BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Higher corporate tax rates encourage business investment.

My opponent has repeated his argument with an example completely ignoring the flaw I pointed out. So I will point out the flaw once more.Scenario #1: Tax Rate: 35%, Pre tax profit 1,000,000Scenario #2: Tax Rate: 50%, Pre tax profit 1,000,000The scenarios are wrong!In scenario #2, the pre-tax profit will be much lower. The reasons for this I have explained in the first round. As my opponent has not contested them, they stand.As my opponents arguments are based on unrealistic scenarios and assumptions, they are invalid. My opponent has quoted from a book (and a report based on the book) authored by Jim Stanford[1], who works for 'Canadian Auto Workers union, Canada’s largest private sector trade union'. Let me suggest that there is a conflict of interest.Let me present a work of Alberto Alesina and Silvia Ardagna[2] who are economists at Harvard University [3][4]. Based on a study from period of 1970 to 2007 for several OECD countries, they conclude:'Fiscal stimuli based upon tax cuts are more likely to increase growth than those based upon spending increases.'I look forward to closing remarks from my opponent.[1] http://www.economicsforeveryone.ca...[2]http://www.economics.harvard.edu...[3] http://www.economics.harvard.edu...[4] http://www.economics.harvard.edu...
Higher corporate tax rates encourage business investment.

I will try to keep my argument as simple as possible – so let me start with an illustration (example): Scenario #1: Corporation ABC is budgeted a "pre-tax" annual profit of $1,000,000. The tax rate is effectively 35% (which is, basically, what it is now). So, the tax is $350,000 and, "after-tax" net profits of $650,000. Scenario #2: Like Scenario #1 Corporation ABC is budgeted "pre-tax" annual profit of $1,000,000. However, the tax rate NOW is effectively 50% (which is, roughly what it was from the 1950's – 1980's). So, NOW the tax is $500,000 and, "after-tax" net profits of $500,000. My simple argument is that the CEO of ABC corporation is more motivated to invest the "pre-tax" profits of $1,000,000 in expanding the company (hiring people, research, leases, etc. ) when it will only cost $500k in net profit (50% tax rate), as opposed to the $650k it would cost in net profit with a tax rate of 35%. Think about it… would you like to get something worth a million dollars and have to pay $650k for it, or only $500k? Pretty easy answer…. huh? When taxes are high, CEO's are even MORE motivated to avoid them. The easiest, and most productive means to avoid them is through business expansion. In a study title, "Having their cake and eating it too", which was published just two weeks ago by the "Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives", the researchers claimed that: "This study examines historical data on business investment and cash flow from 1961 through 2010, and, using econometric techniques, finds no evidence in the historical data that lower taxes have directly stimulated more investment. " They go on further to find that, "As a means of stimulating growth, employment, and even private business spending, the historical evidence suggests that business tax cuts are both economically ineffective and distributionally regressive. " Another way of looking at it is ‘the higher the corporate tax rate is, the more the government is enticing CEO's to reinvest in their companies to avoid paying that tax'. As far as the rest of your argument goes, concerning international economies and comparable tax rates, I believe that those are irrelevant matters concerning my contention, and the basis for this debate. . http://www.policyalternatives.ca... . http://www.taxpolicycenter.org... . http://www.calgaryherald.com...
Higher corporate tax rates encourage business investment.

I would like to welcome my opponent to debate.org and thank him for instigating this debate! My opponent has provided a single flawed (as I will show) argument to support the contention. Moreover he has not bothered to back his argument with any data what so ever. The contention is that the corporation has a certain amount of money left over after transaction of all business. They can either choose to book profit or reinvest. A higher tax rate will give them the incentive to reinvest. However a higher tax rate will mean there is less money available after the business is conducted! My opponent has assumed that this money will remain same whether the tax rate is increased or decreased. Less available money will mean that in general both profit as well as reinvestment will decrease! The reasons for the less money include. 1. More money has to be paid to government 2. Economies with less tax regime will be more economical thus out-competing the countries with more tax. 3. Companies will be tempted to invest in economies with lower taxes, thus slowing down the whole economy. If we compare effective tax rates [1][2] and GDP growth rate [3] for various countries, we see that in general countries with lower tax rates have performed surprisingly well. For example - Singapore is having a 11.5% tax is having a GDP growth of 14.5 % which is 3rd highest in the world! On other hand most of the highly taxed economies (US, Canada, Russia, France, Germany ) with 30% + taxes are stuck at 2 to 3% growth rate. However let me warn that GDP growth depends on many factors so exceptions are possible. However as we go through the data, the general trend is quite obvious. I look forward to the next round! [1] http://www.suite101.com... [2] http://www.cdhowe.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Higher corporate tax rates encourage business investment.

This is my first debate, so please be gentle with me...:) Initially, you may say, "Wait, you mean 'lower' rates, right?". No, it's my argument that corporations view periods with historically low tax rates as opportune times to take their profits, as opposed to reinvesting them. One of the main goals of a CEO is to pay as little corporate tax as possible. Therefore, when corporate tax rates are historically high, the CEO is much more motivated (encouraged) to reinvest in their company, rather than pay all of that "high" income tax on any profits.
Economic Sanctions ought not be used to Achieve Foreign Policy Objectives.

"(Referring to 1st Contention) What if the Foreign Policy Objectives don't include killing thousands?" Going by your examples, they do kill thousands. Nuclear proliferation/Genocide were the two examples you gave. --- "What if the FPO, if agreed above, caused more harms than death (2nd Burden), wouldn't if be going against a FPO that was never put into the Economic Sanction." Why would we ever have the objective to cause more harm than benefit? --- 2. (Contention 2) What if inturn, greater harms are being done, with once again, death not being a FPO. Wouldn't it be unjustified? Economic sanctions might not work. They might end in death with nothing accomplished. Such is the unpredictable nature of life. The same can be said of driving a car to and from work, risking your life on the road. If a particular sanction, like the one in Iraq, begins to seem counter-productive, then we can end the sanction. That is in no way a reason to ban sanctions before they happen. --- "(Second Burden) How are Economic Sanctions justified, despite the damage they cause?" Because they achieve foreign policy objectives --- "How can Economic Sanctions that cause damage ever be labled as: 'just?'" See above answer --- "(Contention 1) If Economic Sanctions are killing thousands, aren't they doing much more harms than benefits, as linked to my own case, and your second burden?" Not if they're being used to stop genocide/nuclear war. If we're sanctioning countries to get reduced price oil or something, that's a problem with our FPOs, not sanctions. --- "How does killing lives of the innocents for the future of your country outweigh you're benefits from Economic Sanctions right now?" It doesn't. That's why I'm advocating sanctions. --- "You're trying to help people in YOUR country, so wouldn't you be contradicting your case by justifying it for the foreign countries we know of?" Why would only America have the right to use sanctions? If America is causing genocide, other countries should be able to sanction us to stop us. I don't see how this is a problem.
Economic Sanctions ought not be used to Achieve Foreign Policy Objectives.

*********Cross-X********** 1. (Referring to 1st Contention) What if the Foreign Policy Objectives don't include killing thousands? -- What if the FPO, if agreed above, caused more harms than death (2nd Burden), wouldn't if be going against a FPO that was never put into the Economic Sanction. 2. (Contention 2) What if inturn, greater harms are being done, with once again, death not being a FPO. Wouldn't it be unjustified? 3. (Second Burden) How are Economic Sanctions justified, despite the damage they cause? -- How can Economic Sanctions that cause damage ever be labled as: "just?" 4. (Contention 1) If Economic Sanctions are killing thousands, aren't they doing much more harms than benefits, as linked to my own case, and your second burden? -- How does killing lives of the innocents for the future of your country outweigh you're benefits from Economic Sanctions right now? --- You're trying to help people in YOUR country, so wouldn't you be contradicting your case by justifying it for the foreign countries we know of?
Economic Sanctions ought not be used to Achieve Foreign Policy Objectives.

The value is Justice. (See PRO's value) The criterion is achieving Foreign Policy Objectives: 1. This is dictated in the resolution as the purpose of sanctions. 2. Foreign Policy Objectives must be assumed to outweigh the harms achieved in obtaining them. Suppose a government realized that the means used in achieving their desired foreign policy would incur more harm than the benefits of achieving the policy; the government would not set that as an objective. Thus achieving FPO's can always be assumed to be a superior alternative to not achieving them and therefore is always the more just alternative. Contention 1: Economic sanctions effectively achieve Foreign Policy Objectives because they are capable of killing thousands. (See PRO's contention 1) Contention 2: Economic sanctions effectively achieve Foreign Policy Objectives because they greatly deplete resources. (See PRO's contention 2) <><><><><> <> Rebuttal <> <><><><><> No objection to the value of justice. My opponent gives a criterion of 'Quality of Life' and defines it, but that's it. There is absolutely no justification for it whatsoever. Any arguments trying to justify it in his next speech would be new in the rebuttal and, since we seem to be following LD format, not allowed. Further, he even contradicts his own argument saying: Does a government have an obligation to protect citizens of other nations? "No" There is absolutely no reason whatsoever, then, to use his criterion so you defer to mine. Contention 1 & 2: This just proves that sanctions are effective in achieving foreign policy objectives which links to my criterion as a vote for me. <><><><><><><><><>
Economic Sanctions ought not be used to Achieve Foreign Policy Objectives.

Cross-ex: 1. If possible, could you post links to verify your sources? Joy Gordon Card: http://www.crosscurrents.org... John Mueller & Karl Mueller: N.A at the moment. Mr. Bossuyt (II) Card: http://www.globalpolicy.org... Cotright & Lopez: N.A at the moment. 2. Without economic sanctions, how else do we achieve foreign policy objectives? * In order to go with the law of Sanctions (provided by Mr. Bossuyt: "Sanctions, therefore, must not result in undue hardships for the people of a country.") the ways of achieving it must not inflict possible harm on the people of the country, such as death. - -How do these alternative methods compare to economic sanctions in their effectiveness? Their harms? * Nobody has even used an Alternative method yet so it is impossible to know. - -Is it possible to use sanctions in conjunction with these alternatives? * As said above, we cannot know. 3. Did you give any evidence that wasn't anecdotal, ie. just one specific example of one sanction? * Yes, several where harm on the country was intended due to negative threats the US or other countrys' received. - -What part of your case proves that these harms of sanctions are systematic and not just isolated incidences? * None. 4. Does a government have an obligation to protect citizens of other nations? * No, but directly harming life through Economic Sanctions is a break in the code, or laws of 'said' Sanctins. - -Does this obligation supercede their obligation to protect their own citizens? * No it doesn't, but protection doesn't mean they have the right to kill innocent people in the means of Economic Sanctions. 5. What are these 'foreign policy objectives' that sanctions are generally used to achieve? * Eliminate WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction), Damage Economy, and the such. - -Can you give any examples, such as the foreign policy objectives for sanctioning Iraq and Burundi? * Iraq: Elimination of their WMDs & Extended-Range Ballistic Missiles. * Burundi: To promote peace in the political parties. 6. Why shouldn't governments be allowed to use sanctions in order to avoid full-scale conflict? * Economic Sanctions are proven to cause deaths, and therefore, cannot be implemented since they break their own law. - -During conflict, why can't governments use sanctions to benefit the war effort? * They are causing more deaths than war, as I stated. 7. Can we effectively sanction countries without sanctioning their food/medical supplies? * It would still fracture the economy, making it hard to afford such supplies; thus, lowering the deathrate. - -Wouldn't this make the civilian casualties of sanctions far lower? * No, it would slowly increase until the country could even reach a point to support certain people. Now, I stay open for my opponent's case, and rebuttal.
Economic Sanctions ought not be used to Achieve Foreign Policy Objectives.

Cross-ex: 1. If possible, could you post links to verify your sources? 2. Without economic sanctions, how else do we achieve foreign policy objectives? - -How do these alternative methods compare to economic sanctions in their effectiveness? Their harms? - -Is it possible to use sanctions in conjunction with these alternatives? 3. Did you give any evidence that wasn't anecdotal, ie. just one specific example of one sanction? - -What part of your case proves that these harms of sanctions are systematic and not just isolated incidences? 4. Does a government have an obligation to protect citizens of other nations? - -Does this obligation supercede their obligation to protect their own citizens? 5. What are these 'foreign policy objectives' that sanctions are generally used to achieve? - -Can you give any examples, such as the foreign policy objectives for sanctioning Iraq and Burundi? 6. Why shouldn't governments be allowed to use sanctions in order to avoid full-scale conflict? - -During conflict, why can't governments use sanctions to benefit the war effort? 7. Can we effectively sanction countries without sanctioning their food/medical supplies? - -Wouldn't this make the civilian casualties of sanctions far lower?
American Culture has deluded what freedom is

Basic resolutionResolution - American culture has diluted what freedom isThis is a shared BOPStructure RoundsPro(1) Rules(2) Contentions(3) Contentions/Rebuttals(4) Closing statements, no new rebuttals and points shall be made other than clarification.Con (1) Acceptance(2)Contentions(3)Contentions/Rebuttals(4)Closing statements, no new rebuttals and points shall be made other than clarification.Rules(1) 10k character limits. (2) No trolling/ this will result in a ff
American Culture has deluded what freedom is

I'll let my arguments speak for themselves. Here is what I think the audience needs to consider, or I found criteria in voting....(1) Did Mikal make clear that the topic (Title), or resolution in DDO's case, was clear, non misleading, and anti semantic ?(2) Did Mikal use proper grammar,spelling, and sentence structure?(3) Did Mikal source his contentions, prove that they are true, or make it clear that it was flat logic?(4) Did Mikal fill his half of the BOP, that American culture did not delude freedom?I want to keep this debate civil, so that's all I'll say. I don't think these closing rounds offer any insight, besides rhetorical bashing on your opponents arguments. Good luck
American Culture has deluded what freedom is

I accept the concession but would like to point out one thing yet again. Jif continues to claim that I tried to snipe the resolution and changed it View this down below to show that once again he is lying. In the comments he states, in a conversation with thette Posted by thett3 1 day ago thett3 What kind of resolution is this Posted by Csareo 1 day ago Csareo That American culture has diluted what freedom is Posted by profile card thett3 1 day ago This debate is going to come down to semantics. What is "freedom"? What is "American culture"? How does a culture, a non actor, dilute anything? I mean if you're into that I guess that's cool, but it's not a debate I would want to have... As the judges can see, he blatantly lied about himself wanting the resolution to be deluded. I would also like to note by his own definoitn that would change nothing For someone to be deluded that would have to be a person. So the resoultion would have to be "American culture has deluded what freedom is to (x possible mind)" The same premise still stands, you cannot delude a concept/thought I would continue debating due to his conduct, but it seems as if he is going to be banned anyway. I accept the concession and wish my adversary the best with his family troubles.
American Culture has deluded what freedom is

Unfortunately, a bug on this site is preventing me from submitting the debate. I refuse to type it a third time, so here it is in document form. I'll be closing my account for two reasons....(1) There has been a tragedy in my family lately. It has affected me hard, and I've been grieving for the past week. (2) Airmax said he will ban me, which makes this even more saidhttps://docs.google.com...Good luck DDO, but there are more important things in my life now, and I need to attend to them. If you want to talk to me about it, send me a PM on edeb8, although I can't confirm I'll read it.
American Culture has deluded what freedom is

I accept. Freedom has many interpretations, therefore, I will put up a couple definitions, since my opponent seems to have forgotten. Dictionary.com free·dom [free-duh m] Show IPA noun 1. the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial. [1]Merriam Webstera : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action [2]Oxford College DictionaryThe power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint [3]Free Dictionary1. The condition of being free of restraints. [4]Csareo's Definition1. The empowerment to act on will, without fear or constraint. [5]Dictionary.com free will noun 1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will. [6] Merriam WebsterLiberty: the state or condition of people who are able to act and speak freely [7] Sources--------- [1] http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[4] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[5] http://forums.philosophyforums.com...[6] http://dictionary.reference.com...[7] http://www.merriam-webster.com... Disclaimer: I want to make something very clear. I do not hate America. I love this country, as my homeland, as a place of principle, and I will never renounce my country. It is because I care about it, that I chose to debate this topic. I only seek to prove that America, both left and right, has fallen off the path that the founding fathers originally set us on. It is very important that the audience realizes this. I hope this debate can add new enlightenment on the topic of will, liberty, and foremost, freedom. By shedding further understanding on the subject, we can move on to greater things. Thank you readers for giving this debate your time. I would also like to extend my thanks to Mikal, for finnally allowing me to debate him.I wish us both luck :)
the end justifies the means in this hypothetical

you might insist it's arbitrary and in practice much might be. but i think there's a deeper truth that exists. id expect most eople know that it's just wrong to let the five die when there's a guy with two weeks left to live as the alternative. i could create even more far fetched scenarios that show that one persn should die over millions, or whatever. and if we can take that as true it simply means thee's truth that exists. and all the stuff in between, it's not that the truth doesn't exist, it's just that we don't know what it is. it's not "relative" or "arbitary" etc, just don't know. actually i never said your example would be permissible to me. i said it'd take at least a hundred people saved to even begin wtihinking about losing one healthy innocent person. i have much concern for the means i appreciate your concen about the consent of the person killed. it makes me think you think it's inherently wrong to kill him, which i can respect. though i disagree with it completely. i do though not like that you went on to speculate that the five on the track had a part in being there etc... people too often tend to find ways to want to jusitfy why they should die or whatever, do far fetch loops instead of just saying "the ends dont justify the eans. period". it's as if they know what they are saying is wrong, that it's okay to let them die, so they have to find a rationalization that probably isnt even true.