BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income.

The myth of tax cuts (removing the capital gains tax would be a huge tax cut to the wealthy) for the wealthy is good for the economy because they are the "job creators" has been thoroughly debunked by the last 3 years since we sailed over the supposed fiscal cliff in January 2013. As a quick refresher, the fiscal cliff was the term used to describe the expiration of the Bush tax cuts that Obama had extended upon taking office, which included restoring the capital gains rate back to 20% (from 15%) for those earning over $400k, and increasing the peak marginal rate on the highest income earners from 35% to 39.6%. Conservatives warned that this looming fiscal cliff would handcuff our nations "job creators" and force us back into a double-dip recession. While the chart linked below (released with the jobs report last week) admittedly demonstrates only one large data point from the curret business cycle, and so I would acknowledge it doesn't prove that increasing the capital gains rate ALWAYS has no impact on job creation. But it does at least confirm that converse is also not true. Based on the continued strength in the job market post-fiscal cliff, we can at least be confident that raising the capital gains tax is not always a bad thing. In the case of the last 3 years, it has appeared to be pretty non-consequential. https://www.whitehouse.gov...;
Capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income.

While "double taxation" sounds like something to be avoided, the reality is that individuals (and corporations) will always have an incentive to invest so long as there are sufficient prospects for a return on their investment. In the housing example given, even with the capital gains tax of 20%, the hypothetical homeowner was still able to double the value of their original $20,000 investment. While turning $20k into $40k may be less desirable than turning $20k into $45k, the reality is that the incentive to invest is still there.On a higher-level the debate prompt is not just about whether capital gains should be taxed, but whether they should be taxed at the same rate as ordinary income. Today, there is a substantial difference in the long-term capital gains rate and the ordinary income tax-rates. Because wealthy citizens earn a substantially disproportionate amount of their income from capital gains, this in turn makes the capital gains rate function as a giant tax break for the wealthy. For example, let us consider two hypothetical individuals.Harry Hardworker is a general contractor. He works 60 hours a week and gets paid well for his time, earning a handsome $150,000 per year. Given his relatively high income, he has an effective tax rate of 30% and thus pays $45,000 a year in taxes.Retired Ralph, a former investment banker, no longer works a 9-5pm job. He has a few million in assets that allowed him to retire at age 45, and earns an identical $150,000 per year in income from his portfolio of stocks and bonds. Ralph does not partake in any short-term trading, since he knows it is disadvantageous tax-wise, and so his effective tax-rate is only 15%. He therefore only pays $22,500 a year in taxes. As you can see, two individuals earning the same "income" end up with grossly different tax obligations. Many would argue that Harry is contributing far more directly to the economy than Ralph, and yet Ralph pays half as much in taxes.
Capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income.

{Full disclosure to readers: my friend and I are exploring this platform to decide if we want to use it for our grad school debate club, so we're literally sitting next to each other having the debate. Please forgive the relatively limited actual arguments, as we're really just testing out the platform}I will seek to demonstrate the negative case that capital gains should NOT be taxed as ordinary income. There are two primary arguments for treating capital gains differently. First, long-term capital gains by definition apply to assets that an individual has purchased with post-tax income, and so the capital gains tax is really a double-taxation on the original source of income. Whether those assets are physical by nature (cars, houses, etc.) or whether they are intangible (stocks & bonds, etc.), the income used to purchase those assets was initially taxed when the individual earned that income originally. For example, let's say that I make $100,000 in gross income per year and have a 20% effective tax rate. I use $20,000 of my post-tax dollars to put toward the downpayment on a $200,000 property. Two years later, the housing market has done pretty well and I decide to sell my property for $225,000. Ignoring brokers' commissions and assuming an interest-only mortgage for simplicity, I'd have recorded a capital gain of $25,000, as my $20,000 of equity has become now $45,000 of equity. Even though I already paid $5k in tax on my original $20k of equity, the capital gains tax is going to knock it down further by taxing the appreciation by another 20%, costing me another $5k. When all is said and done, I've paid twice as much tax on my original income because I decided to save & invest it.Second and relatedly, this double-taxation effect encourages spending rather than savings and investments, which the government ought to be incentivizing.
Can you be a Christian and believe in Evolution (the scientific theory)

I would first like to point out to my opponent that this debate is about Evolution (the scientific theory) so any points made about philosophy or genealogy are irrelevant and meaningless. However those verses could be applied when talking about the foolishness of people who reject everything about science. It is understandable that some people reject certain parts of science (evolution for example), but it is extremely foolhardy to reject science in its entirety. Science saves countless lives around the world every day and has facilitated the development of our society and the world. Without science we would be living in a constant fear of possible dying because of getting a small cut or a cold. Also, nowhere in the Bible does the Bible say to reject science. As far as your assertion that science exists merely to prove that God does not exist, this is utterly false. While this "purpose" might be assigned to other fields such as philosophy, it is by no means the case in science. I would like to make a clear distinction between the commonly confused Philosophical Evolution (Evolution as an all encompassing theory that needs no God) and the Scientific Evolution (which only seeks to explain what happened after a certain instance in time, The Big Bang, and not before then). The scientific theory of Evolution actually breaks down and reaches a singularity at the instance where time begins. Therefore it can not and does not attempt to explain what happened before this event or who/what put all the necessary conditions in place for the Big Bang to occur. As far as your request for me to offer you evidence that Evolution is true, I believe this is not my responsibility as the burden of proof lies with you. It lies with you because 97% of scientists believe in the scientific theory of Evolution. (2009 poll by Pew Research Center). I will not try to prove Evolution is true because I am not a scientist. However I will turn to the experts on the subject to inform my decision. Bringing the debate back to the main argument I would like to point out another somewhat startling statistic. Just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God (Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009). This evidence should speak for itself in showing how it is possible to both accept the scientific theory of Evolution and God.
Can you be a Christian and believe in Evolution (the scientific theory)

My opponent asks if one can be a Christian and believe in Evolution. The simple answer to that is no. If you are a true Christian, you’d know that the Bible clearly states not to believe in any science, philosophy, genealogies, etc… Colossians 2:8 - Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Titus 3:9-10 - 9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. 10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; 1 Corinthians 2:13 - Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 1 Corinthians 2:6-10 - 6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory: 8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known [it], they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 10 But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 1 Timothy 6:20 - O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: These are just a few verses/precepts to Colossians 2:8. The reason why true Christians should not believe in any science what so every is because it causes confusion and it causes you to doubt HIS existence. If you need physical proof that The Most High does exist, then you don't believe in HIM nor do you have faith in him. Hebrews 11:6 states, "And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him." So if you do not have faith, you are not pleasing HIM. Science basically says there is no God. All science can give us is a bunch of predictions and guesses. I ask my opponent this question. Can you give me some observable evidence that Evolution is true? Something I don’t have to recieve by faith.
Can you be a Christian and believe in Evolution (the scientific theory)

Over the years, people on opposite ends of the science/ religion spectrum such as Ken Ham and Dawkins have created a harmful and unnecessary divide between religion and science. As with most issues, the radicals on the opposite ends of the spectrum are the loudest and most heard. However in this debate I will be giving voice and supporting the more moderate position; that one can be a Christian who believes in an all powerful God and an infallible Bible, without rejecting modern science and modern scientific theory's such as Evolution.
Can you be a Christian and believe in Evolution (the scientific theory)

Regarding the verse you have repeatedly brought up 1 Timothy 6:20, I think that you are understanding the last part of the verse wrong. Rather than it instructing you do disregard all of science, it means that "Religion has nothing to fear from true science, and the minister of the gospel is not exhorted to dread that. Real science, in all its advances, contributes to the support of religion; and just in proportion as that is promoted will it be found to sustain the Bible, and to confirm the claims of religion to the faith of mankind" (Barnes' commentary) By the way, without science we would not be able to be having this debate so if you so strongly oppose science you should probably not be on this debate website anymore. As far as proof that you can be a Christian who accepts science and Evolution (the scientific theory not the philosophical one without a God) a perfect example is the pastor Tim Keller. Timothy J. Keller (born 1950) is an American pastor, theologian and Christian apologist. He is best known as the founding pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City, New York, and the author of The New York Times bestselling books The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism,[1] The Prodigal God,[2] and Prayer. [3] ( . http://en.wikipedia.org... ) Although you so desperately want me to prove that Evolution is real, this is not the purpose of the debate. The debate is whether or not you can believe in Christianity and Evolution, regardless of whether Evolution is true or not. However I would think that the fact that 97% of scientists believe in Evolution would be substantial proof and evidence. While I respect my opponents views and arguments, I think that it is obvious that I am the winner of this debate. While I refuted my opponents only evidence and support for believing that you cannot be a Christian and believe in Evolution (the scientific theory) Timothy 6:20, by explaining how he simply misunderstood the verse, my opponent was not able to refute any of my contentions and arguments. Mistakes made by my opponent such as saying that "true Christians should not believe in any science what so ever" and consistently getting off topic and sidetracked by arguing about whether or not Evolution is true also contributed toward my opponents defeat and my victory.
Can you be a Christian and believe in Evolution (the scientific theory)

I would first like to point out to my opponent that this debate is about Evolution (the scientific theory) so any points made about philosophy or genealogy are irrelevant and meaningless. (Evolution, philosophy, and genealogy are all part of science, which for a true Christians 1 Timothy 6:20 says to stay away from science. 1 Timothy 6:20 - O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called) As far as your assertion that science exists merely to prove that God does not exist, this is utterly false. While this "purpose" might be assigned to other fields such as philosophy, it is by no means the case in science. (Science actually does say that god does not exist and that the universe was created by evolution or the big bang.) As far as your request for me to offer you evidence that Evolution is true, I believe this is not my responsibility as the burden of proof lies with you. It lies with you because 97% of scientists believe in the scientific theory of Evolution. (2009 poll by Pew Research Center). I will not try to prove Evolution is true because I am not a scientist. However I will turn to the experts on the subject to inform my decision. (My opponent states that it is my BOP to provide proof that evolution is true. I am not the one who believes in evolution, that is the reason why I am CON/AGAINST in this debate. If my opponent cannot answer the question I asked and provide any proof or evidence that evolution is true, nor can scientist, then it is clear that evolution is not to be studied by Christians, as it is false. With no proof that evolution is true, it would indicate that it is false.) Bringing the debate back to the main argument I would like to point out another somewhat startling statistic. Just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God (Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009). This evidence should speak for itself in showing how it is possible to both accept the scientific theory of Evolution and God. (This does not say that The Most High says you can believe in Evolution or any Science, et cetera. If my opponent can provide proof of his claim the Christians can believe in Evolution, then I would agree with him/her. With no proof or evidence, I cannot agree.) Because my opponent is PRO/FOR Christians believing Evolution, it is my opponents BOP to provide evidence or proof, that Evolution is true. So I ask the question again. Can you give me some observable evidence that Evolution is true? Something I don’t have to recieve by faith.
Helicopters are better than planes

Helicopters carry tubs of water by means of a long line underneath them that drop water in a concentrated area because helicopters can hover airplanes are limited to a mostly straight line of water. In a perfect world the experience of a pilot will not matter but no matter what you are flying in there can always be an incompetent pilot In response to your argument: (1) Planes can hold more passengers than helicopters but helicopters are designed for more purposes than to simply fery around passengers (2) Helicopters tend to wear out slower than planes because most planes that come to mind are pressurized and therefore cause the metal to weaken. You can fly helicopters over the ocean just not across it because that's not what makes a helicopter valuable (3) There are not a lot of types of helicopters but that does not limit the number of uses the helicopter has. (4) The size of an aircraft does not determine its safety if you have an aircraft that ways 300 pounds to an aircraft that ways 10 tuns they are both going to be destroyed from a drop at 30, 000. What you are thinking of is commercial aircraft and yes they are safer because the company's require the pilots have many thousand hours of flight before they will even consider them
Helicopters are better than planes

I would like to start off by agreeing that helicopters do save lives, Whilst most planes cannot in the sense helicopters do. However, There are certain planes that eject water in the midst of fires to put them out. I think we can all agree that a helicopter will never be able to do that. I also agree that helicopters can also land anywhere, That is very much true DEPENDING on the pilot. Although may we consider that planes were not designed to land just anywhere. They are designed to go from specific destinations to another port, With compatibility to do emergency landings in fields when necessary. The matter of helicopters being more fun to fly is irrelevant due to personal preferences of different people. I would like to, In terms of my argument, State a few differences between planes and helicopters; (1) In general, Planes can hold more passengers over helicopters (2) Planes last much longer as opposed to helicopters and it wouldn't be considered safe to fly a flimsy helicopter over the oceans (3) Helicopters have far less varieties in comparison to planes. There is assured to be a plane for any purpose (military, Recreational, Commercial, Ect) and have much more variety in passengers to hold, In opposition to the helicopter (4) Larger aircraft's are generally safer in the air from what I've heard.
Mankind is evil

OK, I shouldn't have called you stupid or your arguments crap. That's classic ad hominem fallacy. But let's discuss the debate. First of all, Earth isn't dying because Earth isn't alive. The Earth isn't a living being, It's a planet. Just like Jupiter or the Sun can't biologically die, Neither can the Earth. The argument that humans are killing the Earth is wrong because the Earth isn't alive in the first place. Let's define evil. I'm sure you would agree evil means "profoundly immoral and wicked". Evil doesn't mean bad. I actually agree that mankind is bad, But not that it's evil. Evil and bad are synonyms but not the same. For example, A dog that kills a human is bad but it's not evil; since, Like you said, It does so because of its instincts. Most of the bad things humans do is out of necessity, Not out of evil. We clear forests to build houses and make space for farms, Not because we hate nature. We kill animals for food (not for 'food cravings', To survive), Not because we hate them. We pollute the air because we need to produce goods to survive, Not because we want global warming. We test products on animals because we need safe products for humans, Not because we hate animals. Humans are generally aware of the issues they cause to nature and would gladly choose to not cause these issues if it were possible. The problem is, It's not possible. Humanity would die out millenia ago if we didn't chop down trees, Build houses, Hunt animals, Fight each other for survival, Produce goods, Etc. Most bad things humanity does are because of necessity to survive, Not evil. Things like genocides, Rapes, Terrorist attacks, Etc are only commited by tiny percent of the population. Generalizing all of mankind as evil would mean completely ignoring the individual and classifying all people into a homogenous group. That's wrong; it's similar to racism and sexism. Just because some Germans commited the Holocaust doesn't mean all Germans are evil. Similarly, Just because some humans do bad things doesn't make mankind evil. And now, For my final question: do you consider yourself evil? If you don't, Your whole argument completely falls apart as you are part of mankind, So your existance disproves the claim that all of mankind is evil.
Mankind is evil

The point here is the humans are evil not whether animals are evil too. Anyway, Animals do a lot of things out of instinct while humans actually make the choice to do stuff. And animals do not destroy the environment anywhere close to the scale humans do. Deforestation? Pollution? All that stuff are what humans do only. And if you think us killing the planet is crap how about you go do some research on how fast the death of the earth was accelerated by humans? And you've decided to focus only on the killing the earth part and you've ignored all my other points. Not only that, You make factually inaccurate statements and you start talking about how animals are evil too rather than saying why humans are not. Saying 'most of what you say is crap' is a very basic insult with practically nothing to back it up. I get maybe you find this debate and even me stupid, But you're really holding yourself to a very low standard here
Mankind is evil

Then again, You're making the assumption that it is ONLY a select few that are evil. Let's take the number of wars that have happened. There are tons of them, Not to mention civil wars within countries. These involved many people fighting for territory or their own self interest and yet they continue to kill innocent people by the day. Moreover, There are also many terrorist and extremist groups that kidnap and kill people, Even with videoed beheadings. If they aren't evil, Who is? Not to mention the immense number of criminals that have committed horrific crimes. Genocide? Murder? Rape? Unrepentant criminals are everywhere, And they're evil too. Many people also abuse their girlfriends/husbands/wives/children/helpers/nannies and so on, Even sexually. Even if the wrongdoing is not that serious, We are all still evil deep down. We eat meat: we kill tons of animals every day just to satisfy our food cravings, Even as tons of vegetarians live healthily, Not to mention poachers that kill animals, Especially endangered ones, Just to sell their parts like their skin or tusks. We are all guilty, In one way or another, Of destroying the planet we live on, Maybe by contributing too much to non-biodegradable waste etc. And the world is dying due to all of our actions and this is causing people and animals to suffer. Climate change means more extreme weather events and more extreme heat or cold which could claim many lives. Rising sea levels due to global warming is also on the brink of swallowing up islands and it's only a matter of time before it threatens the rest of the world. Animals are getting affected and confused by the changes in their environment, And those in Antarctica are the worst hit. Almost all humans have a part to play in making the world a terrible place for someone else, If not many other people, And hence I have to conclude that mankind is evil, And there is no point disputing a generalisation just because a select few don't fall under it