BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
100th Debate: Taxes Should be Raised on the Rich

1 history genius you indeed are. I appreciate the amount of research that seems to be done, for I would never bother. Anyways against your wrapped argument, Lord Megatron shall certainly do his best. I didn't read your argument so well, so correct me if I got some facts wrong. First of all I would define the rich as the higher class rather than upper middle. The kind that move around in swanky cars and stuff. And the figures in your article show effects of raising taxes on ALL rather than the rich. What I propose is that taxes should be increased on the rich, and as an extension, decreased on the middle class and poor. There may be few rich people in this world, but even the combined wealth of everyone else wouldn't match. People that are present in the film/acting industry, business, politics, famous artists and the like have much more money than they need. It would only be fair if taxes were raised on these lucky individuals, considering that the money actually gets used for the goodwill of the people. Let it be our imaginary government. It would also help root out black money. As the taxes would be raised, tax officials would get paid more, and they would be more alert for collecting taxes from all rich people. Chances of finding black money may increase. Million and Billionaires would finally be bit more obstructed from exploiting people and showing off their riches. A corrupt government finally cannot use the excuse that they don't have enough money to fund projects for the well-being of others. There would be high economic benefits to people working in government jobs. Lastly, the high social status and power possessed by the rich shall finally be threatened. The middle-class may even benefit with the increase of taxes on the rich. And fortunately, no more wastage of money shall be tolerated by rich people who don't bother about others and just comforting themselves.
100th Debate: Taxes Should be Raised on the Rich

Hello friends! I'm doing my 100th debate here on DDO. For this debate, I decided to pick my favorite topic of tax policy. I will argue against taxes being raised on the rich and I will instead argue that taxes should be maintained or lowered for economic and government revenue benefits. My opponent must argue that raising taxes on the rich. The rich are those paying, as many would agree, the current top income tax rate and current capital gains tax rate.Round 1 is for acceptance only. Round 2 arguments will be presented.Round 3 is refutations.Round 4 is defense of case and conclusion.No trolling and semantics, obviously. To forfeit a round equals automatic concession of the debate.
High school public forum ought not confront sensitive religious topic

== Rebuttal of Con == My opponent provides 2 contentions to uphold his advocacy. The first is that "any limitation or restriction upon the free flow of ideas and subsequent discussions upon these ideas is both a blatant and unacceptable endorsement of censorship and hence an attack on the US constitution. " Consider the following responses. ---> 1) The US does not endorse ALL free speech. For example, defamation of character, libel, and slander all are unacceptable abuses of "free speech" . http://www.expertlaw.com... We can't expect EVERYTHING one says to be protected under the constitution. What is known as "reckless disregard for the truth" is not a protected speech. ---> 2) Many cases have covered this issue; it is, as an issue, discussed in depth here . http://www.yale.edu... If my opponent is for absolute freedom of speech, he is obliged to defend the teaching of religion and creationism, as well as evolution, in mixed classrooms. Clearly, this is an area where censorship is reasonable. My opponent proceeds to claim that censorship will lead us to communism, dictatorship, and other anti-democratic governments. This is totally unwarranted; we've had censorship since the Scopes trial and otherwise, we still are the US and A. My opponent's second contention argues that addressing religious issues will inform a relatively unenlightened public about a topic- religion- that people are generally uninformed about. I'll leave this, and assure the audience that it will be addressed in my case. == Pro Case == 1) There is no reasonable resolution that could confront a "sensitive religious issue" without forcing students to defend a controversial, apparently hateful position. Look to any "sensitive religious issue"; one will find it difficult to claim that a fair debate can be extracted. e. g. The ground zero mosque in a debate context would force debaters to defend a position that denies constitutional rights to people on the basis of religion. Had the topic been terrorism in the Middle East, debaters would have to defend an extremist Islamic ideology that Muslims themselves don't embrace. It is simply unfair to force anyone to debate an issue that inherently corners the debater into an unfortunate predicament where, without even analyzing it, we can see that there WILL be bias. 2) Religion in the classroom has been disruptive. . http://www.journaltimes.com... We see that, even without a prompting discussion, students among themselves can get potentially violent, verbally or even physically when it comes to religion. I'm not going to get too far into detail; all I'm going to do is point out that it is not reasonable to accept religion as a topic of discussion in a heterogeneous society. In conclusion, what we're left with is an icky quagmire. If an atheist was to debate, how could you expect him to defend a religion? If a group of Muslims were forced to oppose the construction of the ground zero mosque, how would they react? If zionists were forced to defend Palestine, what could result? Thank you, I urge a pro ballot.
Quick-scoping.....SUCKS!

Quick scoping is nothing but a weak tactic based on luck and not skill. Hard scoping shows the true marksmanship of a sniper as it is based on skill and definitely does not depend upon luck based tactics. After browsing from some gaming websites, it came upon me that quick scoping has had become of an issue as is it disliked by most gamers. Take the upcoming Call of Duty game of Ghosts', it is stated that quick scoping would likely be removed or is already removed, definitely don't know which one as it did pose a problem to players. Furthermore, It would be illogical for a sniper to do such as he is a scout of a team based gameplay, if he really wanted to charge other players head on, why not equip themselves with a shotgun and go rampaging? As it would be evident that shotguns would deem to be more useful is CQC. Such player would not quick scope if he isn't in close range. There are other classes/guns that would be more effective if such situations were to happen to say the least. In conclusion, my friend here, doesn't hold much in his arguement... and could be a fan of outrageous quick scoping sniper he is.
Quick-scoping.....SUCKS!

My opponents argument seems to be this: 1.) It is cheating 2.) I don't like it! Let us start with #1 We cannot consider Quick Scoping cheating, because what rules does it break? It is in the game, and is actually more difficult than hard scoping. So increasing the difficulty makes it cheating? This is counter intuitive, as you would reason that cheating makes in EASIER on the so called "cheater". Again, it breaks no rules, as it is in the game, and nothing is being done against it. So it is not a glitch that is being exploited, rather a tactic that is being used to quickly kill enemies. #2 Obviously my opponent is not a fan of those who quick scope. However personally disliking something does not make it "suck". Many dislike hard scoping. Does that mean it sucks? No it means others disagree with it. We can't argue either that it sucks at killing people, because I am sure that we can agree that a good quick scoper can quickly take out enemy teams. Therefore neither of Pro's arguments holds up.
Quick-scoping.....SUCKS!

With the introduction of quick scoping in recent times, most evident in multiplayer servera in world renowned games such as Call of Duty, there had never been the greatest dark age as opposed to this in the world of gaming. I think Quick Scoping is a sad excuse for angling the reticle to the middle for a few seconds with a false hope of hitting someone and possibly killing them in the spot. It is unfavored and could be grounded for cheating because you exploit weak tactics in the hopes of killing some a-hole on the screen.
Gods existance

My opponent is attempting to change the resolution mid-debate. In R1 he specifically asked for proof of the existence of MY SO-CALLED God. That is what I have supplied, and Con can not expect me to now completely alter my purpose here and prove the existence of OTHER PEOPLE'S SO-CALLED GODS. That is unacceptable.I like to call Richard Simmons "God". I know some people may think I'm weird, but I will gladly suffer persecution. It is my cross to bear. Proof, as if it were needed: [1]My opponent has conceded the debate by refusing to rebut my arguments, and instead attempted to pull a fast one and change the resolution. I did not fall for it, however, because I exercise my brain as well as my body. It is God's way.Vote Pro. ---------------[1] http://www.debate.org...;
Gods existance

OK, well, I never thought I'd have to prove this, but here goes.My opponent wishes me to convince him/her that my so-called God exists. As Pro, I guess the BoP is on me. Well, there is so much proof, I don't know where to begin. I guess I'll start with God's website: http://www.richardsimmons.com...As you can see, God has a very tasteful and cutting-edge website with which he reaches the masses of internet zombies with the truth. There is a link to a "bio" page, where you can learn all about God's work. [1] As I'm sure you will agree, my god could not create a website if he didn't exist. "But," you may object, "someone else could have made it and claimed to be God." Fine, I will show you more proof.According to Wikipedia, God was born on July 12. 1948, and has not died yet, so you can't use the "death = not existing" argument. [2]Here is video documentation of God himself helping people party off the pounds.--> http://www.youtube.com...Still not convinced? Biography.com, a very reliable source for info about God, says this: "Today, Simmons continues to promote health. Recently, he supported a bill mandating non-competitive physical education in public schools."[3] See? God wants our brain-dead public school rugrats to be healthy.Need I go on? Have I not shined the blessed light of the truth on your bosom yet? ----------------[1] http://www.richardsimmons.com...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.biography.com...
God does exist

1. Ontological You see. The argument is there. You said we could claim it's impossible for god to exist. But the ontological argument cannot be reversed. It wins you fail. 2. moral We know rape is wrong and objective. We know it. That's how we know it's objective. We just have that feeling. We know rape is wrong in all cases, we just know. You still haven't refuted this one. Where do morals come from? How do you know what's right and wrong. 3.Christlogical You did evade. I win on this one, is relevant
God does exist

1. The ontological argumentWhy must I prove it's impossible, I'm not the one making the claim that it is possible, you are and you have yet to prove this, I await your arguments.2. The moral argumentI simply said we could reverse the dichtomy of your syllogism and an opposite conclusion would emerge. Also, I am not the one making these claims you must prove rape is wrong in all cases, why are you trying to shift the burden of proof onto me?I am not claiming morality is subjective, you must prove morality is objective, what's up with your conduct?3. The Christological argument.I most certainly did not evade this argument, I simply did not address it because it is unrelated to the debate topic, unless you can show it is.
God does exist

1. The ontological argument You must prove it's impossible. Since we don't have all knowledge of the universe we have to conclude it's possible. 2. The moral argument If morality is subjective you have to show a case where rape is right. 2. Sure but you gave yet to show morality is subjective. We have this inside knowledge of whats right and wrong. 3. The Christological argument. Con evades. Points goto me.
God does exist

1. The Ontological Argument: With the axioms you posit I could willingly place the premise; "It is not possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness." And you would come out with an opposite conclusion. Now, Anti-Atheist, for me to address you, you must make a logically deductive argument. All of the premises you have put forth are merely groundless claims with no philosophical backing whatsoever, and my negation will not be put forth until you back up your arguments deductively.2. The Moral Argument: 1) It appears my opponent wants me to show a case where rape is right, but since he is the affirmative side, he must show that rape is always wrong.2) Again, I could easily put forth a different Premise 1; "If morality subjective and not absolute. God must not exist." I would come up with an opposite conclusion, and like I said, you are merely positing groundless assertions with no evidential or philosophical backing, until you make such effort to do so, I will be able to address your arguments. Christiologial Argument: My opponent last contention will be extremely difficult to address because I can find no revelance in it to this debate and the more conservatively and carefully I read it I cannot draw conclusions on my opponents true intentions for this argument.
God does exist

Since you decided not to put forth definitions, I will do so myself. God- the omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe. Omniscient- the ability to know all things that have happened, that are happening and that will happen. Omnipotent- the ability to do all things; including the ability to violate logic. Omnibenevolent- having unlimited goodness and love. does- present 3d singular of doexist- to have real being whether material or spiritual. Otherwise, I accept.
According to the Bible (Old and New Testament), Jesus is God

I have lot of stuff going on in my life right now, and I now understand that I took on a little more than I could chew when I accepted this challenge. Unfortunately, I will not be able to finish the debate. I apologize to Sterlingcamp and to the audience eagerly anticipating the conclusion of the debate. Sterlingcamp presented an awesome case, so please vote pro. My best wishes and prayers to Sterlingcamp. Longear
According to the Bible (Old and New Testament), Jesus is God

John 5:19 "The Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees the Father doing, because whatever the Father does, the Son does also. " If Jesus was God, how is it that he can not operate autonomously from the Father's will? John 14:28 "The Father is greater than I." If Jesus is God, and therefore equal with God because he would be one and the same with the Father, how is it that in this declaration Jesus is saying that the Father, the Heavenly Father, is greater in authority than he is? Hebrews 4:15 (compared with James 1:13) "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are yet without sin." Jesus has been tempted in every way. Okay, but James 1:13 declares: "When tempted, no one should say, God is tempting me. For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt." How could Jesus have been tempted if he was God?
According to the Bible (Old and New Testament), Jesus is God

Hello, SterlingCamp! Yeah, this should be a fun debate. I understand the rules. I will take it seriously. I would like you to know that I am taking the devil's advocate position on this topic, meaning I believe in your proposition regarding Jesus, but I still hope to be a good opponent for you. This going to be a blast! P.S. Thank you for blessing me.... God bless you too. :-)
According to the Bible (Old and New Testament), Jesus is God

This debate is contending the issue of whether or not the Bible contains evidence that indicates Jesus Christ is God. Pro's position states that Jesus is God according to the Bible and Con's position states that the Bible does not claim Jesus as God. Please read the rules cafefully before accepting this debate. Rules: (1) Evidence should primarily be from the Bible (Old and New Testament) as we are debating a theological issue. All theological issues should be grounded in the Bible. The Bible is defined as the traditional protestant canon established in the London Baptist Confession of Faith. You may use any translation you desire, and you may use multiple translations in your arguments with the simple rule that you cite the translation you are using. (2) This debate is not discussing any other theological issues such as the doctrine of the trinity, the personhood of the Holy Spirit, the hypostatic union of Christ, etc. This debate also presupposes the authority of scripture, the exsistence of God, and the existence and humanity of Christ. The matter should be focused on the issue of Christ's deity. (3) No personal attacks, or any games that will reduce this debate to anything less than what it is intended to be, which is a serious debate. (4.1) There are four rounds. (a) The first round is acceptance and recognition that the rules are understood and will be followed. (b) The second round will be Pro's case and Con's first rebuttal. (c) The third round will be Con's case and pro's rebuttal. (d) The fourth round consists of summaries, and conclusions. (4.2) If Con feels it necessary to use the third round as a means to further challenge Pro's case from round two they are allowed to do so at their own expense. (5) All definitions will firstly be valid in accordance to orthodox biblical theological terms. If there is any reason to define a term it will firstly be in accordance with the theological definition. All secondary definitions will be based on definitions provided by dictonary.com. Conclusion: I only ask that the person who ends up partaking in this challenge will take it seriously. I hope to have fun in this endeavor. I will most likely re-issue this debate afterwards with the same argument for future challenges. God bless you all and I look forward to the challenge.
God probably exists

Preface This debate is about god, obviously. We, as said later in this statement, are using the definitions provided by credible sources (more specific later). This debate will be dealing with Christianity. If you would like to discuss another belief PM me and we will look into having a debate. Full Topic God probably exists. Terms All terms and definitions are influenced by or excerpted from the American Heritage Dictionary, the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, and the Oxford Dictionary. God - the all-powerful creator and ruler of the universe probably - 'is likely to happen or be true' Exist - 'have objective reality or being' Rules 1. No forfeits 2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate 3. No new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. No trolling or deconstruction semantics 6. No "kritiks" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution) 7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolution definitions 8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate 9. The BOP is shared 10. The first round is for acceptance only 11. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss Structure R1. Acceptance R2. Pro's Case, Con's Case R3. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's Case R4. Pro defends Pro's Case, Con defends Con's Case R5. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's Case, both Summarize
United States of America should be split into two different Americas

This is part of the Cheesedingo1 Troll debate tournament, this is my challenge to Sans Resolution: The Unites States of America should be split into two different America's, one for liberals which will be called the LSA (Liberal States of America), the other will go to conservatives and will be called the CSA (Conservative States of America) Parameters 1) Both Americas have cannot declare war on each other 2) Traditional swing states can willingly change between the LSA and the CSA 3) Both Americas have the exact same forms of government as the USA First Round is Acceptance Only
The Evidence Points to Atheism

Pro's main contention is that if the human mind cannot comprehend or has no experience in an object, than the object's name and word associated with it is meaningless. Admittedly, I seem to struggle seeing exactly what Pro means by this. A Omnibenevolent, Omnipotent, Omniscient being can exist even with this idea in play, the contention only shows that we do not have a word capable of describing it properly. Summary of my contentions:1. Every effect must have a cause.2. Matter and Energy cannot be created.3. If the universe could not have created itself, only an omnipotent, unrestrained Creator could have created it. Reminders:1. Science changes, for all we know neither the law of Conservation of Matter and Energy or the theory of Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations. is right2. Science that "proved" God didn't exist has been knocked down over and over through the years.3. I again request that all conduct points go to Pro.
The Evidence Points to Atheism

Conclusion. Keep under 1000 characters Con bases his objections to my argument on a misunderstanding. He drops almost all of his objections to it for two others. One was already addressed. The main argument for the existence of God that Con used never showed this cause has to be a god. I gave reasons scientifically and philosophically to not postulate a god cause. Con only objects to the scientific reason dropping the philosophical one and never proved this cause must be God. Thanks to Con and the readers!