BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
income tax

The government already receives enough income from other taxes, and income tax seems unfair to those who already make little money. Also, their are moral things to consider. For one thing, we were promised that this would be a temporary measure to fund the war. however, this promise has been broken, as it is has been many decades since the war ended. As long as income tax remains, it shows that the government is untrustworthy, and that income tax is as much a display of treachery as it is a source of revenue.
income tax

It is true that the income tax started for the reason of helping to pay for the civil war. To this I must ask, so what? Just because that is how it started, how does that make it any less of a legitimate means of revenue for the government? In fact it doesn't. The government needs to generate revenue to be able to pay for the basic needs of its people, such as roads, police, fire departments, and the like. This revenue is also used to pay for additional social services of which are not "needs" so much as "wants" of the people. Since the government needs revenue to function (if you don't want the government to function, that is an issue with government, not a tax itself), we come to the question of how should the government generate revenue? Since the wealthy have more income, they have more of an ability to cover the revenue demand, and the only way to accurately tax that, is to tax income (since income is the founding source of the majority of wealth). Income is also the easiest form of tax to make progressive, to regulate, and to audit (to ensure accuracy). I will end with this and allow my opponent to present his argument, so that we may continue from there. Thank you,
Raising tax on cars with big volume of engine.

Rebuttals: ***They are expensive for most middle class people, and if even they are not expensive, they can choose a car that is cheaper in price and smaller engine to avoid paying additional (carbon)tax. ***Another, you cited Kazakhstan as your example not to increase tax on cars with big engines, which I believe is not representative to the world. You stated the road problems in Kazakhstan as the reason why people prefer SUV; however, road problems can be fixed so people can use other cars. In fact, China has already implemented an increase of tax with this issue. ***You’re like saying why should I pay all my taxes(income, property, etc) when I am not even present in my country. Well, the answer is obvious: it’s your obligation, you cannot escape from it by going to other country. ***Also, there are people with small engine cars who may travel to abroad but pay their taxes regardless of whether or not they use their cars, so having big engine cars and going to abroad does not exempt you. Rationale of the proposal: it considers every car as polluting the environment every day. Lastly, you should rebut one by one the reasons why the proposal should stand1. Encourages alternatives.2. Raises Revenue. 3. Leads to a socially efficient outcome.
Raising tax on cars with big volume of engine.

Firstly, in our country car with volume of engine from 3 and up are very popular, especially in rural area. They are not expensive, they also have, for example, 4000 cc engine. It is not a luxury, it's one way how to sirvive. In Kazakhstan, 9087 kilometers, or 43.1 percent of the total road has defective coating the roadway. According to the analysis of the state of roads, 2,504 kilometers, or 11.9 percent of all surveyed sites have dangerous defects. Potholes are fixed at 824.9 thousand square meters, the lack of road markings found for 6.5 thousand kilometers. 6443,2 km. or 30.6 percent of the roads in Kazakhstan are in the process of destruction and need major repairs. Only one kind of cars can survive on this roads - suv. And as you know this kind of cars has a big volume of engine. The most important problem is that Such families are unable to pay such a tax. In our villages people don't earn such a sum of money. Secondly, the main reason why our government want to introduce this tax is to reduce gas emmisions from these cars. But, if I am going, for example, to Germany for 1 year, why I should pay this tax, I left my car in garage and that's all. The government want us to follow the principle "Pollute more, pay more", but if my car don't emit dangerous fumes, what should I do in this case?
Raising tax on cars with big volume of engine.

Rebuttals: (The middle layer of the society will be equal to the top. It can cause reduction of family income for not rich people.)-Logic will tell us that they do not belong to the middle class because they also own luxury cars. And, if they don’t want to pay for car tax like the rich people, then why they bought luxury cars in the first place if they want to save money?(This law does not take into account also this fact - business trips)-Whether or not rich people with big engine cars go to abroad and not using their cars do not matter. This is because middle class people may also go to abroad but still paying their due tax payment.(I have found one solution to this problem: instead of raising the tax our government need to raise up price on gasoline.) -Increasing the price on gasoline is beyond the control of the government because of the oil deregulation law. And if it can control fuel prices and increase the same, it would affect the entire community that depend on car transport whatever the size of the engine.Arguments1. Encourages alternatives. People will think twice on choosing their cars so to avoid paying higher tax. If this happens, gas emissions from big engine cars will reduce.2. Raises Revenue. If people continue using big engine cars without thinking of the tax, then the government can raise revenues, which in turn can be used in other projects that protect the environment. Also, the revenue can be used for road, bridges, and building constructions.3. Leads to a socially efficient outcome. It makes people pay the social cost and overcomes the excess consumption.
Raising tax on cars with big volume of engine.

According to the site Zakon.kz, in Kazakhstan increasing in the range of over 3 up to 4 cause by ensuring a smooth growth and observance of the principle "Pollute more, pay more".Raising tax rates proposed to take the following gradation:-from 3.0 to 3.2 - 35 MCR (from 60 585 to 61 985 tg, about 395$)-from 3.2 to 3.5 - 46 MCR (from 79 626 to 81 726 tg, about 528$)-from 3.5 to 4.0 - 66 MCR (from 114 246 to 117 746 tg, about 760$)-from 4.0 and up - 117 MCR (202527 tg, about 1323$)Nowadays tax on cars with volume of engine ranging from 3 to 4 is 15 MCR (25 965 tg, about 170$).Also It is proposed to repeal benefits for vehicles with a volume of more than 4000 cc.Exemptions were introduced as a tool for social support certain categories of citizens.Number of cars with four-liter and up is 37619 (about 8809 cars use exemptions).I think this method is wrong.I have two arguments to support my idea:-The middle layer of the society will be equal to the top. In our country about 15% of the middle layer of the population has a car with this volume of engine (3 l. and up). For example, tax for Toyota Land Cruiser 4.2 l. (1991, 16000$) will be the same like on new Toyota Land Cruiser 200 4.7 l. (2013, 70000$) - 1323$. But salary of these two men will be not the same.It can cause reduction of family income for not rich people.-This law does not take into account also this fact - business trips. For example, some people can go abroad, for a long time for example 1 year, and they have to leave their car in their garages.These cars are not used by anybody, they don't pollute air, but when their owners will come back home, they will have to pay this tax although they don't use them at all.I have found one solution to this problem: instead of raising the tax our government need to raise up price on gasoline. With help of this method we will follow the principle "Pollute more, pay more".
Telemarketing should be banned

Your argument boils down to a few main points, I will address all of those here. * Telemarketing Is Harassment * Telemarketing is an invasion of privacy * Do Not Call lists are ineffective Telemarketing is no more an invasion of privacy than television commercials, or even people spreading their opinions on the street. You do not /have/ to hear these opinions or these views, however you might happen across it while watching TV, or perhaps walking down the street. The important difference between harassment and free speech is that harassment is when an individual or company PERSISTS in this speech unwanted speech, and you have no way out of it. Telemarketing does not work like this, if you do not want a call from a specific company you simply ask them to put you on their do not call list, and you will no longer hear from that company. An important fallacy you make is referring to "Telemarketers" as a whole group rather than individual corporations. While you may get annoying calls from a different corporation when you already asked one to stop bothering you, that corporation does not necessarily know that you disapprove of telemarketing calls explicitly. They have a right to free speech, to advertise their products as they see fit. If you don't want a call from the corporation bothering you, simply asking will stop the call. The rights of the advertisers to advertise their products should not be banned outright just as free speech, however annoying should not be banned outright. You choose to own a phone or not, just as you choose to walk down that particular street or you choose to watch that particular channel. You have a way out if that particular person is annoying you in telemarketing just as you would be able to simply walk past the person bothering you or watching a different channel. There is no force involved, however annoying it might be. All of the examples you gave, when examined carefully delt with the National Do Not Call registry, not corporation "Do Not call" lists. "Do not call" lists were not disproven in your rebuttal. In your statement "Furthermore, if any individual called and pestered like telemarketers after being repeatedly told not to, they could be arrested for harassment. But not telemarketers. The best you can get from them is a measly fine." you make an enormous fallacy, that being that you group 'telemarketers' as a whole. If you asked your ex girlfriend to stop calling you and she complied, but another ex girlfriend started calling you would you press charges on the first one, or both of them? Of course not, that wouldn't be just, only a single one is causing the issue and you haven't even asked her to stop. You must ask individual businesses to stop. If we treated telemarketers, as you say, like everybody else then all people who we might not like would be automatically banned from ever speaking to us, from ever exercising their right to free speech. While you do not have to hear this speech, and you reserve the right to exercise this on the spot, an outright ban is necessarily an outright ban on free speech, not a ban on harassment.
Telemarketing should be banned

First and foremost, I must apologize for my forfeit. I have been somewhat busy with school lately (I'm taking summer classes) and to be honest my procrastination and laziness may have taken some effect on this too. I begin. While I agree that telemarketing can be annoying, an important right for people in the United States, and across the world is the right to free speech. This right to free speech includes the right to call people up, advertising your product(s). I do not think that telemarketers should have unlimited power to call you, at some point calls eventually become harassing. There is a simple solution to this problem, even more simple than a national do not call registry. It's called a "Do not call list". A company who calls you to solicit products must honor your request to put you on their do not call list if you so ask, and they are not allowed to call you any more. If they choose to call you anyway, it is the right of the individual to sue the telemarketing corporation for several hundred, if not thousand dollars. This is a relatively easy process that just about anybody could do. This problem is already relatively solved, and we should not ban it outright simply to spite corporations who want nothing more than to sell their products.
Telemarketing should be banned

Those that care to look at my previous debates can clearly see that I never tear into my opponent for forfeiting a round. However, upon looking at my current opponent's previous debates, it is clear that he is notorious for not posting arguments within the allotted time. This now leaves me with a dilemma. In the past, I would continue posting arguments to support my point of view and practically ignore the forfeiture. But should all of the rounds be forfeited, I will actually repost this topic to debate someone else. Therefore, I will not post any arguments this round. Should my opponent post an argument in the next round, I will respond and hope that my arguments do not exceed the character limit.
The movie 'Ant-Man' is overrated

You can tell he's really putting that 30% win record to good use. I'll do my best to try to translate Con's arguments into legible english for everyone else, but I fear such a task may prove to be impossible since English appears to be Con's third language. 1) Recycled plot-line"Marvel's movies all have the same plot, they are all about some poor hero that is crossed with a something else. " The fact that all marvel movies are superhero movies doesn't mean all movies have the same plot, it just means that they are all the same genre of movie (superhero action films). Even the origin stories of superheroes is altered from time to time within the same franchises, such as how Spiderman and the Fantastic 4 get their powers differently in movie franchises from this decade compared to the last decade. .. .. Ant Man though straight up copied a plot development right out of Captain America the Winter Soldier by making the bad guys in the movie be affiliated with Hydra. Every other Phase 2 movie (Marvel movies that came after the first 'Avengers' film) had a different plot development or plot twist than the Hydra storyline, except for Ant Man. .. . Therefore, Ant Man is an overrated film, since compared to all other marvel movies, Ant Man's storyline is not unique, and borrows elements featured heavily in Captain America 22) Weak villain"You want all villains to be spooky and scary? "No, but I prefer villains to actually be dangerous and be powerful, since a villain in a movie who is very weak makes for very underwhelming showdowns and fights. Other villains in Marvel movies are literal gods, and those who aren't have powers that allow them to challenge even the most powerful Avengers out there. The villain in Ant Man though is clearly the weakest villain in the Marvel world in terms of strength, which contributes to the overall idea that Ant Man is an overrated movie3) Weak superhero"A superhero who is not overpowered is easier to relate to"Great superhero's arent people who regular folk can easily relate to though. Superman is an alien from another world who has powers far beyond our imagination. Iron Man and Batman are billionaires who earn more money in 20 minutes than most of us will earn in our entire lives. Superhero's can be great and still be not be easy to relate to, and being easy to relate to doesn't make someone a good superhero "he's just a man with a cool costume that can make him small"Yeah, that makes him a very weak superhero since his notable aspects begin and end with him having a neat costume, and having the ability to become the size of an ant. "He's a man who can turn into an ant, how cool is that. "It's not cool, it's completely lame. .. . Ant Man is the type of hero who is better fit to be the sidekick of a more powerful hero, not be the powerful hero himself. .. Ant Man is the equivalent of The Falcon in Captain America II, in that he may be neat, but he's a B-list hero
The movie 'Ant-Man' is overrated

Recycled plotlineWtf, evertthing is a recycled plotline if everything else. Everything is derivieted of everything else (except the truth). Captian south america's betrail plotline is a simple berail plotline that is in every other game of thrones episode. Marvil's sh1t is all the same, spider man, hulk man, Man man, moon moon, women man (movie about a trans with superpowers) they are all about some poor douchee that is crossed with a something else. 2) Lack of a terrifying villainYou want all villians to be spooky and scary? SOmethimes they are 9-5 dudes who snap under the angst of the system. They cannot wait for the Marxian dialectic of revoluton to begin so they instigate it by attacking the ant man. Reminds me of another villian like that who says "If every villain is terrifying, no villian is." In the days of internet, porn, p0rn, pr0n, tron, bladerunner, a new star trek series that comes out early 2017, seinfeld kids no longer fear what is BS villians guy who is bigger than hulk or the penguin. What is terrifying is a guy in a yellow jacket. He could be the guy that lives next door, your teacher, your kid's teacher. The guy who walks his dog, any one could be this guy there's nothing illusive about him. That makes me pee my pants. Other argelack of a powerful hero, bro us dudes can relate to him! We aint some green a$$hole or some spider with 4 legs, hes just a man with a cool a$$ costume that can make him small. He has to use his wits not his green power (a little racist don't you think) or his spider senses (ha f*cking spiders didnt sense me stomping on them)THe ant man has a sexy hero with a sexy costume and he's a man who is also an ant, how cool is that.Urrhhr ahhh uhhh
The movie 'Ant-Man' is overrated

I will argue that the Marvel movie 'Ant Man' starring Paul Rudd, is overratedCon will argue that its not3 rounds, 3000 characters, 24 hours between rounds'Overrated' in this case is defined as 'receiving hype and adoration that it does not otherwise deserve'. Whoever accepts the debate agrees to this definition Arguments:1) Recycled plotlineOne of the main 'twists' central to the plot in the movie Ant Man is that the guys who Darren Cross (the villain) plans to sell the yellow jacket suit to turn out to be operatives for Hydra, an evil organization first featured in Captain America 1... While some people may have been blown away from this revelation, others who watched 'Captain America: The Winter Soldier' were not blown away, since the exact same twist happened in that movie as well... In The Winter Soldier, operatives of SHIELD were found out to be loyal to Hydra, and the exact same 'twist' was used in Ant Man. Since Ant Man used plot pieces from prior Marvel movies as the main development in their own movie, this makes Ant Man overrated due to lack of a truly original plot. 2) Lack of a terrifying villainDarren Cross was the main bad guy in Ant Man. For those of you who forgot that, I don't blame you.... Darren Cross is the least remarkable villain in the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe, his only power being that the suit he wears allows him to grow super small and gain super strength, like Ant-Man.... Darren Cross, 'Yellow Jacket', is a far more inferior villain compared to other villains in the Marvel franchise in terms of overall power. Thor villain ============ That soldier who becomes an even bigger Hulk than HulkIron Man 1 villain ======= Obadiah Stone, who makes his own iron man suitCaptain America villain == Red Skull, a legit Nazi leaderThor Villain ============ Loki, a Nordic God who wielded the power of an infinity stoneIron Man 2 villain ======= Ivan Vanko, who makes a similar iron man suit and even hijacks iron man droidsThor 2 villain =========== The Dark Elves, who also had the power of an infinity stoneCaptain America 2 ======= The Winter Soldier + Hydra operativesGuardians villain ======== Ronan, who also had the power of an infinity stone Iron Man 3 villain ======= Aldrich Killian who using extremis becomes a super villain The point is that overall, the main villain in Ant Man is not only far inferior to the villains shown in other marvel movies, but is in fact the most inferior, in terms of terrifying qualities and strength. 3) Lack of a powerful heroThere is a huge gap in the power of villains in Ant Man and the rest of the Marvel universe, and the same can be said of the heroes as well. Ant Man can grow small as his strength grows, but no one in their right mind would believe that Ant Man could take down Thor, Hulk, Iron Man, Vision, etc... The huge gap in power of the people in Ant Man to the people in the rest of the Marvel movies are enough to indicate that overall, Ant Man is overrated
Rehabilitation is more important than punishment

Well it is a shame I'd have like to argued it. I think my next point may have been shoring up the evolutionary argument with more evidence, and challenging you on the concept that you believe rehabilitation is better not for good reasons, such as; it best fits every situation (which it doesn't) but because YOU personally prefer it as an option for yourself, and believe that what you prefer should be made the standard for everyone. It is a bias, in favour of your own survival, I'll leave you with this quote: "I feel for instance I have the right to do anything I please, but, if I do something that you don't like, I think you have the right to KILL ME, and where are you gonna find a better deal than that?" – George Carlin But, perhaps we can have a different debate some other time.
Rehabilitation is more important than punishment

I want to welcome my opponent to Debate.org and wish you the best of luck in this debate. This is a very important issue. Is rehabilitation more important or is punishment more important? Contention 1: DeterrenceThe argument from deterrence is often made that a threat of punishment is necessary to deter criminal activity. Here is the problem: The evidence indicates the exact opposite. Murder rates are far higher in the US states that execute murders than those that do not [1]. Regarding regular crimes, the "get tough" approach that began to be adopted in the 70's has seen prison population soar [2] [3]. One final note that the failure of prisons to deter crime, we only need to look at the extent of crime that goes on inside prison. Prison violence has never been higher [4] Contention 2: CriminalisationThe penal systems that are in existence today place the vunerable drug addicts and desperate shoplifters amongst the sociopaths and "dregs" of society. Whatever the specifics, what is known is that the most people who leave prison, end up going back in it again [5]. Research in the UK has found that "reoffending is higher amongst criminals who are locked up than do community sentences--with 74% of ex-inmates at one prison convicted again within a year." [6]Contention 3: EconomyCommunity sentences and rehab are invariably far cheaper than prison sentences. To take two examples, here are costs in the UK [8] and in North Carolina [9] This is especially significant as these kind of programs have also been shown to be more effective at reducing recidivism than prison sentences.Over to con. In order for my opponent to win this debate, my opponent must show that punishment is equal to or greater than rehabilitation.________________________________________________________________________________________[1] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[2] http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov...[3] http://www.nytimes.com...[4] http://findarticles.com...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://www.guardian.co.uk...[7] http://www.rethinking.org.uk...[8] http://www.doc.state.nc.us...Special thanks to feverish http://www.debate.org...