BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Highly taxing the rich and giving welfare to the poor is fundamentally flawed.

The Flow of Money.Profit, when we purchase a product, the product is of less value than what we pay for it. This is the case because profit is included in the price. Profit, is the force the drives money upward. The flow of money is from bottom to top. Money must be forced back down through some mechanism. If it isn't, it pools in the hands of a few, does less work, shrinks economies, and generates poverty.Money is a Resource.If I have an apple orchard. The apples are a resource I have. I can sell the apples for money. Take the money and purchase lumber to build a new barn: money=resources=apples=lumber. Supply and Demand.High supply of anything equals less value of that thing. If I have a billion apples, one apples is of less value to me then it is to a person who has no apples. Lets say we have a tough job that pays $20 an hour. Someone who has few $20s will value this job more than someone who has a million $20s. There is a value difference. The poor person values the job that pays $20 an hour, much higher than the rich person does. The rich person will see that $20 hour job has not worth his time. To the rich person, $20 has much less value than to the poor person. Rich person $20=low value. Poor person $20=high value.Example.Let imagine we are viewing a table. At one end of the table sits a person with a billion apples. More apples than they can eat in their lifetime. An individual apples is of less value to this person. At the other end of the table sits a poor person who has no apples. An individual apples is of great value to this person. If we take (through taxation) five apples from the apple rich person, there is no to nearly no harm done to that individual. Now we give the poor person those five apples. We have greatly helped the poor person, while doing no harm to the apple rich person. The apples aren't of equal value to each person. We have done no harm, while improving the life of another. This is a net social gain. This is a net gain for humanity. The proposition is incorrect. In this example, we have taxed the rich, given it to the poor and improved the world, slightly.The answer.We already know the answer to the question above. "Highly taxing the rich and giving welfare to the poor is fundamentally flawed." Money has a flow. It moves up. We must establish a mechanism to move it back down. Money must continue to circulate. (a good analogy is the water cycle, evaporation keeps the flow moving, governments must keep the money flow circulating) Based on flow, it is just to tax to keep a healthy circulation. To a rich person, resources (money) is of less value then to a poor person. A net gain is achieved through welfare programs, improving society, which even the rich person gets a return on their tax "investment" direct toward the poor. We have already been here. In the 1900s we figure this out. It seems as though we have forgotten our lessons. Highly taxing the rich and giving welfare to the poor ISN"T fundamentally flawed, it is actually the correct answer.
Highly taxing the rich and giving welfare to the poor is fundamentally flawed.

As pro, I side with the resolution and am therefor against taxing the rich and giving government funded welfare to the poor is fundamentally flawed. Con sides against the resolution and believes there is no flaw with high taxes on the rich and giving government funded welfare. First round is acceptance, second is opening statement, third is no set style, and fourth is closing statements and no new arguments. BOP is shared in this debate, so both pro and con must prove their stance on this resolution.
Noah's ark was real

Point 1Number of animals set on ark: about 6.5 million different species (not including extinct animals)-http://www.sciencedaily.com...Volume of the ark: 39,366 cubic meters-http://www.metrum.org...Can the ark hold 6.5 million animals? Answer: NoPoint 2 Say the ark can hold that many animals; where's the food? The ark was afloat for 10 months so there is no way Noah could have both gotten the animals in AND the food.-http://www.ask.com...Point 3There is no way terrestrial animals could get to the ark from different continents and islands.CONCLUSIONToo many impossibilities to be true.
Noah's ark was real

Acceptance--->|Hello, I'll be happy to listen to your proposition.| I'm fairly confident on the opposing side of this fiasco due to philosophical reasoning's and factual scientific data that is in contrast to the criteria one would have to fall under to to take such a faithful leap.( Ex- A boat that supposedly held all of the speices known to earth which is 8.7 million and probably a larger number during the supposed time period that this boat was created, Planet earth being 4.5 billion years not 6,000 years, the fact that we evolved from tiny single celled organisms and then into monkeys and was not created in gods image unless he is a cellular being. A philosophical moral paradox that may get you questioning gods almighty moral and logic is as follows, Why do you suppose god would send anyone to hell if they fell under the cultural tug of another society and adopted a different belief system? That would mean that "God", This angry fellow in the sky, is basically damning the innocent to hell because they've been taught to believe a particular ideology that they are set in mainly because most of these religions threaten divine punishment if you worship false a Omniscient creator or prophets which as you could imagine would lock them into so-called (False truth) and therefore determine them to be sent into the perils of hell at even the young age of a child... Ouch.... He doesnt sound very all knowing and compassionate to me... If you were born into a islamic family you'd be islamic, if you were born unto a christian family you'd be christian, if you were born into a jewish family you'd be a jew, so on and so forth.. Assuming you're a christian by the way, I think the ark story is unique to that group. But... Your claim for this "massive" boat was made so i must hear it.
Jesus was Jewish

I'm not even sure I want to bother with this anymore... "Divine Revelation" as a source... "Math"... What the Heck? Seriously... I'm just going to extend my arguments and throw a few things out there. "Jesus wasnt a blood of the seed of david." Exact Quote Matthew 1:1 "This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham:" Says so right smack dab at the beginning of the NT. Jesus was Jewish. "Mary was a Nazarene not a jew." Does my opponent even know basic anything about Jews? Nazareth was an area in Israel populated with poor Jews. It was kind of the Jewish slums.
Jesus was Jewish

Ummm bro, what religion did Jesus found? Jewishanity? Nope Christianity! Jesus wasnt a blood of the seed of david. Jesus was born of the virgin mary, marry not jewish! Joesph was but that doesnt mean anything because Joesph didnt impregnate mary. Mary was a Nazarene not a jew. Jesus was God does God have a race? Nope. Rabbi just meant teacher, they didnt have to be jewish. A gentile could be rabbi. Sources Divine Revelation Bible Logic History Math
Jesus was Jewish

It says in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 that Jesus is a descendant of Abraham. Abraham was the Father of the Jewish people. It also lists King David, also Jewish. Jesus was almost pure Jewish. Also, as seen in Luke 2, Jesus' mother and father (I personally believe Jesus was born of a virgin, but I do not know what my opponent's position, so hey.) were from Galilee and Nazareth, Jewish regions.So Jesus was born to Jewish parents, in a Jewish city, in Israel. Yeah... He was Jewish.Jesus is also called Rabbi over and over. Only Jews can be Rabbis in ancient Judaism. So those around Him knew He was Jewish.Sources:The Bible
Should the e cigarette be available to everyone

Isee now, youre a parent and you dont want to youre kids to use ecigs so you dont want any underage peoplw to have thwm, and thats completely understandable. But you have to relize that kids will get there hands on them somehow and there really is no point in punishing the kids because they will get them again! So what im saying is why not let the kids have the freedome to ruin there health, its natural selction at its finest.
Should the e cigarette be available to everyone

Again, I feel that your information is incorrect. According to several databases, including canadavapes.com, Propylene Glycol is the primary ingredient in the majority of e-liquids and e-cigarette cartridges on the marketplace today. Most e-liquid contains at least 80% and as much as 92% propylene glycol. This is the ingredient that produces the smoke-like vapor when the e-cigarette is exhaled. You are correct in saying people have choices if they want to use products that are safe or unsafe, but it seems more applicable if people are educated in the product they choose to use. And being that I am a parent and a grandparent, I am more concerned about the availability of this product to the younger generation. The idea that vaping can promote cigarette smoking is not good news, especially to our youth. Whether or not you feel that people can do whatever they want, it seems to me that your favorable interest in e-cigs exist because you may either like or use e-cigs, am I correct?
Should the e cigarette be available to everyone

First off let me start by saying I never claimed e-juice to be safe i think they are quite harmful. another thing you said was that they had prpolynic glycol or glycerin which is anothet untrue statment. Allmost all e-juice maufacturers use vegtable glycerin. But what does this argument really come down too, freedom. If you want to tuin youre health at whatevet age you want why should you not be able to with e-juice when you can do it with soda. But if you restrict minors from buying e-juice without nicotine the health risks can decrease. And like i said befor it should all come down to people, do they want to ruin there healt. If they want to thats fine by me im pretty sure that thats natural salection.
Should the e cigarette be available to everyone

I have to disagree with you. According to studies from the CDC and NCBI, results suggest that e-cigarettes may contribute to nicotine addiction and are unlikely to discourage conventional cigarette smoking among youth. Also confirmed data from the CDC shows an increased use of e-cigarette from 4.5 percent in 2013 to 13.4 percent in 2014. You claim that the e-cigarette "juice" is safe, do you have data to back up that statement? If so, I would urge you to give some concrete evidence. There are reasons why e-cigarette shares the same risk for nicotine addiction, and a simulated substance such as e-liquid or propylene glycol, is not without health effects. I feel that your justification for using e-juice is without concrete evidence and purely speculative. Can you rebuke this?
Should the e cigarette be available to everyone

saying that e cigs should not be sold to everyone is like saying we shouldn't sell soda to everyone. The e-cig is just a device that makes things into vapor, what should be restricted is the E-juice itself. I say this because the actual danger is in the nicotine. but if minors could only buy e-juice without nicotine then its just like drinking soda. I bring soda up because soda is filled with dangerous chemicals that can harm you if you consume to much of it. and that is exactly what e-juice is. a liquid filled with tons of mystery chemicals that can harm you. so what is the pout of banning them if we don't ban soda? It also should come down to a persons choice, if they want to ingest chemicals they should be able to.
Media influences students more than Parents.

I fail to see how my opponent justified why it's not media as opposed to parents that influences one's decisions in life, or shapes one 'basic mentality' (whatever that is supposed to mean). Again I must re-iterate that media has many forms of influencing the mind and that the message of media is spread through communities and peers and through what people say and people will naturally conform to the opinion of masses. People, unless they are good little mummy's boys or daddy's girls, will not go around ranting what their parents told them nearly to the same extent as what they just rea din a magazine article or saw about their great idol on the news. Media is the ultimate influence of students these days, parents are but a mere molehill compared to the mountain, that is media, beside it in the influence of students' minds.
Media influences students more than Parents.

Ok...what i meant by "basic mentality" is the thinking that makes base of every decision we make,it could be called foundation of our thinking..every person responds to a particular situation in different ways from others.So every one has that difference in thinking.And this basic structure of mindset is given firstly and most importantly by parents and family.One views the world keeping that basic perspective in his mind even many a times one is unaware that he makes such decisions due to those imbibed values. Then i will say that yea its true we make friends whose thinking is near to similar with us.People seek out others who are similar to them because the interaction is smoother and more pleasant. So i said what i felt personally after interacting with many of my knowns or friends on this issue.Hope you agree!!
Media influences students more than Parents.

Since I have no more points to raise I will merely question the con's points since I do not believe even one of them has any foundation to it. Question 1) What exactly is this basic mentality of students that you mention and where does it come from? If it comes from how the parents raise the child then what exactly is basic about the thinking? Question 2) What makes you think that teens make friends with people similar to them, as opposed to trying hard to become similar to the norm of their peers in the society in which they live? Answer these two questions fully because at the moment I can't even understand the points you are raising. It could be my stupidity or fundamental misunderstanding but honestly it did not make sense to me, your round 4 debate.
Media influences students more than Parents.

ok for all the matter put up by you ...i have a single answer...though its pretty philosophical!Every child has a basic mentality which is architected by parents undoubtedly.His actions ,his temperament ,his attitude towards the worldly matters rests upon those basic set of of values or teachings imbibed in him by parents.When a child gets exposure of media or net ,he perceices their influence according to that 'basic mentality'.So ultimately parents have primary influence on kids ,media's inluence is secondary in nature!! i would like to tell you we shall be deviating from our debate if we discuss whether parents controlling of media for their kid is good or bad!!I would refute ur view--you yourself said "Most parents allow their children to see most media."So its up to parents , they want their kids to enter into the world of music that's ruled by craze for Gaga,Bieber then its absolutely fine.Its they who decide and happy with it.And on the contrary ,there are parents who have made such sort of values in their lives that their kids too step into their shoes and many kids even today treat Gandhi or Mandela or Martin Luther or APJ Kalam or Dalai Lama as their inspirations, as they are thought upon in the same way in their famillies!!So there are two parties i have discussed and i have no right to choose which one's better.Both are good one their parts!! its just a way i thought is good to prove that parents are the ultimate influencial forces. Now you also mentioned teenagers have more influence of peer group.I agree that to some point peer pressure too exists.But again while making friends what ultimately guides us--that basic mentality!!Its quite obvious that we choose the kind of friends who's have the same kind of thinking like us.And again i'll repeat parents are creators of that basic thinking!!If one is sitting in asame kind of group like oneself's views are,,then of course one can put up his independent views rather being always influenced by peer views!!
Media influences students more than Parents.

Firstly I would like to admit that I am naive at the art of debating ...but I have definitely learnt something from my fellow opponent (techniques of debating . I would like to ask if parents do not provide us with all those sort of facilities as intranets,mobiles ,then who does provide it??No example is needed to prove it and I thought it was a kind of fact known to all! Secondly I was shocked by the statement of yours-'parents have no say in the form that becomes their child apart from perhaps its face and eye color' Great parents bring up great kids. Parents' s contribution is not only of the flesh and bones as you think person's life develops a void in it if parents fail to provide conducive environment to him!!Great intellectual minds always provide that sort of direction to their next generations!!So its so wrong to pigmy the role of parents to such a minuscule! thirdly,we can never ever reach the experience our elder ones have..they know much worldly affairs and always seek our best some form of restrictions or censor are definitely good as allows us to focus more and more on positivities. Absolute Freedom could prove quite harmful! Restrictions teach one discipline!! May be its my traditional thinking that triggers me to give the highest position to elders,parents or teachers! shall look forward to the views of my worthy opponent!
Media influences students more than Parents.

Now I would like to rebut almost everything you just said. You say it's quite obvious that parents are the providers of all sorts of new techniques but do not justify this with even one example, therefore I can confidently say that it is not obvious at all since it hasn't even been brought up in the debate so far. Also, you seem to think that parents mold and craft the designs of their child. I'm sorry fellow debater, but until the technology for 'designer babies' comes around, parents have no say in the form that becomes their child apart from perhaps its face and eye color, but even then albinos are born. You say that parents are under some sort of illusion regarding media's influence on their children. You then give a random example of people you've met but no objective, solid, facts to prove that it is an illusion and not the true reality. The example you gave breached the outlines of the debate which I requested we abide by. I said that the parents we are discussing are ones who "are of moderate prudishness and allow their child/student to see most media" yet the parents you gave as an example were literally censoring media as mild as soap operas to control their child's intake of it. This is not the norm of students of our generation and thus is not to be used to counter my arguments. In fact I cannot further debate since you did not even have the decency to rebut even ONE, SINGLE point I raised in my opening speech. This neglect of my opening speech will simply be returned with a short, sharp finish to my speech.
Media influences students more than Parents.

But it's quite obvious that parents r d providers of all sort of new techniques,they r d ones who actually mould and craft the designs of child,lets talk abt.all the parents teaching something to their own respective kids,no child is influenced by someone else's parents. Even parents of present generation are living under illusion that media ,internet is influencing their child's mind...but they are totally undermining their roles and powers. eg.I have met such a family where there is a positive direction given by parents to their kids when it comes to use internet or watch television.Only some productive that will channelize their kids mentality is given by them to their kids.But these days the parents themselves are at fault wasting their valuable time watching things like daily soaps or some other sort of drama. If right mould is provided to a child from the very beginning then their not an iota chance of child being influenced by media or peer pressure.Such a kid knows well how to face the world in the best way taking along the sagacious teachings of parents and elders nad has a fully enlightened conscience of his own.He can judge the world himself,he will surely listem to what the common crowd says but won;t blindly march after them.so its the parents who are the ultimate sculptures of a child and not someone else!
Media influences students more than Parents.

As the opening speech failed to address whether the parents had control over the media the child/student views I think for it to be fair to the pro, we shall assume that the parents discussed here are of moderate prudishness and allow their child/student to see most media, they don't willfully censor it due to extreme religious upbringing methods etc. If the parents are to influence the child/student, it is always by either example or by rules. Both of which are only received in the conscious part of the mind. Parents may teach the child/student life lessons, attempt to impose their moral outlook or maybe even force the child/student, itself, to repeat lines of a certain religious scripture in the hope of reigning the child/student in to their way of life. Parents only influence their child, very rarely will other students be influenced by others' parents. On the other hand, the media influences students very differently. If one student sees a magazine article, they surely will tell their friends. If one student hears a shocking news story they surely will tell their friends. This way, the media is spread not from a 'superior' perspective to the student but form a peer-to-peer manner in which equal ranking is involved. The media also leaves subconscious messages behind in the student's mind, as seen by the break-out of anorexia after many supermodels started changing from curvy to slender. If the media says that drinking alcohol doesn't harm the student's body, the student will most probably believe it. If the media says that abortion is being voted to be legalized by majority, the student will most likely begin voting pro-abortion (or will, in the future, if under 18). To round off my introduction, the parent's influence is from only one channel of communication and tends to only affect one student per set of parents. The media is spread via many channels of communication, both visible and audible and from many different people of the student's age group as well.