BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There should be no incremental tax brackets, just one percentage for everyone

It's disappointing that my first debate on here has been with someone who should be debating in a different category. 1. The point is that you accepted this for a laugh. 2. The poor can afford to pay the same percentage as the rich. Most poor people in the western world have cars, mobile phones, pay their rent and so forth. I've never suggested increasing the tax bracket paid by the poor, just eliminating the other ones. Therefore they would pay the tax they already do pay. So it's not the poor having to afford to pay the same percentage as the rich, it's the rich not being expected to pay a higher share of their wages than those less well off do. 3. Just because they can afford it doesn't make it fair. Adding to the percentage paid when income exceeds a certain amount is the very definition of penalizing someone for doing better. 4. No , as explained in point 2 - at no point did I suggest increasing the lower tax bracket. Just eliminating the other ones which increase as income increases. 5. Sigh. 6. Sigh. 7. Sigh. Kinda hoped for better from this website.
There should be no incremental tax brackets, just one percentage for everyone

1. You don't get the point. 2. The poor can't afford to pay the same percentage as the rich. 3. Although the lump sum may be more for the rich, the point is that the rich can pay for a higher percentage. 4. This would mean an increase of tax on the poor which is rude 5. If there is only one bracket, people would get bored of it. 6. If there is only one bracket, you can't factorize it. 7. Limiting things to one bracket is against the 2th amendment.
There should be no incremental tax brackets, just one percentage for everyone

Right but you missed my point - I'm not saying there should be a set amount that everybody pays. I'm saying there should be one percentage. By the very nature of a percentage, the rich will pay more and the poor will pay less. If everybody pays 15% then someone who earns $20,000 a year is going to pay $3000 in tax and someone who earns $150,000 is going to pay $22,500. Therefore, I fail to see why gradually increasing the actual percentage someone pays is the only means by which the rich pay more and the poor pay less. The only fair system, where everybody pays their actual share of their actual wage, is that the same percentage applies to everybody. I didn't advocate for a flat tax. I advocated for one tax bracket.
There should be no incremental tax brackets, just one percentage for everyone

I've started two similar debates as my first debates on this site, but they are separate issues and I want to keep them as such. I also want things to be cordial and full of open discussion! My view is simple. I think that there should be one tax rate for everybody. I believe that percentages already mean that the more you earn, the more you pay - and that having a set percentage for every wage earner would be fairer than increasing the percentage paid as wages go up. It's true that because of this system, that as earnings go up it can often be shown that the percentage of wages paid in tax also increases. Not just on what they earn above the different thresholds, but on overall pay. This is unfair, and it's always disguised as "people paying their fair share." If people paid their fair share, everybody would pay the same percentage of their wage, and this would still mean the rich pay a lot more than the less well off. Please tell me your justification for charging a higher and higher percentage as people earn more, and why you feel this doesn't detract from incentive to do better and be more successful.
All people should join at least one kind of social networking site.

You can't say like that. These sites have influenced our lives so much that people always read bools also only which saves their money. We can consult to doctors abroad through video chat. These sites are very helpful to us so we should see them as a good sign of the progress of the nation. But I also agree with your point that it is killing people as some children use these sites for bad purposes but what can we do? We can do that parents of these children should keep a check on them and then you see how these social networking sites will appear as important as they are now.
All people should join at least one kind of social networking site.

So if I understand correctly; you made a debate topic saying: "All People" but now you think you can just change it to "All people who have access to social websites AND in who's livesstyle it fits"? I am sorry but I do not think you can just change a debate topic while it is already halfway done. I'm going to take the opportunity of your useless second round to have a rebuttal about your first round. You give us the argument: " "Of course" it is beneficial since it has influenced our lives in many ways and it has become a part of our live" First off, becoming beneficial to our lives because it is part of us now is not a valid explanation. Consider this: We are cutting down the Amazon forest because we need hardwood, it has become part of our lives to have hardwood tables in our kitchen but is it really sufficient enough to say, well than it means it is beneficial? We are killing possible medicine plants in that forest that could save you and me from future/current diseases! The same goes for Facebook and other social media that connects you and your friends/family. While at the top you have this beautiful product (like the hardwood table you just ordered) but behind it, it is killing you slowly (the medicine you are destroying). People are becoming more and more detached from social interaction. A study from the Public Library of Science indicated that the more a person uses Facebook the more he/she is being dissatisfied with life. So explain to me how it is "beneficial" while it is ruining lives all around the globe and possibly yours? And what about the fact that the integrity of your privacy is gone when you join these sites? Social Media can be awesome, YouTube, News Sites and a lot of the other stuff is incredibly awesome (including this one). But to say you have to "join" is nonsense. A lot of people just use these sites without joining; they just like the content on it. If you want to contribute you are forced to join but a lot of people don't have any intentions of contributing but just love other people"s creations. So here is the deal, your debate topic is rubbish (and you already confessed it is) and secondly even your second argument does not hold ground either because a lot of people don't need/want to join because the content that is provided without joining is sufficient enough for them.
All people should join at least one kind of social networking site.

Let's get over this fast because this debate is so shallow even a frog-larva wouldn't be able to swim in it. "All people" is a statement that won't hold up... period. People 80 years or older will have difficulty operating a computer let alone get on the internet and use Social Media (Notice: I said "will have difficulty" not "can't"). People who live on the street or people still living in the jungle (Papua's) have no internet, mobile phone or computer and are thus unable to use Social Media. People who have a type of handicap which results in them not being able comprehend social media like Alzheimer won't be able to even use it. But the true question is: Why would any of these people join a site, let alone a social media site, if it won't aid them in their day to day life at all? I'm not denying Social Media is something great. In fact, I love Social Media myself, but for some it just doesn't fit their lifestyle. To say these people "should join" is a misstatement.
Religion is a force of evil in the world.

Now to refute your Greif statement I will counter with the Watchmaker Anology. It is that God has created us, the universe, and everything, but then like a good watchmaker, walked away. This was argued by William Paley in his novel, Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity. Here it was where he argued that the watch, the world, is breaking and we need to fix the watch in order to preserve God's creation. We can see that God has walked away like a watchmaker, because if he stays to watch over it constantly like the NSA he would become so obsessed with it possibly even ruining it. That is the purpose of the anology. It applies to this case even more to show that he may have grief of humanity, but he has decided to leave it alone. Humans have done terrible things throughout the years, genocide, murder, Rape, etc... God has allowed it as you yourself have argued by giving evidence from Epicures. He is able to prevent people and stop them. This has been shown by even your own evidence of the story of Abraham. He has stop attrocities by smiting Sodom and Gamorrah. So you can see the evidence you brought up against Christianity supports my case while contradicting your own. I also extend across the points that were dropped by my opponent.10 CommandmentsThe 10 Commandments was only 10 Laws on how one should rule their life. 10 rules, not the entire Christianity Constitution of Right and Wrong. However, the Bible does give stances against rape and slavery.Rape “But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her. “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found," (Deuteronomy 22:25-28)Anti-Slavery"“Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death." (Exodius 21:16) "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery." (Galatians 5:1)
Religion is a force of evil in the world.

Con is to say that Religion is a force of good in the world. Pro is to say that religion isn't a force of good in the world. I will focus on the Christain religion, because I have the most knowledge in that specific sector. I believe that religion was invented by man, in order to give themselves a divine right to enslave, murder, and oppress people. It was mans first attempt at philosophy, and it shows. There are no commandments against genocide, slavery, rape, and murder, because God calls for exactly those things in both the old, and New Testament. I am looking for an intellectual man of faith, to try and convince me that we can be moral without religion, and that we should not get our morals from the bible. Opening Argument: First and foremost, this is a debate of philosophy and ethics, not that of evidence and science. To accept that God is real, is to accept that we live in a totalitarian dictatorship. He can condemn a man who lived his life with kindness and love, to hell if he doesn't believe in Him. Yet a man who sexually abused children will be accepted into heaven, as long as he accepts Jesus Christ as his savior, and as long as he repents his sins. This seems morally wrong, to have a man be forgiven of all his sins, whether it be theft, murder, rape, sodomy, or lying. It is a cowardly cop out, to say that all will be forgiven. This way, a man can live terribly, and get into heaven. It's disgraceful, and morally corrupt. Even if you can accept that a wicked and cruel man can get into heaven, there are passages in the bible, which states that slavery is okay (Leviticus 25:44-46). The following passages are quite wicked in their own sense: The oppression of women is called for in (1 Timothy 2:12) God commands genocide of the Amalykites in (1 Samuel 15:3) God commands Abraham to kill his own son in (Genesis 22:2). Only these few acts are absolutely horrid and terrible, and no less, they are called for in the bible. They are villainous and evil, and if you accept the good teachings in the bible, you must accept all of it as good. If it's the word of God, layed out in a book, shouldn't it be absolutely perfect? If God himself is perfect, he should have spoken out against these horrible acts that man had committed, not called for them. Also, please don't use the common excuse for these passages "they were different times. They didn't know it wasn't okay". To me, that's an absolutely pathetic argument, and if you say that, it just confirms my belief that the word of the bible is not morally acceptable.
Religion is a force of evil in the world.

Con is to say that Religion is a force of good in the world. Pro is to say that religion isn't a force of good in the world. I will focus on the Christain religion, because I have the most knowledge in that specific sector. I believe that religion was invented by man, in order to give themselves a divine right to enslave, murder, and oppress people. It was mans first attempt at philosophy, and it shows. There are no commandments against genocide, slavery, rape, and murder, because God calls for exactly those things in both the old, and New Testament. I am looking for an intellectual man of faith, to try and convince me that we can be moral without religion, and that we should not get our morals from the bible.
Abortion

"Many people don't understand that abortion has a lot of circumstances that it is actually almost required. If a woman has to choose between her life and the baby's, no one can tell her that abortion isn't okay, and that she will just have to die during childbirth." I feel that this is an appeal to humanity / emotion versus a logical argument; it is unbelievably rare that this is the case relative to the birth rate and furthermore doctors already act against this ( http://www.mayoclinic.org... ) in more than one way with more than one particular style. It is seen as not necessarily best for women who would have that kind of risk to ever get pregnant to begin with and take every step against it. Also, who is "Many?" "Many people don't understand that abortion is a big decision. It is just as big of a decision as marriage. Women spend hours deciding what she wants to do. It is no doubt just a split-second decision, it is a long and hard process and it is to be taken seriously. We spend hours deciding what to do. It is life or death for the fetus, something that is not a joking matter." Again, who is "Many?"; this is an appeal to emotion on every front. The modified suggestion for the process of abortion however greatly supports this idea versus contradicts it. Abortion as an option should be better weighed by professional and external sources instead of a personal decision made alone or made alongside those who are just as emotionally charged and lack objectivity.
Abortion

But the woman has a maternal feeling and is very connected to her child. If she chooses to get an abortion, I feel that it is an okay choice. Many people don't understand that abortion has a lot of circumstances that it is actually almost required. If a woman has to choose between her life and the baby's, no one can tell her that abortion isn't okay, and that she will just have to die during childbirth. Many people don't understand that abortion is a big decision. It is just as big of a decision as marriage. Women spend hours deciding what she wants to do. It is no doubt just a split-second decision, it is a long and hard process and it is to be taken seriously. We spend hours deciding what to do. It is life or death for the fetus, something that is not a joking matter.
Revolutionary/Counter Revolutionary vs Loyalist Music

Addressing Accusations of CheatingThere is no rule that you can't post more than one song per round. My opponent does point out a spelling error, but it's referring to singular possession and not amount of songs. And I was referring to rounds as a total. Whose were better. I forewarned you of this before, and you still continued to post only one song. The first round doesn't count, as you were supposed to acccept. Meaning you saw me put more than one song, yet you refused to do it. Unless there is a rule that I'm not allowed to post more than one song, on my debate, which technically, you were supposed to be blocked from accepting, is outrageous. I was planning on multi song rounds way before you decided to troll this debate. My advice, is to post more than one song next round to recover all the ones I already made.Notes* For this round, I decided to go with Ay Carmela. This was the third song I debated including in this debate. It was used as a loyalist and a rebel song. I wouldn't of used it if it weren't for its popularity taking hold when Franco already had won the war and took most of Spain. I equated it with the Cuban Revolution. Castro took power, but the old millitary just splintered into dissident factions. They retained the same war songs. IDK, don't count it if you don't want to. http://www.youtube.com...;
Revolutionary/Counter Revolutionary vs Loyalist Music

My opponent is continuing to post more than one song per round, he is taking an unfair advantage of this debate, he is cheating as this is supposed to be a "who's was better" debate, unlike him I am being fair with this debate. My opponent has also failed to state why he is not disputing my claim of Yankee Doodle Dandy not being a rebel soung. He is posting random YouTube videos in a single round, unlike me who is providing the lyrics and giving a brief background of my loyalist songs. I ask for my opponent to be please be fair and post one song, including its lyrics, per round. After all, this is "who's better" debate and it's better to be fair and not to use random videos. Not only that, but it's also a bit confusing considering it goes from Che Guevara to the Russian Revolution. That's being irrelevant because the three videos can't connect to my opponent's first video he provided. Moving on, I guess....The American Times (Odell)When Faction, pois'nous as the scorpion's sting,Infects the people and insults the King;When foul Sedition skulks no more concealed,But grasps the sword and rushes to the field;When Justice, Law, and Truth are in disgrace,And Treason, Fraud, and Murder fill their place;Smarting beneath accumulated woes,Shall we not dare the tyrants to expose?Bad are the Times, almost too bad to paint;The whole head sickens, the whole heart is faint;The State is rotten, rotten to the core,'Tis all one bruize, one putrefying sore.Hear thy indictment, Washington, at large;Attend and listen to the solemn charge;Thou hast supported an atrocious causeAgainst thy King, thy Country, and the laws;Committed perjury, encourag'd lies,Forced conscience, broken the most sacred ties;Myriads of wives and fathers at thy handTheir slaughter'd husbands, slaughter'd sons demand;That pastures hear no more the lowing kine,--That towns are desolate, all -- all is thine.I swear by Him, who rules the earth and sky,The dread event shall equally apply;That Clinton's warfare is the war of God,And Washington shall feel the vengeful rod.O! may that hour be soon! for pity's sake,Genius of Britain, from thy slumber wake,Too long has mercy spoke, but spoke in vain;Let justice now in awful terror reign.
Revolutionary/Counter Revolutionary vs Loyalist Music

Hold up, my opponent can't just post 11 videos (which I don't even know how to do) in a single round.... These 11 songs have nothing to do with Yankee Doodle Dandy, expect the first video. Either way, you can't count Yankee Doodle Dandy as a rebel song becaue it isn't, in fact the British used the tune to insult Americans "before" the Revolutionary War, therefore it's a Loyalist song. Some may say it's neither. But what I do know for a fact is that Yankee Doodle Dandy is not a rebel song, you cannot claim it, even if the rebels embraced the song, sorry. Here's proof of that: http://goo.gl... Moving on though....The PAUSING AMERICAN LOYALIST: "Although this isn't a song but rather a poem based on Hamlet's 'To be or not to be' speech, it depicts the very difficult position of the loyalist when pressured by fellow colonists to sign an oath of fidelity to the Continental Congress. As it shows, some became very reluctant 'rebels'." Middlesex Journal, January 30, 1776.To sign, or not to sign? That is the question.Whether 'twere better for an honest manTo sign, and so be safe; or to resolve,Betide what will, against associations,And, by retreating, shun them. To fly - I reckNot where: And, by that flight, t' escapeFeathers and tar, and thousand other illsThat loyalty is heir to: 'Tis a consummationDevoutly to be wished. To fly -- to want --To want? Perchance to starve: Ay, there's the rub!For, in that chance of want, what ills may comeTo patriot rage, when I have left my all --Must give me pause: -- There's the respectThat makes us trim, and bow to men we hate.For, who would bear th' indignities o' th' times,Congress decrees, and wild convention plans,The laws controll'd, and inj'ries unredressed,The insolence of knaves, and thousand wrongsWhich patient liege men from vile rebels take,When he, sans doubt, might certain safety find,Only by flying? Who would bend to fools,And truckle thus to mad, mob-chosen upstarts,But that the dread of something after flight(In that blest country, where, yet, no moneylessPoor wight can live) puzzles the will,And makes ten thousands rather sign -- and eat,Than fly -- to starve on loyalty. --Thus, dread of want makes rebels of us all:And thus the native hue of loyaltyIs sicklied o'er with a pale cast of trimming;And enterprises of great pith and virtue,But unsupported, turn their streams away,And never come to action.
Revolutionary/Counter Revolutionary vs Loyalist Music

reb·el noun G2;rebəl/a person who rises in opposition or armed resistance against an established government or ruler. Notes* The song Yankee Doodle Dandy was created by British soldiers to Demean the "Yankees", although the rebels embraced the song rather than let the Brits use it against them, which is why it's a national song and the state song of Virginia. Hence, why it's a rebel songhttp://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...