BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Bernie Sanders tax on the rich won't work

Everyone pays taxes, so does everyone who has a tax plan have a conflict of interest? Forbes doesn't just like a flat tax cause he will pay less, but because the economy does better. The rich get richer the better the economy gets. Of course poor people are going to vote for sanders. They want free stuff. That's a conflict of interest. (See how silly that sounds). About the IRS. Everyone hates the tax code, and the IRS. We abolish the IRS, and current tax code and replace it with something people actually understand. It will take 5 minuets to file taxes. Yes, ultra rich tax businesses and Lawyers will be out of the job. Wait... that's what you want right? No super rich people. You also said your for a tax code reform. As to knowing about people paying taxes, there will be an office in the treasury department in charge of taxes. It's easy to look at a name of a US citizen, pull up their 1 piece of paper taxes and file it. If someone refuses to pay, they get punished. Your idea of taxing the rich and giving the money to the poor and middle class to create a good economy is great in theory, but wrong in reality. Bernie wants a 50% tax on the rich. Bernie will also eliminate loopholes and stuff. Please stop using bernie's plan with things today. It doesn't help the debate, and is pointless. I know most countries are more socialist then the US, with Bernie's policies of a 50% rate, the US becomes more socialist the countries like the UK, where a 45% income tax rate occors. https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk... . And the UK tried a 50% tax rate. My guess is they didn't like it, cause it went to a 45% rate a few years ago. So you're in favor of a plan that doesn't work? Strange. Now when the US pit's a higher tax rate on, along with restricting businesses, and making minimum wages 2x what they are now, where another country has a lower tax rate, with a way less minimum wage. Which would a rich guy with a business choose? Not the US. What I'm going to say next, I don't mean to offend any low wage job people who contribute to society. We need jobs at all levels for america to succeed. So you say how rich people don't contribute like a poorer person does. Now a rich person buys more stuff, and pays way more in taxes. Also how would america be without guys like Steve Jobs and bill gates? Very smart people who make billion dollor deals are needed. A average guy couldn't run a billion dollor business. I agree with you when you say the rich deserve 2 rewards for working super haRd and being smart, I don't thing they should get tax breaks. A fair flat tax doesn't have tax breaks for the rich. Bernie's plan makes america undesirable for rich people, and has no incentive to work. Without workers and businesses and rich people there can't be a good economy. We are a bit in debt right now and can't afford a bad economy.
Bernie Sanders tax on the rich won't work

I think it's worth mentioning Steve Forbes likes a flat tax. The flat tax will eliminate the IRS, produce a GDP growth, and put money into the American people. If the American people have more money it means a bigger economy. Also a flat tax gives a rich more money, while Bernie's takes it away. Most Rich people are greedy ans selfish. They aren't going to spend extra money paying the same amount of people. They will fire people and move people to part time if they get taxed. Same if the minimum wage increases. So we have one plan that increases jobs, the GDP, and the economy, while one decreases the desire to live in the US for successful people (Bernie's plan does however in courage the lazy bums to not worry). About the US tax code, it's kinda long. Thousands of pages is too much. A flat tax will shorten the tax code. Bernie's plan will make it long. With a long tax code their are more holes and rich people will hire multiple lawyers to escape the tax. This does no good. You say "The people sitting at the top do NO work, they simply rake in cash. They contribute nothing to society" hahaha. You don't magically become a CEO. You work hard at it. Reward? Being able to not do much work. But still a CEO does some work. Now if you think the rich don't contribute to society then want them in the US? Kick them out, nobody needs people that don't contribute to society. Without people that don't contribute to society the US would be a better place. Imagine the world without rich people and the stuff they did. Would the world be a better place? Nope. Your last paragraphs seem to be about the issues I have with Bernie's tax plan, but in a world today. If Bernie's tax plan was in acted the US would be different. Bernie wants to tax the rich at 50%, I'm sure the rich can find a good country that taxes 30%. Also factories would move away under bernie. That would not help the US in trade. Countries will just trade, not including the US, since the US won't have anything to trade. We are quite a lot I'm debt, factories are moving away, Bernie's plan discourages starting a company and succeeding in the US, yet you expect the US will gain jobs, lower debt, increase trade, and encourage success. Those are things a country MUST have to succeed, not only will bernie's plan not encourage those, but he will discourage it. Imagine a country that discourages being successful and rich. That country would not be a top trade country.
Bernie Sanders tax on the rich won't work

You say we should all pay a fair share. 50% on the rich, 5% on the root isn't fair. Taxing some at different percentages isn't fair at all. Taxing everyone at 10% is fair. The working poor are working in America and deserve to pay something. Fair isn't some workers paying high percents, and some workers paying a little. Fair is everybody paying the same. As for you saying the rich won't move out if they are taxed at 50% . This is flawed. Why wouldn't one move to a place where they are taxed 10 instead of 50%? Why would Europe be hostile for rich people? Rich people bring money and better government revenue. You say a lower tax on the rich would lower government revenue, and 50% tax would increase it. In theory, like many socialist policies, this seems great. The problem is, the rich don't want to be treated unfairly and will move to a country where they are taxed fairly and less. About Bernie trying to control world trade and tax things. If he doesn't allow the rich to store assets overseas (I'm not saying it's a good thing) won't that be another reason to leave America? You say leaving won't be possible under Bernie. That seems very communist and dictatorship-like. I'm sure if he says "nobody can leave" he will be impeached. Let's say an air conditioner company moves from the US to Mexico. European countries did trade with that company, they wouldn't be trading with the US anymore. What will happen under this high tax is rich people will leave, factories will leave (for many reasons other then taxes) and trade won't be with America anymore cause there won't be anything in America worth trading. Simply put, the Bernie tax drives people away from America.
Bernie Sanders tax on the rich won't work

I am also new to this site, and I am an ardent Bernie supporter. I hope to show through logical argument that there is more benefit than cost to implementing a higher tax rate on the upper class in America. Pro asserts that the rich don't want to be taxed at higher rates. I agree, but that doesn't mean that they SHOULD NOT be taxed. Nobody wants to be taxed, but we are all part of the system, and we all have to pay our fair share in. Lowering the tax rate on the rich class in America would significantly decrease government revenue, or would levy unfair taxes on the poor, those who can't afford it. Pro's example is not particularly convincing for many reasons. First, the logical problem exists in that leaving New Jersey is not the same thing as leaving the United States. Leaving New Jersey is an easy decision, because there are many comparable places of economic opportunity and social equality in the immediate vicinity. However, travel outside the US and this is not necessarily the case. Many of the more socialistic countries in Europe will be more hostile to the upper class people who want to leave the US. Then there is the statistical analysis of the study in New Jersey itself. After having read the study, it claims no reason for the people leaving New Jersey. Pro is making a fallacy in assuming that the reason citizens are leaving due to the high tax rate, when it could be for any number of reasons, especially considering the study itself shows that immigration/emigration rates are relatively constant to within an order of magnitude for the past decade. Finally, if someone wanted to leave the United States, the process is not as simple as packing up and moving, since moving assets is a more abstract concept. In addition to the higher tax rate, Bernie Sanders would reject free trade deals which would allow companies to ship jobs overseas, and close loopholes in tax law which allow wealthy corporations and people to store assets overseas. So leaving the United States will simply not be possible under a Sanders administration. At the very least, the business would lose unacceptable amounts of revenue as they attempt to bring their products back into the US, and private citizens will find that it will be illegal to hide money in offshore accounts. In summary: common sense is not a good indicator for economic policy. Pro's claim that the rich don't want to be taxed and would leave the United States is simply not a possibility when combined with Sanders other policy programs such as anti-free trade deals and closing tax loopholes. The New Jersey example is deeply flawed, as it shows no causal link between the higher tax rate and departure of New Jersey citizens.
Bernie Sanders tax on the rich won't work

I'm new to this site, but I have experience debating. I hear a lot of people saying how a 50% tax on the rich would work, or is good. This is wrong, and I'll prove why in the debate. But simply put common sence shows the rich don't want to be taxed, and if the rich are taxed in america, they will leave america so they won't be taxed. We see how in NJ when a tax happened on the rich, the rich moved to FL We need to make america likeable for businesses and rich people. Taxing them won't do it
Resolved: The US Federal government should legalize same - sex adoption

Rules 1. No kritiks 2. The first round is for acceptance only 3. Fine, morality can be used. 4. Be courteous 5. Express interest in the comments before accepting, this argument should be impossible to accept otherwise Round StructureR1: AcceptanceR2: CasesR3: RebuttalR4: Final Focus Legalization: Removing state barriers to allow for same-sex adoption nationwide.Same-sex adoption: Couples who share the same gender adopting a child previously up for adoption
Private Schools Should Have Students Wear Uniforms

When the subject of mandatory school uniforms comes into question, the first words on opposing parents" lips is in regards to kids" lost sense of individuality and freedom of expression. Kids need to mark themselves as part of the herd but still be wholly individual from their peer groups, which is why uniforms can sometimes be seen as problematic. Some parents also worry that when the freedom to express themselves through their wardrobe is removed, kids will resort to more extreme forms of expression like piercings and tattoos. School should be a breeding ground for acceptance and tolerance, as it"s a smaller-scale version of the world at large in many cases. Kids need to learn to accept and celebrate each other"s differences, up to and including the way that different cultures dress. Some religions have strict rules about what is and is not considered acceptable dress, and school uniforms may not always fall in line with those religious requirements. Allowing some kids dispensation on religious grounds will only make them stand out more in a sea of uniforms, potentially leading to bullying and harassment. For some parents, being able to purchase clothing at the beginning of the school year that adheres to the uniform code is a financial relief. After all, most uniforms are comprised of staple garments easily purchased at discount stores. For others, however, being forced to purchase specific clothing infringes upon their kids" right to a free education.
Capitalism is better than Socialism.

Capitalism is better than Socialism. Four Independent Reasons: 1. The Theory of Supply and Demand 2. Private Property 3. Economic Incentives help Society 1. Supply and Demand The people are in control of what is produced and sold to the people. This means that if more people have a higher demand for one thing, then more of that item/skill/quality will be produced; this also results in no excess product. Example A: " A Dynamic Capitalist System" Lets say people hear of the internet and demand computers. The demand for the finest computers will rise. A company named Microhard creates the finest computers, while a company named Pear creates decent computers, and a company called Samsing creates poor computers. This begins values individuality in the sense that Microhard is honored for its great computers (and rewarded with pay). 2. Private Property The right to own property ensures an individual survival and independence. However, the individual must gain the land property through his/her own labor, otherwise leeching off other's labor would be wrong. Likewise, privatization of property allows for many benefits - the best example I have seen is owning a wasteland. By privatizing the property you can farm the land and gain wealth, so long as it does not interfere with others' property. 3. Incentive The strongest force felt by humans is a reward for their work. Therefore those who work the hardest in society must be rewarded the most in the form of wealth (like Private Property). The problem with Socialism in this area is if one who works hard is rewarded the same as someone who does not work at all, there will be no reason to work and productivity in the society declines. I proudly declare Capitalism to be better than Socialism. I accept this challenge, do you?
High Schools are not adequately preparing students for post-secondary education

Next I will defend my points. He said, and I quote, "High Schools are causing students to feel a need to cheat and this disadvantages them in their future. " Yes, cheating my not help them, but when the realize that they should understand when they don't cheat, they will learn, which will get them into a better post-secondary education, which will give them a better paying job. I would like to know how I am agreeing with him in his previous argument, " He says that once you take a test over something, you will need it for future lessons. He is again agreeing with me and it is why I said "Students cram for a test and once it's over they rapidly forget everything they had memorized. This leaves them lost in chapters to follow until they drop the class, drop out of school, or turn to cheating. " Also ok maybe you are taking the most advanced classes, but this debate isn't about if we are challenged in school, it is about if high school can prepare students for post-secondary education. Once again I would like to point out the my opponent has only attacked 2 of my points. I urge you to vote con. Thanks for reading.
High Schools are not adequately preparing students for post-secondary education

I would like to begin by attacking my opponent's statements about responsibility. He claims that teachers are cracking down on cheaters in his school, which may very well be true. But then he says, and I quote "Also, those kids that choose to cheat, how many actually get to college? Common sense says not very many. " This proves my point exactly. High Schools are causing students to feel a need to cheat and this disadvantages them in their future. And my opponents second statement. He says that once you take a test over something, you will need it for future lessons. He is again agreeing with me and it is why I said "Students cram for a test and once it's over they rapidly forget everything they had memorized. This leaves them lost in chapters to follow until they drop the class, drop out of school, or turn to cheating. " How is this preparing students for College? Also, I would like to respond to my opponents comment that I should take more advanced classes. I am taking the most advanced classes available to freshmen at my school and I am still frustratingly unchallenged. This proves that High Schools fall short when it comes to teaching advanced students. As my grandfather says "No child left behind might have well have been ‘no child brought ahead'" Thanks.
High Schools are not adequately preparing students for post-secondary education

My opponent began by attack my point about responsibility. I would like to say that teachers are cracking down on kids for cheating. For example my teacher in physical science gives a different for version of the test to everybody, so only like 3 or so people have the same test in a class of 20 or so. Also, those kids that choose to cheat, how many actually get to college? Common sense says not very many. Now to my opponents next point; once you take a test over something, that's it. I strongly disagree with that statement. For example, in my 2 trimester Spanish 1 class, we are using information we tested over on the first week of 1 trimester Spanish 1. In many classes you have to understand what you are doing in a previous chapter to understand what is going to happen in future chapters. I would again like to attack another one of my opponents points. His point; in public school at least, there is almost no preparation the things required of a person in college until their senior year or not at all. I disagree. As freshmen, we are already learning how to write full length reports. If you are not challenged in any of your classes, you should take more challenging classes then. I would like to point out that I have attacked all my opponents points while he has only attacked one of mine. Please for con and thanks for reading.
High Schools are not adequately preparing students for post-secondary education

My opponent began his points by stating that High Schools teach students responsibility. I disagree. High Schools contain far too many students who get by because they cheat and give minimal effort, and in turn have minimal understanding. The average to below average student has choice to make. Should they cheat to pass the class so they can play sports? Or should they put in effort and actually understand? Most students pick the former. And what really gets me is that the very way we structure education in the United States allows those students to cheat. Kids regularly cheat off someone near them and either the teacher doesn't know or is too lazy or uncaring to do anything about it. Which leads to my next point; once you take a test over something, that's it. Students cram for a test and once it's over they rapidly forget everything they had memorized.This leaves them lost in chapters to follow until they drop the class, drop out of school, or turn to cheating. My next point is that, in public schools at least, there is almost no preparation the things required of a person in college until their senior year or not at all. I recently took two Western Civilization classes at a Community College in the area during the first trimester of my freshmen year. I was astounded at the difference. I was much more content the college environment which stresses critical thinking and reasoning and doesn't coddle students along at an agonizingly slow pace. My experience showed me how inadequate my high school was. I had never been required to write anything over a single page long. Suddenly, in college, I was expected to write two ten-page long papers. It was a shock, I had been completely unprepared for this low-level college class. The point is that college is a lot harder than high school, and they don't prepare us adequately. I look forward to my opponent's argument and i urge you to vote pro. Thanks for reading
High Schools are not adequately preparing students for post-secondary education

I would first like to begin saying that I am against the resolution that states, High Schools are not adequately preparing students for post-secondary education. My opponent said that his teachers don't understand what they are teaching. I would like to point out that this debate isn't about if the teaches understand what they are doing. This debate is about if the school systems can prepare students for post-secondary education. Which is saying if high school is getting them ready for college or not. On my opponent's next point about the credits system and its flaws. Some schools are flawed, yes I will agree with that, but we are not just looking at that one school, we are looking over the majority of schools. He may not of got the credits because he wasn't in high school yet. But I am not sure of his schools rules and polices. Now I would like to post some of my own points. My first point is responsibility. High school teaches students about responsibility. Like if a student wants to be in a sport, he/she must have the grades to participate in that activity. So if you want to be good in a post-secondary school, you need to learn responsibility. My second point is knowledge. High school students learn information during classes. So if you are learning, you gain knowledge. With knowledge, you can comprehend more information in your post-secondary school. Those were some of the reasons I am against the resolution, and I urge you to vote con. Thank you
High Schools are not adequately preparing students for post-secondary education

Schools are not adequately preparing students for post-secondary education because they employ unqualified teachers and rely much too heavily on a credits system. I will begin using my high school as an example. My Geography teacher has no background in Geography and is only "qualified" by the state to teach freshmen geography. How he is "qualified" to do this is beyond me. He regularly mispronounces words in class. He calls arable land ariable land and lingua franca Linguna Franca (don't know where the "n" came from). You may say pronunciations matter little and it's more important to actually know what they mean and their relation to the rest of the subject. You may be correct in saying this, but my teacher says ariable like it's the gospel truth and has no idea he's said it incorrectly, showing that he has never, or rarely heard the word by another human being. So why is he teaching it? He was challenged to take the Africa political geography test on lizardpoint.com and openly stated "If I took this test I couldn't get them all, maybe half." So why in the world is he teaching this? If he doesn't know his own material, our learning from him will be completely skewed and we will look like idiots if we ever say the word ariable to any knowledgeable person. Another example comes from my World Literature and Composition teacher. The class is reading The Story of Roland and the word "martyrdom" pops up. She obviously has no idea and pronounces it matridom and says to the class that it means a persons honor. My geometry teacher talked about a section in our Geometry book. "We're not going to do this section because I don't quite understand it" Why is my school filled with unqualified teachers? I will never know. What I do know is that my class is below the national average by a considerable margin and I feel sorry for my classmates. Now I'm going to talk about the credits system and its flaws. When I was in eighth grade I took an exam to test out of taking Word Processing in High School. I passed it but yet I receive no credit for it. The only benefit is that I don't have to take it. However I get no credit for it and have to compensate by taking another elective. Why is my school stressing going to class instead of actual learning?