BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Income Taxation in General is Better four Us All.

"May I remind you that the average teacher salaries that I used to support my argument are from public schools, not Catholic schools, which is exactly what you attended in seventh grade." Yes I did go to catholic school but I also happen to know that some teachers from LAUSD do to a lack of funds are quitting because, the salaries are getting lower for many teachers. "I know, poverty is very, very sad, but extorting money from the most productive members of society is not the solution. In fact, it contributes to the everlasting problem of poverty, as those productive members of society cannot afford to ask those in poverty to perform services in which those in poverty would receive financial compensation for those services. It is ludicrous." Also do to Bill Clinton's policies of five years of welfare services the percentage of the unemployed decreased by 35% Now for any of the people's comments I would like to point out yes King Louis XVI did have taxes on his peasants but those taxes went to the King and queen only and not the peasants who have risen up against him. That is the same thing the Mr.Cmach has said "Couldn't not spending be a better solution?", This is an exact quote from line four round two. That Line has the same definition as the Famous Line "Let them eat cake", from Marry Antoinette , showing great disregard for the people and their well being. I am done with my case and I would like to say thank you here are some links for more info about my back up. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Legalize Prostitution

Prostitution is the oldest profession in the world. It is a lucrative and honest hard working blue collar job.(2) The young men and women in this field of study not only have specialized skills, but also can provide a great stress release mechanism for society that rivals cigarettes and alcohol without the health effects. Taxing people who use prostitutes could provide a major bump in the U.S. economy and could also provide serious benefits for married couples who have "lost the spark" in their relationship. Studies have shown that couples with an open marriage and ones who cheat on the spouses can have longer more loving relationships due to the fact they find a renewed appreciation for there loved one after sleeping with somebody else (1) (1)http://www.womansday.com...-(2)marriagehttp://en.wikipedia.org...
Communism (Pro) vs Capitalism (Con)

i accept as a leftist capitalist. I will be defending capitalism with a leftist twist and i will oppose communism. We will also need to define command and free market systems. command market= Economic system in which the means of production are publicly owned and economic activity is controlled by a central authority. Central planners determine the assortment of goods to be produced, allocate raw materials, fix quotas for each enterprise, and set prices. free market= is a market system in which the prices for goods and services are set freely by consent between sellers and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority capitalism=an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. As a capitalist from the left, i will be debating about staggered tax rates and social security etc which offers the benefits of communist systems, but with more economic freedom than communism. I will also debate that regulations can prevent bad capitalism and also that socialism has failed so many times and that because of no socialism, communism has never been born.
Communism (Pro) vs Capitalism (Con)

Topic: Communism vs Capitalism. Pro is on the Communist side. Con is on the Capitalist side. Round 1: Acceptance and Statement Round 2: First Argument Round 3: Rebuttals and Questions Round 4: Answer Questions, Second Argument Round 5: Rebuttals and Closing Statements. Please in Round 1 state what kind of capitalist you are (Democrat, Republic, Left, Right, Free Market, Interventionism, Libertarian..etc.) Communism = Marxism = A classless, stateless society in which the means of production are owned by the proletariat (working class).
Private property as a right

Con(me): arguing that private property is not a rightPro: arguing that private property is a right.I believe burden of proof lies with pro, to be honest. While it probably seems like a no brainer that property is a right to most of us, none of us has probably questioned it, or wondered why. The reason why the burden of proof lies with pro is because it is an affirmative statement, whereas to say it is not a right is a negation. There needs to be reason why private property is a right, whereas there doesn't need to be reason why it isn't a right, since the default position is that it isn't unless there is a reason why it is a right. Since I am not using round 1 for debate, pro should not use round 4 for debate in order to keep the number of arguments even. You should agree to waiving it and just say something like "I waive this round as agreed upon." Pro should immediately offer arguments in round 1.
Great Yarmouth should be wiped off the map

I propose to destroy every city on Earth and you rush to save Great Yarmouth. The Queen went to Australia. "You know, I have a brother-in-law that's a photographer," she remarked to a photographer. "What a coincidence," he replied, "I have a brother-in-law that's a queen." She has not been back. Richard Nixon, visited Australia but was not informed that his famous "V" sign is an obscene gesture there. I have a proposal. Anyone who complains about any place gets sent there. If you are already living there you get sent to someplace worse. Soon everyone will be living in New Jersey http://www.njnwtf.org... http://www.nj.gov... or Texas http://www.worldclassoutdoors.com... and watching American TV.
Great Yarmouth should be wiped off the map

Just to clear up the record: http://www.bbc.co.uk... Anyway what's the problem? A borough no one sees doesn't look pretty. This place is about the size of Staten Island. Your plan does not say where to put them or the garbage but why not Staten Island? They cannot mess it up more than it is already. And if some of them end up in Newark or Hoboken well that is their problem. But anyway now these lazy good-for-nothing maggots will just go somewhere else and mess up somebody else's yard and the garbage will be washed on to somebody else's beach and both will become someone else's problem. It would be cheaper and cleaner just to arrange for an unfortunate natural disaster to kill everyone in the town. It could be made to look like a volcanic eruption. There is nothing wrong with GY that being buried in volcanic ash wouldn't fix, and take care of the garbage problem too. Just poke a hole deep enough but not too deep. How hard can that be? The government probably already has that technology. We must develop our Assisted Volcano technology. As other cities become eligible for Early Retirement and other coutries rush to implement it, its advantages will become obvious. Resources wasted on war can now be utilized more productively. Each nation must declare war on itself and vigorously mobilize. This will greatly simplify logistics, and we already know how to destroy our own cities. Tourists will marvel at the beautiful mountains where ugly cities once stood. The environmental benefits will be obvious. We will suffocate in sulphur unless we develop clean chimney sweepers. Cities and pollution will become a thing of the past. Great Yarmouth, however, should be spared. Its much maligned inhabitants, courageous and fine citizens who never hurt anyone, will become rulers of Earth. All the capital cities will be gone anyway. Saying anything bad about Greatest In The World Yarmouth will be punishable by death. GITWY will be separated from Fantastic Britain and be a country like the Vatican. Anyone that wants North Sea oil can just forget about it.
Great Yarmouth should be wiped off the map

Iranian President Ahmadinejad is often quoted as having said that "Israel should be wiped off the map". (1) I have similar feelings about the town of Great Yarmouth, only stronger. For those of you unfamiliar with Yarmouth, it is a puss-filled sore on the face of Britain that is infested by some 90,810 maggots, or "people" as the Government generously describes them. (2) Although the town used to be prosperous, benefiting from a formerly busy port, having a once booming tourist trade and latterly serving as a base for the offshore oil and gas industry, Great Yarmouth has been in steep decline for many years and as a result, the local economy has gone to wrack and ruin. Shamefully, Yarmouth is now one of the poorest towns in the country and the prefix "Great" certainly seems hopelessly inappropriate these days. Indeed, they were going to rename this country "Fantastic Britain" but Yarmouth brought the average down! One of the reasons for Yarmouth's demise is that the town's transport links with civilisation are abysmal - its only physical connections with the outside world are three minor roads and a single track railway. Not that it matters much though, few people want to go there anymore and any residents with any sense left a long time ago. Another contributing factor in the borough's relegation to the lowest depths of human habitation is that those residents left behind take no pride in their town. Many even dispose of their rubbish in their own gardens, which led to the slang term "Great Yarmouth gnomes", meaning old furniture householders dump on their own property. (Please refer to embedded YouTube clip for pictures of feral Yarmouth residents in their natural habitat) Those few locals with a little more pride take their old furniture and dump it in the back streets and lanes, which means the town now officially has the worst problem with fly-tipping in the country. (3) These days, the town centre is a desolate, windswept, litter-strewn scene of abject deprivation where hopeless, miserable people traipse aimlessly through the filth and debris that bespoil the streets. In conclusion, the town is so far gone that is now beyond repair. It must be evacuated, condemned and sealed off. This will be simple to achieve as Yarmouth is surrounded on three sides by water and the only way in without crossing a bridge is the A149 Caister Road, which could easily be blocked. (4) Without any maintenance to the flood defences, the sea will soon reclaim the town, which is built on a sandbank that didn't even exist as recently as Roman times. (5, 6, 7) Thus, the detritus and the scum of Yarmouth will be washed into the deeps, the town will soon be forgotten and Britain will be a better place as a result. Thank you. (1) http://www.bbc.co.uk... (2) http://www.statistics.gov.uk... (3) http://www.eastcoastlive.co.uk... (4) http://maps.google.co.uk... (5) http://static.guim.co.uk... (6) http://farm3.static.flickr.com... (7) http://www.picturesofengland.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Time to legalize prostitution

Second, You don't get HIV from an environment. "HIV is a virus that infects people by getting inside their blood cells. To avoid getting HIV, you must prevent the blood, semen, vaginal fluids, or breast milk of someone who is infected from entering your body through your mouth, vagina, anus, tip of your penis, or breaks in your skin. " . http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu... Alcohol only has restrictions that high in four to five countries in the world. If you went to Germany you could buy and consume alcohol at the age of sixteen. divorces and friendships, yes they would still exist, but it would increase drastically if we legalized prostitutes. If my wife was a prostitute why would I stay with her while she's out getting screwed by different dudes everyday? It wouldn't decrease the number of under aged teens out there in the middle of the street trying to earn money for themselves or for their families, as they'd still be doing it illegally. Even passing a law with an age limit legalizing prostitution would encourage many teenage girls that it's alright to sell their bodies and to be submissive to old men who want to do bad things with, or to, them. Prostitution would only encourage rape and sexual assault to rise, as it would encourage men, or guys I should say, to go out and find a random girl, pick her up, and say "Oh no sir officer, she's a prostitute. " even when she isn't a prostitute. Again, Thank you for putting up this debate and for putting up great argument points.
Time to legalize prostitution

First of all thank you for this debate. I disagree when you say that the legalizing of prostitution would raise the HIV/AIDS rate because if some people have this illness it is because the environment in which they work it is not safe, and the only thing we can do about this to stop the raise of HIV/AIDS or at least make sure that the number of people with this illness decreases, is it to change the way they work. About the divorces and friendships I think it is a problem that we will have anyway, people look for sex even though it"s illegal knowing that there is a possibility to have consequences so that is their own responsibility. I agree with you when you say that it can promote teenagers to be a prostitute, but when I say that prostitution should be legal I also think about restrictions of course, because without any restrictions I would agree with you. Let"s take an example. Alcohol: it is not a good thing too, it"s dangerous for ourselves and for others but it is legal with restrictions because people cannot buy it if their age is not at least 18/21. With this example I tried to say that prostitution need restrictions too, minimum age 18/21 and this can actually decrease the amount of young teenagers underage in the middle of the streets trying to earn money for themselves or their family. About the homicide and the payment I don"t really see it as a problem if everything was under control, I actually think that this kind of things can happen more nowadays because it is not legal. And yes, if in my country prostitution was legal I would be proud of it because my country would help a lot of young girls from the streets.
Time to legalize prostitution

What you're saying is that if we legalize prostitution then the rate of homicide would drop? That makes little sense. Yes, I agree prostitution has been around for, well forever, but that doesn't mean we should legalize it. The legalizing of prostitution would raise the HIV/AIDS rate, would lead to more divorces, would ruin friendships, and honestly would destroy our nations reputation. Would you like to be known as "The Prostitute Country?" I would not. Prostitution is not a great, or even good, thing and would lead to more rape and such. It is promoting teenage girls to go and be a prostitute to get money in stead of sticking with finishing school and getting a decent job. It would allow, we'll say, a fifty year old man to have sexual intercourse with a sixteen or seventeen year old girl. Tell me, how in the world is that safe or the correct thing to do? I'm not saying teenage girls shouldn't have sex, as it's their choice if they want to or not, but I'm saying having sex with an older man, by like six years older, is too much and is honestly gross. Homicide cases would not decrease after legalizing prostitution, as there would still be girls getting murdered after having sex with a man and then threatening to tell his wife if he wouldn't pay her better or have sex with her regularly. It should stay illegal.
Time to legalize prostitution

Prostitution will never die, we all have to deal with this. Prostitution existed also during the Roman empire. I do not think this job will end, so why we do not try to do something good for that? the only thing we can do about prostitution is try to "make it better", I mean: we all agree that it will always exist so the only thing we can do about it is try to help those girls with a safe place to stay, safe protections and as I said before it will also be a profit for the country. "Homicide is a frequent cause of death", I personally think homicide cases can be reduced if prostitution was legal.
Time to legalize prostitution

First, Thank you for placing this up for debate. I accept. Second, how is there any good to the pro side of the debate? legalizing prostitution is not a good idea. If the country was to legalize prostitution there would be more bad than good. "Regardless of prostitution's status (legal, illegal or decriminalized) or its physical location (strip club, massage parlor, street, escort/home/hotel), prostitution is extremely dangerous for women. Homicide is a frequent cause of death.... It is a cruel lie to suggest that decriminalization or legalization will protect anyone in prostitution. It is not possible to protect someone whose source of income exposes them to the likelihood of being raped on average once a week." Melissa Farley, PhD Founding Director of the Prostitution Research and Education "Prostitution Is Sexual Violence" in the Psychiatric Times http://prostitution.procon.org...
Time to legalize prostitution

A lot of people complain about prostitutes in the middle of the streets, and I can fully understand that because it"s unacceptable when you just want to go out for a walk and the first thing that you can see it"s a young girl standing there, alone, waiting for someone to pick her up, someone that she does not even know, someone that nobody knows what is going to do to the girl. But why do people complain and point their finger to them without knowing that this problem can be easily solved? A little research in the web is enough to understand why legalize prostitution can be a good thing. We all know that it"s not a save "job" (I used quotation marks because it"s not a legal job), and we all know that 99% of the times who start this job are very young girls that can easily be raped or they can take sexual diseases, and this is just one of the good reasons why prostitution should be legalized. I also want to tell something about how good would be for the country: first of all it would reduce violence against women, studies confirm that 82% of prostitutes had been assaulted and raped, it would make sex workers healthier because it"s quiet obvious that work in a clean place is better than what prostitutes use to do. A lot of people protest against illegal workers so why we do not try to solve this problem if we have the opportunity to do it, for at least a little part of the problem? if you do not care about other people life style or what would be good for them, just think about the amount of money the country can receive by taxes, if prostitution was legal. A lot of people think prostitution should not be legal because it"s immoral, but let"s think how many immoral things legal and illegal are in this world. Sometimes we should think also about what can be good for other people even though we think differently from them.
Gerrymandering

If I was the president I would not want to divide my nation into lots of parts, this will make other look at us and see that we are breaking something that should not be bookend and will be better as a one nation then to be part"s or a nation. When it comes to voting should not be deviated they should add them to that part that have not make more part then they have , one of the thing that I say is if we are nation has to be a hole not a part so this is why I think that Gerrymandering is wrong for this nation. Thias is not right we should together not a part we should have one team not parts of a team we need to have fight for this to stop puting pepole into parts but make them strong and we will be strong and then we will stop pepole and the govment to make us a unatend nation a nation that other can see what we have done and see the wekness that we have.
The South was right in the American Civil war

It was more expensive to run a iron mill in Pennsylvania then a plantation in Virginia. So that money from the south was used to pay the workers that only made enough money to feed their family off.Conditions were bad everywhere, but the taxes were that way, because they were democratically voted to be that way. Industry became a lot more profitable, so money went to those buissnesses.Child labor was also very common in the North with everyday work. The south didn't need children, they had slaves. Anyways, don't try to act like children did not work in the south. They were working the machinery just as much as the north. http://userpages.umbc.edu...http://www.youtube.com...In conclusion -------------------- The war was over slavery, and it has been confirmed by almost every credible scholar.- The south could of worked the problem out democratically, rather then seceding and firing on their countrymen.- By todays standards, the southern seccesion would of been illegal by international law.- The south choose a path that led to 600,000 american deaths, when they could of worked out the problem in congress.
The South was right in the American Civil war

You say that the in a democracy we raised taxes democratically but in the North it was more industrial as the Agriculture was dominating the Southern states. http://lghttp.11253.nexcesscdn.net... It was more expensive to run a iron mill in Pennsylvania then a plantation in Virginia. So that money from the south was used to pay the workers that only made enough money to feed their family off. Child labor was also very common in the North with everyday work. Children started when they got their feet moving. On a plantation you get the seeds to plant the crops from last year's harvest, If you desire you could run your farm on slaves and you could go to an action and you will need to buy other stuff for your big house.
The South was right in the American Civil war

If the secession happened modern day, it would be against international law.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------1. For a nation to secede in modern day, they need to be abused politically or physically. The southern citizens had all the rights of any northern citizen, but regardless of reasoning, they choose to secede then face their problems democratically.http://www.un.org...If the war was over taxes (slavery), it is still not justified-------------------------------------------------------------1. My opponent insists that the south seceded over taxes, but I will entertain this idea regardless. Sometimes we have to pay taxes, its a part of life, but when I feel my taxes are to high, does that give me the right to secede, even though the act would likely cause war and death? No. America was a democracy, and the taxes were raised democratically. The south was not oppressed.2. The taxes are going to the government anyways, so the souths money is not being stolen. That money went to the general welfare of the people, and was used to build schools and roads.http://www.governmentisgood.com... http://www.youtube.com...
The South was right in the American Civil war

If you want to debate overs what it was about lets do that. And your telling me I can't use that website as your using a wiki, I have an account on Wikipedia and anyone can change the information. Thanks for telling me what to change. It Makes kinda more sense that the war was over Northern Industrial states and Southern Agricultural states. What makes me believe that the war is not about slavery is that the United States still allowed slavery. http://media.maps.com... Also the American State of Maryland held More slaves than the Confederate state of Florida http://www.examiner.com...(1).jpg