BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Taxation is theft

Again, Con seems to be making arguments supporting the idea of taxation rather than refuting whether or not it is theft. The question does not center around whether or not the free market is the alternative to taxation as but rather whether or not it is theft. One could conceive of a sharing economy, a free market economy, voluntary contributions rather than compulsory taxation or any number of other alternatives. The question is not about if previous attempts and voluntary or libertarian societies have or have not worked it is simply the the question of is taxation theft? I hold that it is theft and that society allowing such theft to occur for utilitarian purposes in another debate to be had. Yes, definitions don't prove a case. One must as I did connect how the claim is true. Con has attacked my arguments about property rights without posing a counter of how money is not private property. Con states "It is no surprise, then, that throughout U. S. history corporations have been overwhelmingly hostile to the free market. To maintain the preferable state of a free market, we need structure and regulation from the government. " The problem with this notion is that corporations don't exist without a government. A corporation is a government made legal protection mechanism that would not exist in a capitalist society. Corporations as they exist now are hostile to a true free market because the concept of the legal corporation is built to give large businesses monopolies and influence the state for favor. None of that is relevant however because it does nothing to prove that taxation is or is not theft. Here I have shown that taxation is theft regardless of the perceived benefit or lack of benefit of it.
Taxation is theft

Thank you for opening this debate. Yes, you earned that money. However, I have to ask how this person got to their job? Did they drive on roads, use public transportation? For the state to ask for a percentage of what a person earned to keep up those things that they use to make their money isn't theft in my opinion. If you want an operational city where there are jobs to make that money, you need to add in. You say this is analogous to state (it is a fact, not an argument) that taxes go towards many things. That is hyperbolic and I think a disingenuous comparison. It is mutually beneficial. They benefit you in many ways. I have to ask, would you rather not have taxes? Public schools? Roads? Bridges? ect.? Money for defense security, etc.? You even receive money back. You see that scenario is different because theft implies you get nothing in return. When you pay taxes if benefits you. You have a road to drive on, interstates to get places, police departments to protect you, fire departments to save you, transportation for the public, employment protection, care for the elderly and so, so much more. "I would ask my opponent to demonstrate how taxation or any kind of involuntary non-consensual relationship is ethical or moral." I find it ethical and moral to contribute to a society when you benefit from it. I find it unethical and immoral to not want to reciprocate to a society that does, despite the statements otherwise, benefit you. We lose sight of the things our taxes go to and I feel have forgotten what it would be like were taxes removed. You benefit from them, they go to things we take for granted and are privileged to have. I think it is moral and ethical to give back.
Taxation is theft

R1 Acceptance Only R2: Argument R3: Rebuttal R4: Closing Remarks I will be arguing that taxation is theft Definitions : THEFT: noun the action or crime of stealing. "he was convicted of theft" synonyms: robbery, stealing, thieving, larceny, thievery, shoplifting, burglary, misappropriation, appropriation, embezzlement TAXATION: noun/verb 1) A means by which governments finance their expenditure by imposing charges on citizens and corporate entities. 2) Compulsory or coercive money collection by a levying authority, usually a government.
Moon Hoax Not

Thank you for your improved typing. On your other post, you spelled von Braun's name wrong, so I couldn't find him. He was the director of the Marshall Space Flight Center, and was the chief architect of the Saturn V. von Braun actually defected/surrendered to America. He worked on the intermediate range ballistic missile (IRBM), not the ICBM. There is nothing here to disprove the moon landings, so please try and show some "evidence" the moon landings didn't happen. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Moon Hoax Not

In the future, please try and type legibly. #1: "It has a high probability because one we only after world war 2" What do you mean by this? "we let vinet ban vorun the German scientist alive the guy who made the first ICBM intercontinental ballistic rocket only to let make the first go to the moon" Who is Vinet ban Vorun? I googled him, nothing of importance came up. And what do ICMBs have to do with this? "we built rockets during the space age to enjoy rubbing the achievement to the USSR's face saying ooow you may have put the first satellite in orbit but we put men in orbit and on the moon" Yes, we did indeed do that, I don't see how this proves the moon landings false.
A Carbon Tax Should be Implemented in The United States.

Sorry I could not get back to you sooner Well, to start my argument, a Carbon Tax on the United States will reduce wages for workers in the coal and oil fields. My idea is that, a majority(67%) of the power generated in the united states comes from coal, oil, and natural gas. So you have to put a tax on your energy bills. Since people don't want to pay extra money, they would resort to solar power. Less power used from the oil means less money for the oil company. In order to cope with the lower revenue, they would have to lower wages for their employees, which means they would a. switch jobs or b(more likely). not have enough income to support their families. Another thing is that most of the CO2 emissions are from—you guessed it—China! Although the United States has the 2nd largest share of CO2 emissions, China has produced 3224.68 million metric tons of CO2 more than the United States, and since we cant do anything about China because they're communists, only doing it for the United States would mean the rest of the world would still produce trillions of tons of CO2, which would still cause mass climate change. My last argument is that a Carbon Tax would cause mass outrage as people feel like taxes are already too high. I live in New York where sales tax is 8.625% and income tax is 6.45%. I dont want to pay an additional tax for gas and energy where taxes are through the roof. Some of us can't use solar power(aka people from where I live) because our income per capita for the county in which I live is $36,189 and median household income is $87,778. We can expect to see a drop in those numbers and possibly a 3rd Great Depression(2nd one was Great Reccession) if a Carbon Tax would be implemented. Thank you for your time.Sources:https://www.eia.gov...http://www.ucsusa.org...http://www.bestplaces.net/economy/county/new_york/suffolk
A Carbon Tax Should be Implemented in The United States.

CARBON TAX DEBATE Debate Rules; Round 1 There are a couple of rules I’d like to put in place for my opponent: 1: No semantics; and to that end, I will make clear what my argument is: I will be arguing for a Carbon Tax. Wikipedia’s statement on Carbon Pricing should give you what you need to know immediately: Carbon pricing — the method favored by many economists for reducing global-warming emissions — charges those who emit carbon dioxide (CO2) for their emissions. [1] And to specify on the carbon tax: A carbon tax is a tax levied on the carbon content of fuels.[2] Carbon: Chemistry. a widely distributed element that forms organic compounds in combination with hydrogen, oxygen, etc., and that occurs in a pure state as diamond and graphite, and in an impure state as charcoal. [3] Tax: a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc. [4] 2: My opponent and I share the BoP; this is a pretty large BoP opportunity and I think evening it out will add fairness for the debate. I will be arguing for the use of a Carbon Tax in the United States, by either the fact that it works already, and the fact that it can be improved easily enough. My opponent will have to argue that a Carbon Tax is not fit to be used in the United States. 3: No trolling. I mean, everyone here should know that drill. 4: Structure: Round one is for acceptance only; any arguments in this period will designate a forfeit. 4A: Round 2 is for opening arguments only; your opening arguments, and only your opening arguments, cannot be a rebuttal to mine. 4B: In Round 3 rebuttals start. You must rebuttal all arguments, even if they’re in the same round as yours after round 2 4C: No new arguments after opening rounds. 5: If you do not cite sources for studies you find to use in your argument, those arguments won’t do anything. Please cite sources whenever you get something from another website. 6: Finally, if you have a question about the rules or think they’re unfair, PLEASE tell me them before you accept the debate, and I’ll work it out. Sources: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.dictionary.com... [4] http://www.dictionary.com...
Donovan Mitchell: Rookie of the Year 2018

"While it is true that Simmons" rookie year was not the one he won, That dosent change that when he did win it was his first year. " I don't think this at all, It wasnt his first year in the league but it was the first year he finished. The fact that he was able to win a trophy for something he technically didn't apply for shows the level of skill the association, That he works for, Thinks he has. " In this scenario apply dosen't mean application, It means "match all criteria" which he did not. ("Who better to judge an employee than their employer? " -Easy answer. The other employees. Those that work and play closest to the them. Who won the NBA Rookie of the Year Player Voting? That"s right. Donovan Mitchell. ) The other players, While very smart when it comes to this game, Are not nearly as qualified as those who actually make the decision. The award is given by a panel of American and Canadian sports writers, Each of which are experts in the field of professional sports analysis. So while the players may have a good understanding of how the game works, They are nowhere near those who analyze their games for a living.
Donovan Mitchell: Rookie of the Year 2018

"While it is true that Simmons" rookie year was not the one he won, That dosent change that when he did win it was his first year. " -That statement completely contradicts itself. If it wasn"t his rookie year, It wasn"t his first year. "How a players stats can affect a team is mainly opinion, And what isn't opinion is the results. " -I don"t think it"s just an opinion anymore when Donovan Mitchell leads his team from a 19-28 record to a 48-34 record, 5th place in the Western Conference, And two rounds into the playoffs when they weren"t expected to defeat the Thunder. (as opposed to Ben Simmons who was supported by two other top three overall draft picks {Joel Embiid and Markelle Fultz} in the last four years, And who had a 52-30 record, 3rd place in the Eastern Conference, And only made it into the second round of the playoffs when some analysts and experts favored them to make the Finals {round four technically} or even win the NBA Championship this year. ) "The fact that he was able to win a trophy for something he technically didn't apply for shows the level of skill the association, That he works for, Thinks he has. " -None of the players apply for any of the awards. They"re not scholarships. "Who better to judge an employee than their employer? " -Easy answer. The other employees. Those that work and play closest to the them. Who won the NBA Rookie of the Year Player Voting? That"s right. Donovan Mitchell. https://www. News. Com. Au/sport/american-sports/nba/simmons-snubbed-for-players-rookie-of-the-year/news-story/789faca15118cfe916c40115b5b398dc
Donovan Mitchell: Rookie of the Year 2018

(Before I begin I realized I misspelled association in my previous argument and I want to fix that real quick. ) While it is true that Simmons' rookie year was not the one he won, That dosent change that when he did win it was his first year. How a players stats can affect a team is mainly opinion, And what isn't opinion is the results. The fact that he was able to win a trophy for something he technically didn't apply for shows the level of skill the association, That he works for, Thinks he has. Who better to judge an employee than their employer?
Donovan Mitchell: Rookie of the Year 2018

While Ben Simmons is an extremely good player and valuable asset for his team, He was not even a rookie in the 2017-18 season. Ben Simmons was drafted as the 1st overall pick of the 2016 draft. He then proceeded to play for the Philadelphia 76ers during the summer league held in Salt Lake City, Utah. During one of the games, He received a season-ending injury. That sucks. It really does. But he was still on the Philadelphia 76ers for the entire season. He traveled with the team, Sat with the team, He was on the team. He had an entire year of experience of being on an NBA team, He just couldn't participate in games because of his injury. So why, The next season, Is he considered a rookie. He had his rookie year (although it sucked because of his injury), So why give him another? That is just one argument though. Even if Ben Simmons is technically a rookie (although I don't agree that he should be classified as such) I still believe Donovan's stats were more impressive and he did more for the Utah Jazz than Simmons did for the 76ers.
Canned Food Drives

Giving food and other necessary resources to the starving is great, but canned food drives are not the way to go. People think that a food drive is just another way to clear out their pantry while thinking that it's for a good cause. Many cans that people donate to drives are expired, not to mention the fact that canned foods are full of sodium. If people are not clearing out their pantries, they are going to the store looking for foods to donate. The problems with this is that you don't know what the people who need the food like and don't like. People assume certain brands and flavours. Also, there might be a hidden ingredient within the product that might be an allergen. Buyers are buying cans that cost about $3 when they could be donating that 3 dollars to a farmer where he/she could grow exponentially greater amounts of food. You could also donate your money to the needy people themselves where they can buy what they like and what is good for THEM. Don't argue about how they might not use the money for food and spend it on things they don't need, I could make the same argument and say that they can play bowling with the cans that they receive.
The West shouldn't criticize less developed countries for anti-gay laws

"I hold the opinion that developed countries such as the United Kingdom have no right to criticise less developed countries, such as Uganda, for their anti-gay laws. "I disagree with the resolution. I will explain why. "I hold this opinion because I am from the UK and I have been brought up holding these values. In Uganda, the majority of people have not been brought up in such a way, therefore it is understandable that they raise objections to homosexuality. "Everyone's values and morals are influenced by education, parents, by the society that is around us. But that doesn't make this kind of decisions less wrong. And I understand, we should consider this when a person is going to be punished, specially when they are very young, but everyone should receive criticism for the things they do, for the things that affect the rest of people. "Uganda is a far less developed country than the UK, therefore it is fair to assume that they are many years behind in all areas of development. For example, the United Kingdom's gross domestic product in 2012 was 2.435 trillion USD, whereas Uganda's GDP was only 19.88 billion (according to the World Bank). Uganda is far less economically developed, therefore it is fair to say that it is less developed in all aspects. "This is irrelevant. It is usually more related to beliefs and tradition. There are developed nations that still struggle with this kind of topics. "Currently, the literacy rate of the United Kingdom is 99% for both men and women. This is in stark contrast to Uganda's poorer 76.8% literacy rate for men and 57.7% literacy rate. The lower level of literacy in Uganda shows that it is less socially developed than the UK. Uganda's 19.2% higher literacy rate in men also shows that the country is far less developed in the area of gender equality. When the UK did not allow homosexuality, it also played host a less gender equal society than there is today. "Education is really important in this kind of topics, but my first point remains. There are no reason not to Judge this kind of decisions. We are sure that gay people have this right. We should let them know what we think. If they want to debate it, that's great. UK has the right to criticize, gay people in Uganda have the right to receive help from their brothers in UK. It's that simple. Thanks.
The West shouldn't criticize less developed countries for anti-gay laws

I hold the opinion that developed countries such as the United Kingdom have no right to criticise less developed countries, such as Uganda, for their anti-gay laws. I do not believe that Homosexuality is wrong - everybody should be entitled to freedom of sexuality. However, I hold this opinion because I am from the UK and I have been brought up holding these values. In Uganda, the majority of people have not been brought up in such a way, therefore it is understandable that they raise objections to homosexuality. Uganda is a far less developed country than the UK, therefore it is fair to assume that they are many years behind in all areas of development. For example, the United Kingdom's gross domestic product in 2012 was 2.435 trillion USD, whereas Uganda's GDP was only 19.88 billion (according to the World Bank). Uganda is far less economically developed, therefore it is fair to say that it is less developed in all aspects. In 1982, the year in which homosexuality became legal in all jurisdictions of the United Kingdom, the UK's GDP was 491 billion USD. This shows that Uganda is far less economically developed that the UK was when homosexuality became legal there. Currently, the literacy rate of the United Kingdom is 99% for both men and women. This is in stark contrast to Uganda's poorer 76.8% literacy rate for men and 57.7% literacy rate. The lower level of literacy in Uganda shows that it is less socially developed than the UK. Uganda's 19.2% higher literacy rate in men also shows that the country is far less developed in the area of gender equality. When the UK did not allow homosexuality, it also played host a less gender equal society than there is today. Surely, because Uganda is less developed than the UK was in 1982 when homosexuality became legal, then it is fair to say that Uganda is many years behind in economic, social and political development. This is why I think that is is unfair of the UK, along with other more developed nations, to criticize the Ugandan anti-gay law, because Uganda still has some catching up to do. In the past, homosexuality in the UK was illegal, and now it is not. It is likely that Uganda will accept homosexuality in the future, once it has developed to a level that the UK was at in 1982, but until then I believe that the UK has no place to criticize.
Deathcore song battle

Each round post a deathcore song of your choice from Youtube.The people voting will judge the debate by who they thought posted the better songs.For the purpose of this debate deathcore shall be defined as, "a genre of extreme metal that combines sounds and characteristics of death metal with sounds and characteristics of metalcore. It is defined by death metal riffs, blast beats and use of metalcore breakdowns."[http://en.wikipedia.org...]Song: Precursor to Enslavement by Oceanohttp://www.youtube.com...;
Female Excemption From The Selective Service System

Resolved: Women should be exempt from the Selective Service System of the United States. Clarifications: By women, I mean persons of the female sex. I do not consider personal conceptions of gender relevant to this debate. I am referring to the entire Selective Service System (SSS from here on), not the registration, lottery, drafting, or any other particular aspect of it. I will leave the exact meaning of the word "should" up to discussion. I would prefer that my opponent not simply argue that the word "should" is meaningless because that would render the discussion irrelevant and generally be a waste of time. Important Rules: The debate will consistent of three rounds, and Round 1 will be used by my opponent to indicate his or her acceptance of the debate and not any relevant agreement or disagreement of terms. This round shall not be used to debate. Also, my opponent may not argue that the SSS should be done away with entirely or that men should be exempt from it as well. The purpose of this debate is to discuss gender roles and equality, and to argue that no one should be subjuct to the SSS would be counterintuitive to my goal. I realize I could side-step the need for this rule simply by phrasing the resolution differently so as say that men and women be subject to the same requirements, but I prefer a simple resolution and cumbersome rules to the reverse. I also wanted to make it explicit that this is not allowed. If you do not know about the SSS, I suggest that Wikipedia is a go place to start for gaining a general understanding of something you are not familar with. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Additional Comments: This debate is part of a series that I intend to do on gender roles and gender equality. If my opponent sees a good reason to move the topic of the debate away from this in a way other than what I have specifically requested above (not arguing for the complete abolition of the SSS) than I see no problem with that, although it will probably result in my reposting of the debate afterwards until I get the discussion I am looking for. I will do another debate about the SSS in general later (arguing for its complete abolition) but that is not what this debate is about.