BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Instituting A Flat Income Tax In America

1. 'Fairness' I must analyse a few situations in order to calculate the effect of the tax on individuals in different circumstances, and thus show why a flat tax is "unfair". Lets take into account two people, John and Bill, who earn $40,000 a year. However John is young with few assets who relies upon his personal savings to finance a future business. Bill, in contrast, is an old man who has already built up $600,000 in assets. It is certainly not "fair" for them to both pay the same rate of taxation due to their vastly different circumstances. Take another example of a sick man and a healthy man with similar or identical income, but one of who has much higher medical costs to pay. In the status quo they can be taxed differently (due to tax deductions and healthcare expenditure), however under a flat taxed they would both be taxed the same, and this would severely harm the sick man! It seems simply to go against common sense that in a world where individuals are not the same, and rates of taxation have a highly different impact on different circumstances, that every person should pay the same rate of tax. That is not "fair" at all. Sources: http://mises.org... 2: Economic Conditions And Loopholes Assumedly, a flat tax would close many "loopholes" which are exemptions given when you engage in certain types of expenditure under the current income tax. But this would be detrimental to society, as these loopholes, incentivize "good" economic behaviour. One of these loopholes as you may be aware is the ability to deduct mortgage interest payments from taxes. This makes owning a home more expensive, meaning more people will be unable to buy homes, forcing them to rent instead. This harms their economic prospects, as their payments would result in them owning an asset whereas rent payments bring them no return, as self owned homes become less in demand, the value of the homes drop. Thus the closing of these loopholes will in fact disincentivize what we consider beneficial economic behaviour, leading to a worse economic state overall. Source: http://mises.org... 3: The Poor! The flat tax truly impacts upon the poor more greatly than upon the rich. Because everyone pays the same flat percentage of tax, both a poor and rich man are forced to pay (just an example) 10% of his income. As the poor spend of greater percentage of their income on basic necessities than the rich do, the rich have much more money to spend on luxury. Therefore, the impact of a 10% tax upon a poorer person is far greater in terms of limiting their ability to buy things they may want or need than it is upon a richer person, and consequently the harm of taxing a poorer person at the same rate as a richer person is greater than the harm of taxing a richer person at a higher percentage. Therefore the nature of a flat tax makes it completely undesirable are more harmful than current forms of taxation. Sourcehttp://www.enotes.com...
Instituting A Flat Income Tax In America

I will be upholding 3 contentions. P1)Fairness and equality.Would it be fair and equal if you work hard and are a productive member of society that you should have a larger percentage of your wealth taken away from you Of course not.P2) Simplicity.A flat tax is easy to understand and comply with, thereby reducing errors and tax fraud and professional tax preparers and advisors no longer needed, saving money for taxpayer. P3) Economic success.I will argue that by decreaseing the percentage at which the wealthy get taxed, will cause a favorable impact on the middle class.Which make up most of the population, and relieve some of the financial burden they have to endure, which could potentially help them become more financially stable. If I make a product, and I sell it to make a living, the only way I am going to be able to make a living off of it is to make a profit off of the good or services I am offering.This means that after production, advertisement, and everything else that goes in to it, my price has to be one that will make a profit.Taxes are like any other expense that gets worked into this equation. The higher my taxes are, the more I have to offset that in the price of my product. Therefor the people paying for my product (since the majority of Americans fall in the middle class bracket they are the majority of thebuyers will fall in this bracket) will be paying a higher price, to compensate for some of my losses.This is why raising or keeping a higher percentage on the rich, doesn't work to accomplish the end task it was meant to accomplish, because in the end it is hurting the people it was meant to protect. Now in the same way that having a higher tax percentage on the rich, ultimately gets reflected in the price of the product, so to does having a lower, flat tax. The lower the expense to produce, the lower the price of the product, the less the buyer pays. That means you save money. Now it doesn't stop at just the product price. As a wealthy business owner, if I am taxed less that means I have more money to invest in the growth of my company. With company growth comes more employees, with more employees comes more citizens earning an income and with more citizens earning an income comes, you guessed it, more taxes. This means more money flowing back into the government. Which could help to reduce our debt as a nation and provide economic success. We surely see that a flat income tax rate would increase the economic success of everyone and as a nation.Sources.1.Logic I look foward to my opponents rebbuttals.
Truth , knowledge is relative "Everything is relative in this world, where change alone endures.""

Truth is simply a statement which corresponds to reality. While one's perception of reality is necessarily subjective that says nothing about reality itself but rather comments on the observer. The concept of truth is universal across all cultures. Be they from Iran, America, or Sweden, if you show someone a blue shirt and tell them it is green they will call you a liar. Truth is neither 'created' nor 'discovered'; it is a concept used to describe evaluate a statement. It is true, to a degree, that without man there would be no truth; not because man invented or discovered truth but rather because in order for their to be truth their must be observations and statements about the external world. One could just as easily have truth with a robot which commented on the external world, or on another planet with sentient life forms, or even on Earth if another species evolved to the level of sentience. Truth is immutable. Individuals may be mistaken about the truth of something but truth itself does not change. If a shirt is red, then it does not matter how many people believe it is blue. The truth about the colour of the shirt can only change if the shirt itself changes. People can often believe in falsehoods just as you apparently believe that there is no objective truth but the perception of something does not impact the thing itself (even if Heisenburg may beg to differ). Individuals do not determine truth. If you and I both agree that a blue shirt is red we have no changed the colour of the shirt. We are simply lying either wittingly or unwittingly. Even if the whole world believed that this blue shirt was red, that would change nothing. The shirt would still be blue. The truth would still be that the shirt was blue. The only way to change the truth about the shirt is to change the shirt itself. Truth can be known. Implicitly you accept this. After all, if there is no truth, then their is no point in making any argument at all. What are you trying to prove, if not that what you are saying is the truth? If there is no truth then there is no point to debate, or to anything at all. The search for truth has been a critical component of the human experience. It is extremely rewarding. Truth exists; truth is simply a statement which conforms with the objective reality we live in.
Truth , knowledge is relative "Everything is relative in this world, where change alone endures.""

The popular view on truth in our culture today is that objective, universal and absolute truth is implausible.Is there absolutely right ,positive or absolutely wrong Those who hold to it are often viewed with contempt.Postmodern relativists build their understanding of truth on the foundation of the naturalist worldview. Truth then has its origin in man. Finally , we can understand that there is no such thing call "absolute" in our universe. Even in physics field, lets list a easy example, absolute zero is just a hypothesis, there is no exactly totally absolutely "zero K" in our universe.Even time is relativeHere are the following supporting ideas that can reveal that in our reality physical world, "truth" is the conformity of the mind to reality 1.Truth is created not discovered. Truth is a matter of perspective and each culture or individual defines for themselves what is truth. 2. Since truth is invented, there is no universal transcultural truth. Each culture or individual will define truth differently according to their background and perspective. 3.Truth changes. Since it is inseparably connected to individuals and cultures which continually change, truth perpetually to changes. 4.Since truth is a matter of a group or individual"s perspective, one"s beliefs can change a truth statement. 5.Since an individual determines truth, truth is affected by the attitude of the one professing it. 6.There can be no such thing as absolute truth. 7.Absolute truth is not knowable. Absolute and objective truth cannot be known since it is built on the shifting foundation of man"s perceptions. As each individual"s perception is different, truth cannot be known
Students and teachers should not "friend" on facebook

It would help if you posted the link to the article you are citing, as unfortunately I can't really tell what occurred. While it does sound tragic, once again, it is not common. Allow me to define "friend". Friend: Noun. A person whom one knows and with whom one has a bond of mutual affection, typically exclusive of sexual or family relations. By that definition, a teacher with whom you had a good relationship would be your friend, just not from the position of a peer. This would not violate the professional boundaries of a teacher as they are not becoming involved in the private life of their student, or vice-versa. Besides, if a teacher has something they don't want the public to know/see, they should not be putting it on Facebook in the first place, as Facebook is a sharing site. You also argue that students would be distracted and not do homework, but it is my belief that students are going to go spend time on social networks anyway, and having a teacher remind them about schoolwork while they're online would most likely lead to higher levels of completion of schoolwork. I agree that teachers should be examples for their students, but I disagree that social networking is bad for schools. My school has a Facebook page where they share news about the school with the students and community. Through Facebook, students can also form groups, such as my AP US class did, where they share class related information. I agree that it is more satisfying to have relationships in real life than on the internet, but you can supplement those real life relationships through internet communication. In conclusion, I believe students should be able to friend their teachers on Facebook because friending does not violate the privacy or professionalism of the teacher, does not put either party at any risk, and allows both student and teacher to communicate faster on important issues such as new projects, changes to assignments, and missing school. Thanks to my opponent to a well thought out debate.
Students and teachers should not "friend" on facebook

I'm really apologize that not clearly explained what I meant by saying educators can pretend like a teacher. For example in Moscow one boy was the victim of his own teacher who worked in school 9 years. And now there are investigation that how many other students was his prey. Their relationship like a friend started on social network and that's why I am mentioning it. "We want to make clear that the work and personal lives of students and teachers should not be mixed. In addition, we want to avoid any misunderstandings related", said Eric Tronstad, head of the department of education of the commune. In the U.S. state of Missouri, such contacts illegal. There, the teacher can go to jail if in his list of friends will pupil. I am graceful to know about your life experience. However, you can communicate with teacher and share all your problem, but it is not mean that if you have a good relationship, educators are your friend. Moreover, you consider that "a teacher would be able to remind nearly all their students about homework or projects in a more effective way than emailing". Unfortunately, on Internet, especially on social networks have different things that attract attentions and students will do nothing in stead of doing homework's. The teacher should be an example for their students. Social networks are bad for the school, the student spends time in vain. And if it will be his teacher pinafore that it will give the student a reason to consider that social networks is good. In addition, I also have some life experience that happened with me in high school. I studied in lyceum for girls and have a great chance to convene with incredible teachers with whom I shared everything. And all my classmates have a good relationship with teachers without Face book. It is more interesting be in a good relationship in real life, rather than on social networks. P.S. I'm really sorry for confusing pro and con...
Students and teachers should not "friend" on facebook

Thanks to Con for her courtesy. While Con believes that the teacher's professional reputation and authority would be undermined, I believe it could actually be strengthened as the teacher showed that they did not allow themselves to be victimized, and as such present a harder target. While there are cruel individuals in the world, not everyone in it is cruel, not even close. If I'm understanding you correctly, you claim that a criminal could pose as a teacher on Facebook and lure students to them? The students could probably deduce that the "teacher" was actually an impostor just by actually asking the teacher about in at school. If the student did not attend the same school as the "teacher", they did not really have a student-teacher relationship. In event of an unlawful action, police could access the social media records and find out what happened. I agree that a degree of professionalism should be maintained between a teacher and his or her students, however I disagree that a teacher should not be your friend. Throughout high school I had a fair mix of "friendly" teachers who tried to be friend-like, and "traditional" teachers who opted for the traditional, detached manner of teaching. I, and many of my peers, learned better with the "friendly" teachers because we felt that they cared about our learning more than the "traditional" teachers and also found them easier to talk to about academic problems. I do not believe a student's safety would be at risk because they were friends with their teacher on Facebook. Besides, if the teacher wanted to, they could make an account for their personal life, and another one for their students to ask questions on. As I stated before, through social media a teacher would be able to remind nearly all their students about homework or projects in a more effective way than emailing, simply because teens check their Facebook more often than their E-mail.
Students and teachers should not "friend" on facebook

I'm happy that this topic interested you. So, Pro asserted that teachers can show the real photos or facts, which prove his or her innocence and I absolutely agree with this. Nevertheless, do you think that the victim could still work in this school with tarnished reputation? I think, no, because students will tease or always remind her or him this incident. My second argument is that nowadays, we cannot trust on anyone, because our world becomes very cruel. A teacher can be pedophile or maniac, which pretended like a teacher. I watched news about one in Moscow school, thirty years old deputy director of school presumably, pumped substance 15-year-old boy, and after to join with him in a sexual relationship. They started communicate on social network and was a close friends. A boy with a mental disorder in hospital and pedophile imprisonment of up to 6 years. Many of you might be skeptical that the director of school will choose a good teacher and with good education, however, it is not written in person's face. The third argument is that the students and teachers relationship must remain a line of a professional nature and there should not be any "friends" on Face book or anywhere else. Teacher is a person who is teaching you, they are not your friends. I understood that these days, we have great opportunity like Internet, which is very fast and makes it easy to communicate. But for students safety we should"t admit to students to be friends with teachers on Face book. For instance, if you really need help of teacher"s suggestion, you can go to her/him and share your problems. I think it"s much better than if you will communicate on the Internet. However, if you shy person, you can write to his or her university/school e-mail.
Students and teachers should not "friend" on facebook

Pro claims that teachers have a right to privacy. I agree with this, however, if a student "friends" a teacher, it is up to the teacher if they accept, not the student. As such it is up to the teacher whether or not they want to give the student access to their personal life. Pro also claims that a student could possibly use photoshopped pictures of a teacher to blackmail them. While this is possible, it is certainly not by any means frequent. In the event that this did happen, the teacher could simply show their school's administration the original photo that was photoshopped and be cleared of any charges the student may have made against them. Now, I would like to argue that there are advantages of "friending" teachers on social networks. Teens spend a great deal of time on social networking sites. As such, if they had a question on a school project or homework and they were friends with their teacher, they would have a way to quickly communicate their problems, resulting in better schoolwork. Teachers could also message students who missed school what they missed in class so that they don't fall behind.
Students and teachers should not "friend" on facebook

Nowadays, you can find almost anybody on Facebook. People are becoming Facebook friends with old classmates, with relatives and the neighbor with whom they live in one street. Especially teens seem to have a tendency to add almost everyone to their friends list that asks. So, if teens be friend on social network with teachers, it can give some negative sides to student. I want to share with first reason why they shouldn't "friend on social networks". Every humanity have rights to have personal privacy. A student may learn things about their teacher that they otherwise would not have access to. This could be detrimental in the class setting. For example, they can see a personal life of teacher, photos, and comments. Nowadays, people can easily forge any pictures in the social network and blackmail a teacher.
Batman > Spiderman

My opponent has completely dropped this debate at the final round, so everything that I said before this round is extended across the flow. At the very least, at this point, I should have the conduct vote for being punctual to every single one of my rounds in this debate, and in order to receive the argument vote in this debate, I will present the following explanations:Reason 1: My opponent has completely accepted the burden that I have established from the resolution and rejected the burden he has placed in his own case. Therefore, we are evaluating in this case which one is better at heroics rather than who would win in a fight against one another, as I have explained in my definition of the resolution, and since my opponent's case is entirely centered on which one has more power than the other rather than which is more effective and has more advantages as a hero, it is immediate that my case is already preferrable to evaluate than my opponent's.Reason 2: My opponent pretty much drops everything that I have said with regard to efficiency, meaning that this debate further leans toward me in the idea that Spiderman is more effective and efficient in his heroics than Batman has been based on everything that we have seen in their previous comics. Therefore, I have proven to you that Spiderman is the more effective hero, and henceforth, the better hero.Reason 3: To add to that, I have explained to you how Spiderman has powers and even with his limitless resources, Batman is still incapable of saving as many people as Spiderman does...if not defeating his enemies completely in contrast to the Batman villains, where they almost always seem to win in some way.
Batman > Spiderman

So, in this debate, it is important to note the following key thing for the evaluation of the round: My opponent made no mentions on the parameters of the round explaining why his burden for me was not adhering to the resolution at hand, so extend this across the flow. For that reason, if I am to prove that Spiderman is a better overall hero (as in, he's better at doing what a hero would do), then I am the winner of this debate today.Efficiency Argument: To be fair to Batman, my opponent makes a lot of sense with the Arkham City argument. If it were Spiderman going against Green Goblin, Doctor Octopus, Venom, Sandman, Carnage, Hobgoblin, Kingpin, Beetle, Electro, and Mysterio in one small radius, I'm sure that not everyone would be saved. The problem for Batman, however, is that this circumstance of practically everyone dying is not only in Arkham City. It happened in the previous game. It happens in pretty much all of the modern comics of Batman, in contrast to all of the Spiderman comics, where pretty much all of the people therein are saved. This shows you that Spiderman is a more effective hero, and since he has far fewer resources than Batman, this also shows you that he is much more efficient nonetheless. The comic book villains are not all too different, actually, especially with the Joker, considering that there are several times that Joker tries to kill him and has actually mentioned that he wants him dead, such as in Batman: Arkham Asylum, where he tells the following to him: "Why don't you just roll over and die for once? Please? Be your best friend." If not this, then also the following: "I was hoping [Bane] would crumple you like a piece of paper and stamp you crazy, but even I don't get everything I want." Contention 2: Regardless of Batman being more realistic, he stills lives in a fictional world where Spiderman and Batman are equally possible to occur, and at the point where Batman fails to save a large amount of people in contrast to Spiderman, I would disagree in the idea that his wealth and intelligence make up for it.