BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pedophiles Should Be Executed

I am an advocate for children. I cannot wrap my mind nor my heart around the deliberate abuse of a child. I cannot understand why the society in which I live is so tolerate of any sex offenders behavior against children nor why we don't demand change? I believe that anyone convicted of a sex crime against children should be put to death immediately. I present that results of very long and conditional scientific studies demonstrate clearly that once a pedophile, always a pedophile thus I believe that these individuals have no place in our society.
Is Hillary better than trump

I will be going against the argument that Hillary is better than Trump. First off Hillary has done so many things evil in her life that she cannot and, in fact, shouldn't even be allowed to be president. Hillary is worse than Trump for the following reasons:Hillary supports the killing of babies, even after the nine week mark, as well as after birth. She says that babies aren't babies until they leave the hospital. This is outrageous and wrong, and she knows it. She is pro-choice, which is pro-death. Hillary sent private and confidential information by email, and when it was discovered, deleted about 30,000 emails, and lied saying that they were about a yoga program and her daughter's wedding. Really? Like Trump said, that must have been a big wedding. According to nytimes. com (. http://www.nytimes.com...) 8 of the emails that were released contained top secret information, 36 contained secret information, 8 contained confidential information, and 2,000 were classified as confidential. These emails show that she can jeopardize America by giving secret information to the wrong people. Hillary should be in jail. In newly leaked videos, the Democratic party were hiring people to incite violence at Trump's rallies, and they were also trying to figure out how to accomplish voting fraud for Hillary. Hillary left a couple people to die. She was heartless. Hillary has done terrible things that people, who have only done one fifth of what she did, have been put in jail for. Hillary is evil, and will ruin America, and she has so many other faults and failures. Trump will set a new stage. Hillary will only continue what Obama has done and worse, and nothing will change dramatically. Trump on the other hand, who is not a politician and doesn't use the tactic "lie about everything if it makes you look good just to gain the people's vote," which is what Hillary does, will make a change. Trump is a business man and he knows how to make good deals with our allies. Trump will whipe the slate clean and we can start fresh. Trump is better than Hillary because Trump has never given anyone confidential information, and he will stick to what he has said he will do. Trump is for the American people, Hillary is for herself. Trump is better than Hillary. Thank you.
The role of the Soviet Union in defeating Germany was greater than that of the Western Allies.

Generally what you have done is re say your arguments and then re-vamp them a little. So please refer to my previous arguments, E.g. how the Allies had no knowledge of Germany breaking the treaty of Versailles through mass militarization. You stated that the U.S. did not assist in the capture of Berlin, yet they did, they severed Hitlers last escape route causing him to commit suicide. They did not necessarily capture Berlin (they were about half a mile away) but they did assist in the capture of Berlin and stop Hitler escaping. When Germany lost in Africa, Germany was essentially halted from invading any more land, including a very strategic point where supply lines with Japan could have been easily made. And the argument that "it cannot be important because it is a desert" is ludicrous. Evidently it is much more than a desert but a strategic point. With the American supplies, again it is ludicrous to say that they are un-important! How can someone capture a city with no ammo, food, shelter or tools? Yes the allied invasion of France was important, as it cut back German troops, how can you say the capture of new land is not important to war? You cannot just cut the head off of a hydra and think it is dead. If Hitler had been killed earlier it does not mean the whole Nazi regime would fall! The fact that the Western Allies fought on multiple fronts (and more than the Soviets) does say a lot as it proves my point of this debate. Also yes the Allies were appeased by western Allies for 6 years before the war, but the Soviets were at peace DURING the war. And indeed they did lose more men, but that does not prove that they did more in that time. The fact remains that there was more strategic advance and capture by the Allies rather than the Soviets. Also the Luftwaffe destroyed most of the Soviet aircraft and only had a minor defeat to the Soviets after they deployed strategic fighters. The rest were defeated by Britain and bombed by the RAF in the Luftwaffe air force base. Also you have presented a new argument by listing the comparisons of Germany's defeat. In conclusion, you have only rebutted a few of my arguments and poorly constructed a rebuttal to a few of my major points. Please refrain from making new arguments and stick to the debate topic, rather than diverting off on "who killed more". http://en.wikipedia.org... (allies invading Germany) http://en.wikipedia.org... (Luftwaffe)
The role of the Soviet Union in defeating Germany was greater than that of the Western Allies.

ARGUMENT 1: The Western Allies were responsible for allowing Germany to break the Treaty of Versailles and allowing Germany to rebuild its military, expand into Austria, Czechoslovakia, and other territories. Appeasement by the British and French were what enabled WWII to start in the first place. Italy was allowed, by the Western Allies to invade Albania and Ethiopia. Germany and Italy helped the Fascists take power in Spain, but Britain and France did nothing. Yet the Soviets did send aid to the government in Spain. ARGUMENT 2: The outcome of the war was decided on the eastern front. 80% of the German forces were destroyed on the eastern front together with Romanian, Hungarian, Finnish, and many Italian divisions. The important battles that decided the outcome of the war were fought on the eastern front. The three battles that ultimately destroyed the German military were the Battles of Moscow, Kursk, and Stalingrad. ARGUMENT 3: This was one of the bloodiest battles in history (second only to Stalingrad) in which the Soviets captured Berlin. The Battle of Berlin forced Hitler to commit suicide and ended the war.
The role of the Soviet Union in defeating Germany was greater than that of the Western Allies.

Also if you do not plan to stay for each round, please do not accept. Round 1: acceptance only Round 2: post ALL arguments (arguments in rounds 3-5 will be ignored) Round 3: rebut arguments Round 4: rebut arguments Round 5: rebut arguments/conclusion Additional Rules: -No insults -No quitting -Show respect Time to argue per round: 72 hours Maximum characters: 10,000 *Note: I have done this same debate several times already and these rules are based off of my previous experience. The reason that I set such strict rules for what each round will contain is because I do not want this debate to end up too chaotic.
The FairTax system of taxation should be adopted in the USA

First let's go with the flat tax. According to the National Bureal of Economic Research, from 1989 to 2007 started a boom that trippled the US profit margins due to the flat tax system. The increase was from $20 trillion under Reagan to $60 trillion under Bush Jr. (. http://www.laffercenter.com...) The Yearly growth rate of the GDP was at 3.8% annually showing that the flat tax system was indeed working and helping the American economy dramatically. We can cross apply this to the Reagan cuts and that everytime the cuts started to take affect was when the economy was at a low and the cuts boosted the economy up dramatically. (. http://www.laffercenter.com...) My opponent's Fair Tax website is only a website trying to get us to petition Congress to make it law. This source means nothing. My opponent argues that in order to get foreign buisnesses to move here we must enanct this tax plan, but that is highly flawed. As a matter of fact the US is OVERregulated and this is according to the US Chamber of Commerce. (. https://www.uschamber.com...) According to the US COC there is approximately 17,000 new regulations a year coasting the US economy over $1 billion per 27-30 regulations. This is extremely painful on the US economy and even if we enacted this plan we could still see that the regulations would prohibit much of the newer industries that my opponent is talking about. s://www. uschamber. com. .. ; alt="Since 1976 federal agencies have issued over 180,000 new regulations. " />My opponent has dropped how I argued that the flat tax is better overal and how harmful the fair tax is how it harms the average joe. With that I thank you for this debate.
The FairTax system of taxation should be adopted in the USA

I will lead with sources: The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History by Thomas Woods The FairTax Book by Neal Boortz and John Linder Somebody's Got to Say It by Neal Boortz fairtax. org www. laffercenter. com To begin, I will criticize the Flat Tax. Nominally, yes, the flat tax LOOKS like it will generate more revenue. However, when we look at the conditions for the Laffer Curve, raising tax rates slows the economy and destroys incentives to work. In the same way, lowering taxes below their optimal level will generate less revenue. Therefore, the only people who will be taxed at the optimal tax rate are those somewhere in the middle. The poor will be taxed above their optimal rate and the wealthy below it. Thus, in practice when economic growth changes are accounted for, the flat tax would generate the least of all the three tax systems: FairTax, Progressive Income Tax, and Flat Tax. The reason the progressive tax was instituted in the first place was because the flat tax that we had before it was simply not generating enough revenue. Next, I would like to state that my points that the economy will grow, foreign business will move to the US, everyone will be taxed, savings will increase, interest rates will decrease, and employment will increase have gone entirely unopposed up until this point. The only criticism that my opponent has brought up is the shift in the tax burden (which I have disproved, despite whatever reasoning Con has for it) and potential tax evasion. I have not addressed the potential tax evasion under the flat tax, but I will now. Nothing will change from today. The wealthy will continue to hide their money in the Caymans where it is tax free, and their will still be fraud on the forms. Under FairTax, these forms of fraud would be impossible. I am going to conclude this debate now because I know that it is getting long for my readers, so I will say this. There is no faster way to bring about positive change in our economy than to overhaul our current tax system and replace it with the simple FairTax.
The FairTax system of taxation should be adopted in the USA

My opponent claims that people have no net taxes due to the prebates they would have to pay under the poverty line, but this is highly incorrect. My opponent has no valid sources to back his claim, so it's null. I have shown the equation of which said Fair Tax would be based off of and what it would use. We can see that I have given valid evidence and sourcing for how the tax works and it's rebate so we have no other valid choice, but to use that. Bruce Bartlett, former Secreatary of the Tressury, stated that, "Even with the rebate counted the way the Fair Tax supporters want it calculated — as a reduction in tax liability rather than an increase in income — there would be an enormous shift in the tax burden from the wealthy to those with lower middle incomes." (http://www.politifact.com...) Thus we can see that once again that the tax burden would be shifted to the middle class and would not be helping the average American at all. Even with the IRS still there with it being greatly reduced as the plan calls for we can still see tax evasion on a large scale and this is something that we would need to avoid. Many Flat tax plans have been shown to work. Hermin Cain purposed the 9-9-9 plan in which people would pay a 9% flat income tax. Let's compare that of a Progressive rate to that of a flat tax system. Above we can see that under the flat tax system they all pay the same exact tax rate vs. that of a Progressive tax rate. Under this system we can see that you would be getting more revenue than under the progressive tax system which is rediculous. (http://one-simple-idea.com...) Here we can see that under the flat tax system you can get more revenue and you wouldn't be harming the average joe as much as they wouldn't be paying as much in sales tax that would come under the Fair tax and not only that, but we have to realize that the harm that would be done under my opponent's purposed system, which he DROPPED! So I'll extend those points across the board.
The FairTax system of taxation should be adopted in the USA

1. The prebate is calculated by taking poverty level spending per month and multiplying it by 23%. Therefore, the people at the poverty line will pay NO taxes in net. The people below the poverty line actually make money off of the prebate. Therefore, no one pays taxes on life's necessities. They only pay taxes on what they do not need. Since the wealthy spend more numerically, they pay more taxes, though not as a proportion of their income. 2. As far as enforcement goes, all American businesses have the infrastructure in place to pay sales taxes. The IRS will still exist; it will just be smaller. Plus, most Americans do not have the resources necessary to avoid paying this tax. Furthermore, over years after the implementation of the tax, new policies will be implemented to enforce the tax. Remember, this tax policy has only been theorized, and when put into practice, some things may be subject to change. 3. The Flat Tax: The biggest problem I have with the flat tax is that it will not generate enough revenue. The Laffer Curve teaches us that each income level has its own optimal tax rate. By taxing everyone at the same rate, some will be taxed to high and others to low. This will reduce revenue generated by the government. Furthermore, the tax forms still have to be filed just like under the current income tax system. The only paperwork done under the FairTax is a one page prebate form completed once per year.
The FairTax system of taxation should be adopted in the USA

There's just a few problems that I have with the Fair Tax system. My opponent talks about prebates, so lets look at that first. 1. Working poor person - earns $30,000 a year - works paycheck to paycheck - spends it all on necessities - has 0% to invest tax-free under FairTax.2. Middle class person - earns $70,000 a year - spends 80 percent on necessities - has 20% to invest tax-free under FairTax.3. Rich person - earns $10,000,000 a year - spends 5 percent on necessities - has 95% to invest tax-free under FairTax. (INCOME plus PREBATE X 12 minus NECESSITIES) divided by INCOME mult by 100 equals PERCENT LEFT TAX RATE1. ($30,000 + 187 x 12 - $30,000) / 30,000 X 100 = 7.5 92.5% working poor2. ($70,000 + 187 X 12 - $56,000) / 70,000 X 100 = 23 77% middle3. ($10M + 187 X 12 - $500,000) / 10M X 100 = 95 5% rich Oh dear, if we observe the above math we can see that the poor is being taxed almost everything they own while the rich pay almost nothing. (. http://fairtaxfraud.com...) My opponent also states that we need to eliminated the IRS and scale it back, but that is also problematic as if we do commence that it would make tax evasion so much easier now that the IRS has little to no enforcement for it's policies. (. http://taxprof.typepad.com...) In 2008, CNN reported that Huckabee's Fair Tax Plan lacked enforcement and we can cross apply this problem here as we can see without a valid enforcement agency this tax cannot be enforced. (. http://money.cnn.com...) When we check the political fact checker on the same issue we can see that this would in turn cause taxes to rise causing further tax evasion. (. http://www.politifact.com...) If we observe the above chart we can see that it compares Flat, Progressive, and Regressive Tax. We can see that the flat tax would be the best here as it permits the same tax percentage for all. This is key when we decide to tax income instead of products as we would never be 100% sure that consumer confidence would be up and under a fair tax plan in zero consumer confidence the federal government would be making no money compared to if the average joe has a job then the government would be making money reguardless if the consumer spends their paycheck or not. Next here I will quote Gary Johnson, " The Fair Tax calls for abolishing all federal taxes and replacing them with a 23 percent nationwide sales tax that applies only to new goods and services. For example a used car or secondhand clothes would be exempt, while groceries would not. In addition to a simplified tax, everyone would receive something called a monthly prebate check. "My opponent may look to Europe for possible signs of sales tax working, but that is only because they use VAT, meaning that they take 25% of the FINIAL sales profits. This is a much better system than what my opponent is purposing and we can see it doesn't harm the business, as much, and it helps the government by ensuring that business are still in operation and it doesn't harm the consumer as much. (. http://www.forbes.com...) Though I still prefer the flat tax system.
Had Hunton711 accepted this challenge, I would have beaten Hunton711.

"The first version of the implied hypothetical must be false, as it is impossible to have won an ongoing debate." What are you even saying? The resolution: "Had Hunton711 accepted this challenge, I would have beaten him." Really, your statement doesn't even make sense. The argument is that if he accepted the challenge, I would have won. The word "eventually" is quite clearly implied there. Saying "I would have won" implies that if he accepted, ultimately, I would have won. "Had Hunton accepted the debate, the categorical would be false. Therefore, the debate's titular statement would be false." Not really. You haven't shown why the categorical part of the statement's being false affects the actual resolution. I don't even get why it would. If Hunton711 actually accepted this, then the question is still whether or not I would have won if he accepted the original challenge. Therefore, he would be arguing the same thing you're (supposed to be) arguing. Second, I don't see why the truth of the statements is relevant. Really, your only job is to negate the statement "Had Hunton711 accepted this debate, I [iamadragon] would have won." You're trying to create semantics where there isn't really any room for semantics. Plus, what you're saying barely even makes sense. My opponent did not address any of my arguments. Extend them all.
Had Hunton711 accepted this challenge, I would have beaten Hunton711.

It's very easy to prove that Hunton711, or any other name Pro might have chosen, would have won this debate had he accepted. In fact, I am so confident I can prove it that I will use Hunton's own way of posting (a separate line for each sentence), in honor of the would-be winner. "Had he accepted this debate, I would have beaten Hunton711 (in this debate)" semantically consists of one categorical, "Hunton711 didn't accept this debate", and one hypothetical: "If Hunton711 accepted this debate, I beat Hunton711 (in this debate)," or generously, "...I will have beaten..." The first version of the implied hypothetical must be false, as it is impossible to have won an ongoing debate. Had Hunton accepted the debate, the categorical would be false. Therefore, the debate's titular statement would be false. Therefore, Pro would lose the debate. Therefore, trivially, the second version of the implied hypothetical would be false.
Had Hunton711 accepted this challenge, I would have beaten Hunton711.

Had he [Hunton711] accepted this debate, I would have beaten Hunton711 (in this debate.) http://www.debate.org... Hunton711 is 0-9 at the time of this posting. Chances are, it seems, that he would also lose this one. Also, in a lot of his debates, he just hasn't really made any sense. http://www.Debate.org... http://www.Debate.org... http://www.Debate.org... His arguments consist of incoherent rambling and broken English. He also has an odd way of posting (a trait that usually gives people who aren't good at debating away)–he uses a separate line for each sentence. I challenge Hunton711 to this debate, but he declined. I am opening it up to the floor.
Had Hunton711 accepted this challenge, I would have beaten Hunton711.

1.Against Hunton, Pro clearly would not have won THIS debate, as THIS debate's resolution (the one Hunton would have been charged with negating had he accepted THIS debate) is: "Had Hunton711 accepted THIS debate, iamadragon would have won." (Emphasis mine) You see, THE MERE FACT OF HUNTON HAVING ACCEPTED THE DEBATE, had he, would have negated such a resolution! [If there is any question about whether, for any x, "had x…" implies "not x", I invite the reader to try and construct a statement "had x…" that could be used in a situation in which x is true.] It being impossible to prove a resolution that is necessarily false, "had Hunton711 accepted this debate, iamadragon would" NOT "have won," a fact that is clearly irreconcilable with the resolution. 2.Pro says: "Your argument hinges on Hunton711's accepting the debate IN REALITY." Of course it doesn't. But the fact of the matter is that the resolution (of Pro's choosing) is such that its truth under circumstances of Hunton's having accepted is NECESSARILY EQUAL TO it's truth IN REALITY (i.e. under circumstances of my having accepted). But I do agree that, were I Hunton, my job would be slightly easier, as the resolution would be negated in a single step: "Had Hunton accepted…" (i.e. "Hunton didn't accept") would be plainly false. Under present circumstances (i.e. my being me), I must reach the logical conclusion that the resolution's plain falsity would have lost Pro the debate.
Had Hunton711 accepted this challenge, I would have beaten Hunton711.

There is a character limit for a reason. No arguments in the comments section are legitimate at all. Thus, I will extend those to which you didn't respond in your post. "It's unclear whether you're implying that falsification is something other than negation or that I negated the wrong statements. " Two things: 1. It can be negated. I don't see where you have done so. You have said (without directly showing, which is what you need to do) that one part of the statement is false, and you have said (without directly showing, etc. ) that one part being false makes the entire statement false. 2. Your argument hinges on Hunton711's accepting the debate IN REALITY. As you have accepted the debate, you have rendered all your own arguments useless, because for them to work, Hunton711 needs to have actually accepted the debate. If you were Hunton711, your arguments might work, but since you aren't, they don't. Anyway, like I said, the resolution doesn't revolve around the fact that Hunton711 didn't accept the challenge. It revolves around the fact that Hunton711 wouldn't win. So not only do your arguments really not address the heart of the resolution (or at all, really), but they are also painfully semantical. Maybe I should have made the character limit 1,000, as I really don't have much else to say, except that arguments in the comment section don't count.