BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Tax Corporate Pollution

If company A dodges the tax by raising prices, company B will raise bost by using scrubbers and thereby still have to compensate by raising the price. The hike by A is just more direct. They get taxed $5 and raise accordingly. Instead of being taxed, company B spends $5 on scrubbers and raises accordingly. Competition remains the same, but now the tax induces an inherent $5 cost. The consumer always pays the brunt of corporate tax. We have had four debates and I think you have managed to sling personal insults in every one. What makes me any more of an armchair economist than you? Scholars dispute issues. Just because someone writes it in a book doesn't make it fact. Also, the wiki article you site disagrees with your stance. See the negative Pegovian tax section. It will tell you all about how subsidies, not taxes, take care of externalities while maintaining economic efficiency. This is something your taxation doesn't do. You cost the consumer and disrupt economic balance. Even your articles show this. Also, this type of tax has two more issues. First, it relies on the tax revenue being at least partially dedicated to mitigating the effect of externality. In this case, it would mean the government would just retool the revenue from the tax into more regulation, which your own articles and past experience both show us is bad for the economy. Second, a tax like this relies on accurate government interpretation of the market. If the government taxes to high, they cripple the market, to low and the tax bears no weight. I think we can all agree the government rarely gets these things right. So, this tax has many built in problems, as well as better alternatives that YOUR articles cite. The tax is simply passed on to the consumer, no matter what (unless companies just want to take the tax hit, which is unnatural and idealistic), the companies just pass cost on to the buyer. Also, taxing externalities is bad. It relies on accurate government implication (rare) and requires we pump the revenue from the tax back into regulation, which kills the market. Finally, subsidizing is infinitely better as it helps the pollution problem by making companies want to solve it instead of trying to make them, and keeping the market at economic efficiency. You should read your own evidence before you post it. This is at least the second time I have had to show you that your own citations work against your point. Also, please don't throw any ad homs at me in the last round. They don't bother me and it doesn't seem as if any of the voters buy it. Thanks.
Tax Corporate Pollution

if company A raises prices, and company B can keep prices down by using scrubbers instead, company B wins. that's basic economics, econ 101. competition in the marketplace. this is the flaw in your argument. your bashing of taxing externalities is amusing. you from your arm chair economist, which no grasp of the real world, or economics. this is a well documented phenomenon. http://en.wikipedia.org... here is google scholar for scholarly articles... i recommend you actually read a book or two, or study some: http://scholar.google.com...
Tax Corporate Pollution

If they pass the tax on to us they are just dodging the tax all together. We are not reducing emissions at all. They are not going to pay to renovate when they can just make us pay instead. So, the government is indirectly slapping a tax on consumers and not stopping pollution at all. Why would new taxes breed competition? That doesn't make any sense. If anything the opposite is true. Taxes slow the market. New taxes make prices go up because companies compensate for the new charge. If I'm a company who is getting taxed for pollution, why would I spend money to solve the problem when I could just raise prices to make up the difference without any lose to me. Again, Econ 101. How would caps solve the problem? I'll just pollute all I need to, take the tax hit and pass it on to the buyer with higher prices. Who taxes externalities? Thats a terrible idea. The market is already inefficient, so lets regulate it and cripple it some more? The fact is, taxing emissions just leads to higher prices for buyers and doesn't solve the pollution problem.
Tax Corporate Pollution

so what if they just pass the cost on to us? if we want to reduce getting polluted out, then we might have to put our money where our mouth is. plus, it's not like companies won't compete and reduce prices when they have that varibale of a tax on them. that's also econ 101 as you facetioiusly said. it's not provn or even that clear that we'd get an increased cost, but eve nif it was, then that's the way life has to be if we want fairly clean air and water etc. you simply assert that taxing polution won't reduce pollution. think, if you're a company who doesn'tuse scrubbers, which area viable technicology, only cause you dn't have to, and you're taxed for how much pollution you have.... it's cost effective to use the scrubbers, if the tax is done right. you simply dodged that point and made a blanket and unfounded assertion for your favor. and you simply assert again that putting caps on them, which implies gov monitoring enforcement costs, and didn't respond to the advantage that using tax incentives would do. again, a blanket avoidance. when pollution occurs, there's good effects, and then as economicsts call it, externalities or pollution. basic econ theory says you tax to compenssate for those externatlities. even conservatives who will conserve think it's the best option. unless you have a better idea than economists and what the parties can for a big part agree on, but that remains to be seen/
Tax Corporate Pollution

I agree pollution is bad. People and corporations shouldn't pollute. Still, is taxing emissions the best option? We all know firms will just pass the cost on to consumers. Why would companies take the tax hit or pay to renovate when they could just as easily pass the burden on to the consumer? Thats Econ 101. It doesn't make any sense. We need to cap pollution sure. But, taxing emissions wouldn't reduce pollution, just raise costs for consumers. So, with emissions taxes, consumers (us) get polluted and robbed. Score!
Tax Corporate Pollution

i hope you don't mind i'm taking all your debates. taxing them is a good idea because.... the earth belongs to everyone. it's common law that your right to swing your fist end where my face begins, and this is analogous to polluting our waters and air. they are hurting us if too much occurs. given that what they do affects us all, we are justified being concerned with them and singling them out somewhat. this could be said for many industries that use and abuse resources, to a degree. the power to tax is the power to destroy, they say. of course, we don't want to destroy the industries, but by taxing them, we entice them to create controls that make pollution less, like scrubbers in smoke stacks. this is more efficient way of controlling that sort of situation, cause before they had no incentive to do the technologies they very well could do. any laws that were passed were like hitting the corporations on the head with a blunt object and using expensive enforcement measures. taxes on the pollution makes self regulation because it's tax effective. when you add taxes with the conservative idea of cap and trade, then you have the ultimate system created to self control pollution. if a company wants to buy pollution credits, they can. they might have to be taxed on the pollution though. it's all going to be in what's the best interest of the company within the limits defined by the government. of course, all these limits can't be over burdensome. there has to be the right balance, as there has to be in everything.
Proposed Redistricting Procedure

======= Introduction ======= Common wisdom tells us that competitive congressional districts are better than non-competitive ones. Subscribers to this view often claim that non-competitive districts produce legislators that are inattentive to the needs of their constituency. Gerrymandering has been blamed for the predominance of non-competitive congressional districts in recent decades. Common wisdom also tells us that gerrymandering is responsible for the dominance of the two party system and the partisan polarization of the past few decades. ====== Resolution ====== The U.S. should adopt a redistricting policy of gerrymandering to produce non-competitive congressional districts. ***Please take careful note of the definitions before accepting this debate. ====== Definitions ====== Gerrymandering: a form of redistricting in which district boundaries are drawn in a deliberate electoral manner, usually causing unusual shapes. Common gerrymandering tactics are 'packing' and 'cracking'. Packing: Placing as many of one type of voter in a district as possible. Cracking: Spreading out a type of voter in as many districts as possible to deny them a large enough voting bloc in any one district. Note: Currently, packing and cracking are often used in conjunction to maximize one party's power in a state. For instance, one party has their voters packed into as few districts as possible. The rest of that party's voters are cracked (spread out) into the rest of the districts, where the other party has a large enough majority to win more seats. Here is an illustration: * 100 voters and 4 districts. * District 1: 5 Democrats and 20 Republicans * District 2: 15 Democrats and 10 Republicans * District 3: 15 Democrats and 10 Republicans * District 4: 15 Democrats and 10 Republicans * Result: 1 district for Republicans, 3 for Democrats. Competitive Districts: Congressional districts in which candidates from both political parties have a viable chance at winning election. Non-Competitive Districts: Congressional districts in which only candidates from one party have a viable chance at winning election ====== Contentions ====== I am using this first round as an introduction to the topic and my contentions. I will introduce my contentions in this round and support them in the second round. I urge my opponent to begin his argument in the first round to give him extra space to rebut and build his own case against the resolution. Contention 1: 1. Packing districts with like-minded voters maximizes voter happiness. Contention 2: 2. Packing districts with like-minded voters maximizes representation. Contention 3: 3. Non-competitive districts produce legislators that are more attentive to their constituency than competitive districts. =========== If there are any questions or concerns, please direct them to the comment section. I can answer them there or amend my first round to clarify. Thank you.
We Should Not Ban Assault Weapons or High Capacity Magazines

Thanks to my opponent for posting his argument. 1. Assault Weapons Aren"t Needed Assault rifles make up only 1.7 percent of all guns in America. Their function in society is dispensable. A 2005 Gallup poll found that 67 percent of gun owners carried firearms for protection, 66 percent for target shooting, and 58 percent for hunting. None of these activities"the three most popular for gun users"requires assault weapons. The possibility for extra civilian casualties in a self-defense scenario outweighs the benefits of being able to shoot more often. Assault weapons are by no means required to be effective at hunting or other recreational activities. They are inaccurate, highly visible, and bulky. Given assault weapons" limited practicality, why even involve the risk?1 2. Assault Weapons Bans Have Worked Criminalizing the ownership of assault weapons dries up the supply, decreasing the ability for most potential criminals to gain access to such weapons. Furthermore, it decreases the risk of a citizen committing an atrocity because they have an assault weapon. The rules of supply and demand will cause prices to increase, deterring certain criminals from buying assault weapons over cheaper and far less lethal firearms. Following the now-defunct ban, the amount of assault weapons traced back to crime decreased by 66%. As of 2001, only 1.1% of weapons traced back to crime were found to be assault weapons named in the act. This is a sharp decline from 3.67%, the first year before the ban.2 In Massachusetts, where assault weapons are banned, firearms kill three out of 100,000 people each year, compared to national average of 10 out of 100,000.3 3. The Assault Weapons Ban Overturn Was Disastrous Since the law"s expiration, police deaths from gunshot wounds have increased substantially. In 2009, 49 police officers died from gunfire, a 24 percent increase from 2008. In 2010, 61 officers were shot and killed, a 37 percent increase from 2009. And in 2011, 68 officers died from gunfire. In fact, 2011 represents the first year of the past 14 years when the leading cause of on-duty police officer death was from gunfire and not from traffic fatalities.1 4. The Assault Weapons Ban Makes Sense If we allow both officers and criminals to obtain high-powered weaponry, we"re simply asking for death and instability. Banning assault weapons would not only save civilian lives, but also would help protect police officers on duty. The move would allow for tighter, more aggressive enforcement of the law. The fight against assault weapons should be framed not as a limitation of rights, but as a stand against criminality and criminal violence. The net benefit to society is positive. Works Cited: 1 http://www.iop.harvard.edu... 2 http://www.bradycenter.org... 3 http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
We Should Not Ban Assault Weapons or High Capacity Magazines

For the rest of this debate, I am going to assume: There is NO second amendment We do not need assault weapons or high capacity magazines to defend ourselves against potential tyrannical governments. We should not ban all guns (my opponent may challenge me to this debate later if they wish) Given these assumptions, I believe I can still argue against banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines. Rules: My opponent: Round 1) acceptance & arguments 2) arguments/rebuttals 3) arguments/rebuttals 4) rhetorical statement of choosing. Me: Round 1) terms and conditions 2) arguments/rebuttals 3) arguments/rebuttals 4) conclusion May be done through political, medical, economic, or philosophical arguments. No plagiarism. Both parties must adhere to the previous assumptions.
The major premise can be shown to be true.

IF (A) man was able to originate the - idea/concept of atoms through the power - of imagination, - THEN (B) man did originate the - idea/concept of atoms through the power - of imagination. Argument fails. Its debunked by the ontological argument. 1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived. 2. The idea of God exists in the mind. 3. A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind. 4. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being"that which exists in reality. 5. We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God. 6. Therefore, God exists.
Celebrating Christmas Does Not Violate any of God's Laws or Principles in the Bible

Hello, daley. I have seen some of your debates before, and I look forward to facing off against you, who seem to be a formidable opponent indeed. I understand that the only source to be used is the Bible. I will use the KJV, as it is the most widely accepted version of the Bible. ___________________________________________________________________________________ My round one shall be only one argument. Jeremiah 10 2 Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. 3 For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. 4 They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not. 2 Corinthians 6 14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. This is fairly easy to synthesize: Jeremiah speaks of the pagan tradition of decorating a tree for the Winter Solstice, or Yuletide, or whatever holiday it may be. 2 Corinthians says that believers in their righteousness have no fellowship with unbelievers - pagans - in their unrighteousness and darkness. Together, they state that the followers of God and Christ have no business associating with pagans and nonbelievers or their traditions. I rest my initial case and look forward to your response.
Gun Control

What is OBJECTIVELY TRUE, is that Gun ownership is harmful to the society at large and to the individual gun owner, I believe I have made this case through well reasoned sources and made a sound statistical case as such, In reply Con has provided ideological ramblings devoid of meaningful data to support them. Regarding the 2-Million defensive gun uses statistics: " First, there is the social desirability bias. Respondents will falsely claim that their gun has been used for its intended purpose—to ward off a criminal—in order to validate their initial purchase. A respondent may also exaggerate facts to appear heroic to the interviewer. Second, there’s the problem of gun owners responding strategically. Given that there are around 3 million members of the National Rifle Association (NRA) in the United States, ostensibly all aware of the debate surrounding defensive gun use, Hemenway suggested that some gun advocates will lie to help bias estimates upwards by either blatantly fabricating incidents or embellishing situations that should not actually qualify as defensive gun use. Third is the risk of false positives from “telescoping,” where respondents may recall an actual self-defense use that is outside the question’s time frame. We know that telescoping problems produce substantial biases in defensive gun use estimates because the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), the gold standard of criminal victimization surveys, explicitly catalogs and corrects for it." -"How To Manufacture A Statistic", http://www.armedwithreason.com... In regards to Con's 2nd amendment argument I just frankly don't care. I don't care what your ideology is, American society is NOTHING like it was when the constitution was written, we are primarily urban where we where once primarily rural; we are primarily federal where we where once primarily state governed. The gun is nothing like it was when the constitution was written either, An expert shot could put 3 rounds out of a musket in a minute, an AR-15 can put out 30 rounds in a few seconds. Things change. I believe I have adequately provided a reasoned response with verifiable sources establishing that Gun ownership is unhealthy for individuals and detrimental to society, and at least, gun controls should be put in place to reduce the risks of death.
Gun Control

insufficiently controlled gun ownership is objectively bad for our society, and objectively unhealthy for the weapon owner. A gun owner is 300% more likely to commit suicide[1] than a non gun owner. Suicide by the way is the 2nd leading cause of death for people under age 35[2]. Suicide is the number one gun related killer and it's a huge one! But even School shootings are far from uncommon, there where more than 45 school shootings in 2015 alone[3] even if you don't hear about them in the news everyday. So, con, The numbers are objectively bad... The claim that guns protect you from criminals at all is debatable[4] ... But con, honestly, above any of this, The united states, we, the people, are not a peace loving people. We are not a peaceful society at all, we can't even have a sale on laptop computers with out some one getting hurt every year[5]. And finally what happens when add guns to potentially every minor conflict Americans have with each other on the daily basis? This happens: http://www.wlox.com... [1] https://www.ucsf.edu... [2] http://www.cdc.gov... [3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...= [4] https://www.newscientist.com... [5] http://www.ranker.com...
Gun Control

The idea that some some how owning a civilian model Ar-15 will stop government tyranny is absolutely ridiculous. Ask your self how many imaginary communist governments have Con's guns over thrown? Where is the long history of Tyrants being over thrown thanks to the 2nd amendment.. In the mean time people are dying... every day, with out fail, People die.. That is what is at stake, There is no evidence of any Stalin waiting in the wings; This debate is conclusive, poorly regulated firearms are harmful to our society, there fore Vote for pro.
Gun Control

Two hundred twenty and five years ago, our country's founders put in place an amendment that guaranteed that the American Citizen's right to bear arms would not be infringed. And now, the United States government is doing just that. Gun control is becoming more common and strict in many states. This action by the United States government is unconstitutional and is having the complete opposite effect that they hoped for. Criminals are still getting their hands on guns from the black market, while law abiding American Citizens are left defenseless against the criminals now that they are without their greatest threat, the armed victim. This is not a path that our country should continue down. It was foreseen by our founders and now it is coming true. Something must change, or we will be back where we started before we became a nation. 1700's or not, taking away our arms is one step closer to the totalitarian communist government that we as a nation have fought so hard to avoid. In World War II we showed the world the power of the United States by ending the Nazi Regime, and at the end of the Cold War, Ronald Reagan took a stand and showed the world the fault in communism and dictatorship. If the United States government takes our guns away, they will be no better than Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, and we will surely end up as a communist country once their greatest threat is taken care of, that threat being people brave and strong enough to take up arms against a government that they know to be corrupt. The United States may be a democracy now, but with the actions of our government lately, it is apparent that they are ready for a change. Thank you for accepting this debate. And no matter the results, I am just glad that both of our stances can be heard thanks to our freedom of speech ensured by the 1st amendment, but if the government is allowed to strip us of our 2 amendment, take advantage of your freedom of speech, because the way our country is heading, it too will be gone in time. Thanks
The most important millenium goal is education for everyone!

My argument is that there are more important things to do with our time then to set as our main goal for this millenium education. Things we need to do first before education include: > Fixing extreme poverty > Preventing WW3 > Ensuring all humans have access to basic human rights. I wont go on further since I have a nagging suspicion that my opponent will FF, so Ill leave my case there for now.