in Pro's ears and Pro babbles in mine. And people have always babbled and people will continue to babble until such times as they can babble no more. And Pro's will probably never prove the existence of a God. And Con's will probably never prove that a God does not exist. And I wish Pro all the best for the future.
Arguments from change for God's existence. Part 1

Hi. Like I said I am not presenting proof for my God. I am instead presenting arguments that make it more probable than improbable that a being exists and we would call that being God. If you want to get to the Christian God than one must debate the Case for Christ. I accept your skepticism but it would be nice if you defended it. My "frustration" is caused by a lack of debunking of my arguments and more simple babblings of man. One day I intend to debate the Ontological, Cosmological and Teleological arguments and if I do then please join me in that debate. The Cosmological and Teleological arguments are simple. At one point there was nothing of the contingent universe and then there was because the contingent universe can't create itself and is not eternal its origin lay beyond its borders. Because there is no such thing as a necessary substance a being must have created the universe. That being is called God.
Arguments from change for God's existence. Part 1

1) I just don't see any other arguments that need refuting. You basically suggest that because things happen, It must be your god making these things happen, Or it is probably your god that is making these things happen. I say no! It is more likely that it is Bob making these things happen. The fact that neither of us can disprove the existence of each others god, Doesn't automatically infer that there is a high probability that one or other or both of our gods have to be real. Such a notion is totally illogical and non-sensical. 2) Something is either true or not true. Theism and Atheism are merely opposite approaches to a theoretical concept. I am neither Atheist or Theist in my views, I am a sceptic who is not prepared to accept out of hand a fantastic, Incredible, Illogical, Magical assumption. 3) I sense frustration in your final comment. I would suggest that this not frustration caused by my logical argument, But frustration caused by the impotence of your own illogical argument. Ontological arguments or Cosmological arguments or Teleological arguments or whatever you wish to call them, Are no more than word based methods of confusing and duping gullible people into accepting and believing magical nonsense based notions without question. As I previously stated. All creation theories are subject to and fail at point zero. The point at which something must seemingly, Magically appear out of nothing. The something from nothing principle. If you can explain this principle to me, Then I will start to take your theist point of view more seriously. And it's absolutely no good whatsoever to try and say that a god must exist because some clever wordy people said that god has to exist and therefore it does not need to be proven that a god exists. Because that is simply bunkum.
Arguments from change for God's existence. Part 1

As I suggested at the beginning of round 2. Huge leaps of faith, Totally lacking in logic and without evidence. Are complete fantasy or incredible assumptions. Which is exactly what you proposed in your response to my questions. Based on this level of criteria, Anyone and everyone can quite legitimately, Make up their own god. So from now onwards I am going to worship Bob. A bloke that is everywhere but does not actually exist. Dead easy, And you have absolutely no way of refuting the notion that is Bob. Because you do not consider logic or evidence to be necessary. So now there are at least two omniscient gods out there somewhere, Let's hope they get along with each other. Oh! And I think I will write a book and call it the Bobble. Which of course, Will be undeniable and irrefutable proof of Bob. This may seem a very childish and stupid argument. But it is actually no different in any way to your explanation and your proof of your god.