BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There must be a progressive tax rate that taxes those who earn more

Thank you for accepting the challenge. I'm a noob here, so I need to get my three debates in to vote! As someone pointed out in the comments, we would be both arguing in favor of a Progressive Tax considering that our current tax system is in fact a Progressive Tax system. Therefore, I'll have to argue the fact that a flat tax is better than a Progressive Tax. I'm going to just reference your first two statements from a previous comment section. "1) a complete nationalisation of all property and wealthy and the State equally distributes the benefits; or " First off, when has Nationalism ever throughout history equally distributed the property and wealth to all it's citizens (government citizens included)? Whenever governments have nationalized anything, the population in generally is all equally poor, and the government has the majority of the wealth. The incentive to work hard is taken away when people realize that the government would take what they earned and give it to others who didn't work for it. Here's a joke for you, but is a perfect example of what would happen under Nationalisation of Property and wealth..... https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com... 2) a progressive tax whereby the rich are taxed more and the poor are taxed less. The income from the rich is then redistributed to the poor, which would then create a healthy middle class. Well, I don't think you've done taxes ever in your life. Otherwise you would realize that we already have a progressive tax system. The rich pay the majority of the taxes in this country, meanwhile the poor either pay nothing, or actually get tax refunds when paying nothing into it. So our current tax system, (being progressive) actually benefits the poor the most. I believe a flat tax would be the most fair, because everyone would pay the same percentage across the board. So if you made more, the dollar amount would go up, but the percentage would stay the same. If you're poor, you would pay a LOT less, but would pay the same across the board. This would actually help the economy greatly, because Companies wouldn't have to hire a bunch of lawyers to find ways to get tax deductions, and reduce their tax liability. They would be able to focus on building their companies and take care of their employees/workers, which would probably result in higher wages too (since they wouldn't have to pay expensive lawyers). Leaders in business know that the better you take care of your employees, the harder they'll work for the company. Win-win for everyone. Well there's my 2 cents for what its worth and a few links to articles to support my stance. http://www.pewresearch.org... http://www.libertyunderfire.org...
There must be a progressive tax rate that taxes those who earn more

Well, I am not the best at openings however I will begin with this: The fact is flat tax does nothing in alleviating wealth inequalities; moreover, it also benefits the rich and hence the flat-tax is an unsuitable replacement for our progressive tax system. I will further prove to you that progressive tax rates work; I have a plethora of examples. Lastly, I will argue that our progressive tax system should not be scrapped in favour of a flat-tax.
There must be a progressive tax rate that taxes those who earn more

There must be a progressive tax rate that taxes those who earn more. I saw this comment from Spartan9876, so I copied and pasted here to start a debate. Are you up challenge? In your comment you state: I argue that it is not just to have a society that has such inequalities (I am looking at you USA); there is no justification whatsoever for people to be left destitute while others have billions. There are two ways to correct such an issue: 1) a complete nationalisation of all property and wealthy and the State equally distributes the benefits; or 2) a progressive tax whereby the rich are taxed more and the poor are taxed less. The income from the rich is then redistributed to the poor, which would then create a healthy middle class. I will prove that your theory is not only wrong, but will never work. Then I will prove to you how our current system is better.
There must be a progressive tax rate that taxes those who earn more

The two points I will be refuting are: 1) "So, let me get this right: In a flat tax situation where the guy making $25k, gets taxes $5k, and the guy making $200k gets taxes $40k and you don't think that's fair?? The guy making more, is paying more right? You think he needs to "SUFFER MORE" to make it fair? Have you ever taken an Economics class? (I don't want to assume, and get you all butt hurt). " 2) "What you're advocating is Socialism. At least there's a little free enterprise with our current progressive tax, but a progressive tax under socialism will never work. To make things simple and fun for the viewers, I'll put this college experiment below to read. " I will respond to the second one with glee. I will stereotype you, thus generalise. You are a bloody libertarian American who is telling me what Socialism is. You make me laugh. Progressive tax rates do not equate to Socialism. Your media has brainwashed you as a kid since the McCarthy era over what 'Socialism' is. Socialism is a political-economic system, whereas a progressive tax system is merely just a tax policy. Il y a une difference, non? Ergo, please do not equate the two. As for the second case; yes, I have a masters in economics. I know you will doubt me on this, but your doubt is founded on misinterpreting and not understanding my vernacular. The problem you are having within your argument is you are equating "suffering equally" to "suffering more"; that is not at all what progressive tax is about. It is about making everyone suffer equally and create a kind of surplus recycling mechanism. For the latter, when a nation does not have such mechanism, inequality rises tremendously fast. A flat-tax system can still contain such a mechanism; however, I am arguing a progressive tax system also has the added benefit of equity. As per the former, by if one has $1,000,000.00 and another has $25,000,000, having them both pay 5% of taxes will impact the latter person more than the former due to their already much smaller income. It is not about making the rich "suffer more" than the poor. It is about equalising the suffering; making both parties suffer equally.
Justin Bieber does deserve the hate he gets.

"We judge people every day (everyone does) but do they deserve that judgement: no." Yes, people do deserve judgement. Judgement is necessary in our society. Without being judged, criticized, and even hated, people would never learn from their mistakes. People need judgement. Our society needs judgement. And Justin Bieber is not unconscious to control himself. He is perfectly able to get the treatment he needs. People (yes, people who rely on alcohol and marijuana) do it all the time. His depression isn't giving him a free pass to do whatever he wants. If you are guilty of sending out hate, doesn't that mean you deserve hate? You get what you give. And if everyone is guilty of sending out hate, that means everyone deserves what they just gave; hate. The hate Justin Bieber receives is karma coming back to bite him; he screwed up, he was mean to people, he's done some horrible things. Now he's getting what he deserves.
Justin Bieber does deserve the hate he gets.

Hello, I really didn't think you would reply back but you did. I'm happy we can continue this debate, thank you for your rebuttal. Hatred is humane. This statement is a true fact. Like I said before, I'll say it again; nobody deserves hate for the abundant errors they make. My opponent is saying that hate is acceptable because everyone does it and nobody can help but to hate someone. Hate is natural and just like an idea, you can never kill it; it'll always exist. That doesn't mean someone deserves it. My opponent states, "And we are not oblivious. We have a relatively good guess about which stories are false and which are true. We aren't debating whether or not Justin really did everything that the media says he did. He couldn't have. But from the several stories that we know for certain are true, we have a substantial amount of reason to judge Justin Bieber." My response: Indeed, we are oblivious. A guess isn't 100%. We're not debating about whether everything the media says is true but my opponent is the one who brought up the stories from the media since round one and I thought it was only appropriate to expose the truth about media. Nobody deserves to be judged from the abundant errors they make, nor do they deserve hate. Judgement in society is natural; that doesn't mean it's acceptable or right. We judge people every day (everyone does) but do they deserve that judgment: no. Justin does need to take responsibility for the abundant errors he has made. Did he? Nobody can say he did, nobody can say he didn't. He does need to and that's why I consolidated that within my argument. My purpose of saying that was to show that he doesn't deserve hate but he does need to take responsibility for the sins he has created. My standpoint in the argument isn't to say that we should baby him; I'm saying we shouldn't give him hate. My opponent stated, "Depression does not make someone less eligible for judgement. If Justin Bieber is in fact depressed, then he should be seeking treatment, not continuing his foolish behavioral patterns." My response: Nothing makes anyone less eligible for judgement. Does that mean that they deserve the judgement? NO. Justin should seek treatment but that's something that he can only control. As far as his "foolish" behavioral patterns continuation, that's the side effects of his depression. He relies on alcohol and marijuana and he is unconscious to control himself. My opponent wanted to point something out from my information as an opinion simply to reciprocate the actions I made among her. Hate is intolerable and that's a fact. Hate can't be accepted. Does that mean it doesn't occur? No. It occurs every second, every minute. I'm guilty of sending out hate. But, nobody deserves it. My proof for hate being intolerable would be you. If somebody sent out hate for the mistakes you made, you wouldn't be able to accept it; you might be able to manage it but you can't accept it. Hate is in fact, intolerable; hate isn't acceptable to us (or at least to average being; there might be masochists) but it is expected and can be managed.
Justin Bieber does deserve the hate he gets.

If it's humane to make mistakes, is it not humane to hate? You're saying that nobody deserves hate for the mistakes they made. People can't help hating other people any more than they can help making those mistakes. And we are not oblivious. We have a relatively good guess about which stories are false and which are true. We aren't debating whether or not Justin really did everything that the media says he did. He couldn't have. But from the several stories that we know for certain are true, we have a substantial amount of reason to judge Justin Bieber. "Justin needs to take responsibility for the mistakes he's made." Yes he should. Does he? No. Depression does not make someone less eligible for judgement. If Justin Bieber is in fact depressed, then he should be seeking treatment, not continuing his foolish behavioral patterns. It is not a fact that hate is intolerable. Hate is a part of life for many people, and it's something that we can't help. Unless you can show me some proof that "hate is intolerable"; that statement is simply an opinion.
Justin Bieber does deserve the hate he gets.

Sorry for contradicting myself. Well then, for the purposes of this argument; Justin Bieber deserves most of or all the hate he gets. I say most of because I agree that some of those stories are bound to be false, and that some of those pictures might not be good enough evidence to say that he did what he did. So, excluding those few false stories; Justin does deserve all of his hate. And we actually aren"t oblivious to what goes on in his life; social media and the constant flood of paparazzi do give us enough evidence and footage to judge him and his actions. It"s true that it"s impossible to judge or even really know his personality and him as a person, but laws in our society are not based off of whether someone is a "good person" or not. Justin Bieber may actually be an amazing guy with a great personality, but he did what he did, and it"s entirely fair to judge him. So, he does deserve all of his hate, since it"s a person"s actions, not who they are, that is worthy of judgement. I know that everyone screws up, all the time, but the difference is that we, as normal members of society, are not constantly being monitored and observed by millions of people. And if we were, I"m sure that our mistakes, as common and excusable as you may think they are, actually wouldn"t be acceptable. I"m certain that, when he first became famous, Justin Bieber was informed about the probable hate and criticism that he would have to face as his fame grew. This hate is always probable because, as a celebrity, much of your life is happening on camera or in front of thousands of people. If either of us made Justin Bieber"s mistakes in our own lives, we wouldn"t be openly hated simply because we aren"t famous. Sure, Justin fucked up tons of times, but your argument that those mistakes are excusable because he"s human and normal people don"t get called out for their mistakes isn"t valid because Justin"s entire life is on a much bigger scale. He knew about the probability of hate; he made his choices. He"s aware that what he does will be judged by everyone; he still does stuff anyway. And it"s true that people do make mistakes every day, and so does Justin. But Justin"s hate-worthy actions are not what most people would consider a mere "mistake". He"s broken the law several times; he"s been thrown out of night clubs, and arrested for drag racing and resisting arrest. http://www.tmz.com... This link actually does have the video that you were looking for. It shows him getting into the car and the police stopping him. And your last question? The haters ARE sure what they"re hating him for; being a horrible role model, breaking the law, and misusing his fame. Sorry about the "s. My computer is doing it.
Justin Bieber does deserve the hate he gets.

Justin Bieber may be a human being, and humans make mistakes, but it's not true that "Justin Bieber doesn't deserve ANY of the hate he gets". He deserves some of it. He's made some really poor choices. There have been numerous cases where Justin has spat on his fans, shown up late to his concerts, peed in mop buckets in restaurant kitchens, drove recklessly through residential neighbourhoods; he's certainly not an appropriate idol for millions of youth to have. And of course he deserves a lot of the hate he gets; he made those choices himself, didn't he? http://distractify.com... This website has multiple reasons that prove why I believe Justin Bieber DOES deserve most of his hate; with pictures to go along with them. There's your proof.
Justin Bieber does deserve the hate he gets.

In my opinion, Justin Bieber doesn't deserve any of the hate he gets at all. After all, he's human and nobody has enough access to his personal life to make a judgment on him. To my future opponent: thank you for joining my debate; it's a real honor since this would be my first debate. To voters: Solemnly vote for who you think won the debate, not for your personal beliefs/opinions; only for who provided the rock hard evidence. Back to my opponent: I'm ready. Bring on the war.
Justin Bieber does deserve the hate he gets.

Since my opponent has forfeited her last round, our debate has officially come to a close. To summarize my arguments: -He's broken the law. -He's made mistakes in front of millions of people. -His repeated errors and disgusting behaviour make him an inappropriate idol for millions of youth to have. -Justin Bieber may be a wonderful person, but it's a person's actions that makes them worthy of judgement. -It's humane to make mistakes, but it's also humane to hate. -Instead of seeking treatment for his depression, Justin is continuing to behave foolishly. -People deserve judgement and hate because it's necessary in our society. -The hate Justin receives is his karma; you get what you give. The reasons above and those in my debate arguments prove that Justin Bieber does deserve his hate.
Super foods should be free.

You sir are dumb... Apart from that if food is free how are the farmers supposed to make money in the world? Why would the farmers work if they have no profit out of it? How are they supposed to pay for the things that are necessary in life, like a home, or family? If food is free that means there is no demand and with no demand the supply goes down and profits. If you can't get ahead why try in life. On top of that more people would go into starvation because farmers are not...
Parents should have the right to implant GPS trackers in their children

As children nowadays grow more and more lawless and unruly, the thought of implanting GPS trackers in children has seemingly grown more and more viable. However, I am strongly against this idea. Many things could potentially go wrong with a GPS tracker. For starters, the GPS tracker would only be able to locate your child through satellites. The radiation produced by such communication could, and will, harm one's child. This would not be making them safer at all. Perhaps your child would be safer from muggings or kidnappings or thefts, but I would highly hope that you have enough money to pay for the child's medical bills when the doctor tells you that your child is suffering from radiation poisoning or something of that lot. In addition to this, GPS trackers are a violation of human rights. Your child would grow with this GPS tracker inside them, their flesh and bone morphing in order to accommodate it. This could potentially cripple your child, especially if you wish to implant the tracker when the child is an infant. Furthermore, does the child have no right to privacy? Are they not allowed to go anywhere without their parents knowing? Lying to one's parent is not ideal, but let's face it, everyone has at one point or another. Does the child not have a right to go wherever he or she pleases without his or her parents getting on their case? The child would have no freedom, knowing that their parents would always be able to locate them. Moreover, what if the child's parent is abusive? The abusive parent would be able to locate their child at all times during every day, giving the child no opportunity to escape. These are all reasons why parents should have the right to implant GPS trackers in their children
Resolved: Evolution is more consistent with the evidence than is young earth creationism.

Firstly, the resolution clearly states that we are dealing with young earth creationism (YEC), which I have specifically defined as the creation of Earth less than 10000 years ago. By claiming the creation happened over seven million years, con ignored the definition. Therefore, his arguments are off topic. Con asks "ware (sic) did the water come from?" This is also off topic. Con then asks "how did plants get their (sic)?" It's simple: evolution. Ok, it's not actually simple. Now, I must first explain the process of evolution and then the overwhelming evidence for it. Imagine a population of identical lions hunting in the African Savannah. Statistically, as they are all identical, they would do about equally on average. Now, let's say, through the well documented process of mutation, one lion gains a 5% speed advantage over his (or her) competitors. He would be more likely to survive and reproduce, passing on the better genes to his offspring. Eventually, as organisms are in competition for finite resources (food, in this case), the fast gene would dominate the population. Over time, after many fast mutations, the lion could dramatically increase his speed over time. It is clear that natural selection provides an excellent means of improving one species of animals in a quantitative ability, such as speed. The next question is how new species are created. Allow me to illustrate an example from a lab. A population of flies was split into to halves. One half was fed maltose based food and the other starch based food. After just a few generations, there was enough of a species gap that the two groups didn't interbreed, resulting in speciation. [1] This example demonstrates the process of speciation. By millions on billions of speciation events, we have acquired the amazing biodiversity of Earth. I have given a brief explanation of how evolution works. Now, I will provide scientific evidence of it. Evolution is currently the only theory that explains the fossil record. According to young earth creationists, all "kinds" of animals would have perished in a global flood, but this would imply a random scattering of fossils. [2] Evolution not only predicts an ordering of fossils but also predicts the correct ordering of fossils every time. [3]. In addition, radiometric dating proves the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. [4] Good luck to con in the coming rounds. 1- http://evolution.berkeley.edu... 2- https://answersingenesis.org... 3- http://evolution.berkeley.edu... 4- http://www.asa3.org...
Resolved: Evolution is more consistent with the evidence than is young earth creationism.

I am a member of a religion ware we believe in creationism. we believe the earth was created in 7 days. but that sounds very illogical, my theory that on day for god is a million years for man-kind, with a theory like that it can be possible for that to match up to science. but evolution is more illogical, I would never believe that my ancestors where once fish or monkeys. but ware did the water come from? how did plants get their? the theory of evolution is completely illogical.
Resolved: Evolution is more consistent with the evidence than is young earth creationism.

Before we begin, let's give some definitions. Evolution- the scientific theory that states modern organisms descended from ancient ones through a process of gradual modification over billions of years and share a common ancestry. Young Earth Creationism- the belief that distinct kinds of organisms, along with the Earth, were created less than ten thousand years ago The burden of proof is SHARED. This will establish an even playing field for both sides of the debate. The first round is for acceptance only. No new evidence may be presented in the final round. Good luck!
Can fast food be healthy for you.

Ok, To help prove my opponent wrong I will do a line by line as well as add on to my arguments. My arguments is not that fast food bad for you most of the time but CAN fast food be good for you, Which it can be. My opponent brings up facts that most foods at fast food items are unhealthy because of the high sugar and fat, But not all foods served at most fast food locations have this high sugar and fat and as well as not being fried, For example, Salads without ranch dressing at Macdonalds, That is according to the new york time. Then my opponent has "research that says that fast food is unhygienic and leads to sickness, But has no evidence to support this, So my question for my opponent is how are they unhygienic and how is making people sick, Give examples. But also according to the new york times, Many fast food restaurants are making changes in the preparation of their food alone to help improve the health of people, They give an example of Macdonald's replaced margarine with butter and removing antibiotics from there meat, So yes fast food can be healthy both in the sense of eating and the sense of not being sick with a good chunk of fast food chains taking strides to help improve prove my point.