azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: NO

-Gun ownership and gun deaths negatively correlate over time. According to Dept of Justice statistics, from 1993 to 2011, gun homicide decreased 39% while nonfatal gun crimes decreased 69%. During the same time period, gun sales increased nationally. Guns aren’t the problem. On a larger scale, we live in the most peaceful time in human history with the most guns in human history.-In 1976, Washington DC enacted strict gun control, prohibiting a citizen from using a gun even in self-defense. Following these measures, the cities homicide rate nearly doubled in just over a decade. A ban disarms the lawful.-Worldwide, only 1/3 of gun owners comply with gun confiscation laws. In the US, that would mean 230 million guns flooding the black market. A ban is not enforceable.
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: NO

No matter what system you make to close the loophole of people getting guns, there will always be some genius who can beat that system. Kill whatever genius and there will be another one and another one after that. It will go on forever. There's always someone out there smarter than the person who closes any loophole. And whoever that person is will be able to find ways to sell guns and spread the word in the criminal world.I mentioned the following quote in another guns debate:"The point of security is not to eliminate risk. That is impossible. The point of security is to bring risk down to an acceptable level."Going by the very logic of prohibiting guns, giving everyone guns and defeating the point of going into a movie theater and trying to shoot a bunch of people in the first place is what will prevent these shootings.And don't try to make the argument of cross fire because civilians have stopped shooters using guns:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/ Anyone saying it would cause more people to die in the cross fire is a moron, as I've read of other cases where the civilians does so little as aim their gun at the shooter from an angle where it would only take a split second to fire the gun but maybe one whole second to aim the gun at the civilian and the shooter just drops their gun and puts his/her hands up.
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: NO

https://www.google.com/amp/www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/amp/ambushed-arizona-trooper-saved-passing-motorist-who-shot-attacker-dead-n706381?client=safari
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: NO

I love the liberals wanting to ban guns. So if we were to disarm you, and Trump became the violent dictator you all claim he will be, how do plan on opposing him again?
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: NO

No, because you need guns to protect yourself. I know crimes happen, but if guns were banned, criminals could still use guns illegally. Why? Because they’re criminals.
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: The rich are being soaked!

They are bearing the burden of paying for everything; it's time for the little people at the bottom to pony up something so they can be contributing members of society and feel good about themselves again.
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: The rich are being soaked!

Are you being serious, or joking?
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: More, they should pay more!

Ah, a little person speaks up, how cute. Come closer so that I may step on you................ closer still................SQUISH!......I love the feel of little people under my feet in the morning; it's the feel of exhilaration, the feeling of victory! More, I need more! Next?
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: The rich are being soaked!

Ah, so you are Delvis.Not sure why I am surprised.
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: The rich are being soaked!

Delvis???? I am me and no one else. Who is Delvis??????????????????????
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: More, they should pay more!

You seem to be mistakenly assuming that personal income tax = total tax receipts. You only provide data for personal income tax and then claim that the rich shoulder most of total tax receipts. I'm sorry but logic doesn't work that way. You need to find data on total tax receipts (including sales taxes, gas taxes, etc) then you may make claims about the rich's contribution.
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: The rich are being soaked!

This is about federal income taxes to run the country, not local. There are far too many variables at the local level, but if you want to put up your own stats, be my guest. Much of what you are referring to are consumption taxes, not income taxes.I'll bet in states with income taxes, the scenario I posted on federal taxes would be pretty much the same; the wealthy paying the lions share and the non-contributers whining and complaining it's not enough.
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: More, they should pay more!

I'm sure you know that consumption taxes are regressive, i.e. they affect the poor more than the rich. Furthermore, I am sure you realize that the rich hold more government debt than the poor. So instead of increasing taxes on the rich we have actually become indebted to them and are paying them interest. I'm curious if you have data that shows total net payments from the government to the rich. I am also curious how capital gains taxes work into this data of yours. The really rich make most of their money through capital gains on the wealth given to them by their parents. This is how Warren Buffet pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary.
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: The rich are being soaked!

If you buy gov't bonds and t-bills, you get paid interest by the issuer- the Federal Gov't. Any one can invest in these; you, me, the so-called rich and receive interest payment by the gov't. You can also buy municipal bonds and get paid tax-free interest by the municipality that issued them. These, also, are available to you, me and the so-called rich. Furthermore, Buffet pays the same rate on capital gains as you, me and the so-called rich, including his secretary. Additionally, Buffet pays on the same tax scale on wages and salary as you, me and the so-called rich, including his secretary. Those rates are available to ALL who invest in these instruments. Wages/salary are different from capital gains; you are conflating the two just as Buffet and the left do.The fact the the "rich" hold the debt means they are the ones funding the gov't by making a loan to them and also via tax payment. They pay 70% of the federal income tax burden.
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: More, they should pay more!

Do you know that the rich make most of their money via capital gains? The top income earners like CEOs are not the rich people we are talking about. We want people who never work but live off their parents' fortunes to pay more than 15%. Surely you can agree that the Walton heirs should pay higher taxes on their fathers money?
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: The rich are being soaked!

They should be treated like anyone else, period. I don't care how they got their wealth as long as it was legal.
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: The rich are being soaked!

The reasons people complain has been explained to you. Many believe that people should pay income taxes proportional to the amount of total wealth owned within a country (on a demographic level).When one percent of the nation owns around 43% of the total wealth of said nation, it seems reasonable (to me, and quite a few others) for them alone to pay 43% of the income tax burden (if not other associated taxes such as capital gains as well).
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: More, they should pay more!

No, they just keep the money they spare from buying politicians, the middle class is shrinking you know.
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: More, they should pay more!

I feel so bad for those poor billionaires that don't do any significant work, bribe politicians to get them tax breaks, and have to pay taxes. Oh those poor little things! Hey lets make things right! Lets cut the wealthiest Americans taxes and tax the poorest Americans more! Genius! Go eat a bag of dicks.
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: The rich are being soaked!

You drip with resentment and envy; that is not a philosophy that will serve you well in life. I'll pass on the bag of dicks, but you can suck on them if you want. Enjoy.
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: More, they should pay more!

No, I just think billionaires shouldn't be able to buy politicians like they do now. In general, politicians are more loyal to the people who give them millions of campaign dollars and a lot of personal money through speeches, than the people who actually vote for them. That's a problem that needs to change.
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: The rich are being soaked!

You should blame the politicians, not the rich. That's where you should start.
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: More, they should pay more!

No, you should just take away the ability to prop up politicians with money. Usually the Politian with the most campaign money wins. Its kind of like why elephants are killed for ivory, some people want it and all it takes an opportunist to kill them for it.
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: More, they should pay more!

In 1980 the lower group contributed 2.5 times as much. Do you want to go back to the tax rate of 1980?
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: The rich are being soaked!

Yes, it would be fair. They would, once again, be contributing something rather than just taking.
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: More, they should pay more!

So, you think we need to raise taxes on the wealthy. Cool.
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: The rich are being soaked!

No, go back and look at the figures again..............................
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: More, they should pay more!

Seems like you should look at his again. Figures from 1980: 19, 37, 49, 73, 92.Figures from now: 15, 25, 28, 33, 35.So like cartman said, if you want us to go back to the 1980 figures, you want us to dramatically increase tax rates for the higher tax brackets.
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: The rich are being soaked!

Ok, I got it. No, the top tax rate today is much better than in 80. I'll pass on that offer. I don't know why you want to enrich the gov't, is it so they can squander it?
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: More, they should pay more!

Why do you want to enrich the government with middle class money and not with everyone's money?
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: The rich are being soaked!

I don't what to enrich the gov't, period; I want to shrink it. Does 20 trillion in debt mean anything to ya?
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: More, they should pay more!

Oversimplification is a great way to cause problems.It's part of what has led us to this current state of affairs, after all.
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: More, they should pay more!

The only thing you have shown in this debate is that you want to pay more taxes.I agree that the debt is terrible, but I am able to discuss the topic.
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: More, they should pay more!

I know nuance is complicated, but my ideas are based on a timeline. I would not want an increase in taxes until after matters of corruption and incompetence had been dealt with. So no, I would not want to give them money to squander it. I would want to work on preventing them from squandering money, then giving it to them.
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: The rich are being soaked!

If the gov't gets money it WILL be squandered. No ifs, ands or buts about it.
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: More, they should pay more!

One needs only look to some other nations to see that isn't some inherent truth of government.Your defeatism is predicated upon the mistaken assumption that our government's current state is the only state government can be.It isn't.
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: More, they should pay more!

Ok. Looking at the figures again gives me:35 percent: The top federal income tax rate for the 2010 taxes due April 15.70 percent: Top tax rate in 198070% is a higher number than 35%The way numbers work is that we start from left to right. So, since the 7 is bigger than the 3 in the tens spot we say that 70 is bigger than 35. I see where you were confused. The 5 is bigger than the 0, but we check that second.
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: More, they should pay more!

Out of curiosity, where do you think they would magically get this money from?Or are you just under this strange assumption that the poor have all this money that they are sitting on and refusing to contribute?
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: The rich are being soaked!

I assume the fact that everyone can contribute something, which is an accurate assumption.
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: The rich are being soaked!

Everyone already does contribute something. Even illegal immigrants contribute something.So that statement doesn't really contribute anything :P
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: The rich are being soaked!

The first point to make here is that if all the money in the world was pooled and distributed evenly throughout the population of the world, soon after that unthinkable event, most of the former rich would have their dosh again and the original poor would be back to square one bellyaching about the unfair imbalance of the global wealth. Even if everyone, rich or the less well off, had the same level of tax, then clearly the higher earner would be paying more into the nation's coffers. However, this is not the case as those wealthy patriots who decide to pay their taxes have a much higher % rate of tax than those on the lower earnings band. Many high earners manipulate the system so they can legally avoid paying the higher rate of tax. They rationalize their thinking on the premise;- 'why the hell should I be donating 100s of 1000s of my hard earned dollars every year to support the workshy and life's losers''? If a global system of remuneration existed whereby everyone earned more or less the same regardless of their skill/talent and capacity for work, then the incentive for people of outstanding ability and the risk taking enterprising entrepreneurs would be removed and the world's economy would stagnate causing mas poverty and anarchy.
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: More, they should pay more!

The first point to make here is that if all the money in the world was pooled and distributed evenly throughout the population of the world, soon after that unthinkable event, most of the former rich would have their dosh again and the original poor would be back to square one bellyaching about the unfair imbalance of the global wealth.Based on what? If a global system of remuneration existed whereby everyone earned more or less the same regardless of their skill/talent and capacity for work, then the incentive for people of outstanding ability and the risk taking enterprising entrepreneurs would be removed and the world's economy would stagnate causing mas poverty and anarchy.Very few people (if anyone) argues for equality of outcome now adays. People instead argue for equality of opportunity.
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: The rich are being soaked!

cartman, you have so many aliases you could have a debate forum all by yourself. With regard to your question, suffice to say; the reason why you're one of life's poverty stricken losers lies in the fact that you have to query what is blatantly obvious to anyone with half brain. Your 2nd assertion is proven wrong by the fact that in most western countries, especially America, everyone enjoys equality of opportunity. In the same way a poor tradesman blames his tools for a bad job of work, so losers such as you look for an excuse to explain their failures. TrumpsHair/cartman;- have you any more alter egos? Let me see you having an argument with yourself.
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: More, they should pay more!

That's not me.
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: More, they should pay more!

I am not Cartman, I am (and readily admit) GenericName. I made this account originaly to test a theory regarding FromWithin, then decided to just primarily use this account because I liked the picture I used for it.Additionally, I am not poor, which brings into question why you feel the need to make assumptions about someone you do not know based entirely on the fact that they disagreed with you.To answer your claims: No, America does not have equality of opportunity: our social mobility rating is objective proof of that.So here's the real question: Why do you feel the need to put people down? To insult the "other"? To belittle the "other"? To assume that anyone who is poor must be a "loser"?
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: The rich are being soaked!

Everyone is in a competition. In all competitions there will be winners and losers, we can't all be winners. Everyone with ability can make it. I am only making this point in response to your reply, which was reasoned and civilized. I was born in the back streets of Belfast into extreme poverty, like no food in my belly most of the time. I had a basic education and left school without any qualifications. I was able to secure a job as a message boy at the age of 15. Start time 07.45-- finish 17.50. Went home ate tripe & onions with whatever porridge left over from breakfast, if we had one, and then cycled right across the city to Roden Street Technical College, evening classes to further my education. I was made department manager at the age of 18 and was the youngest manager ever in the Brown Brothers Group, Branch 191, Ormeau Road, Belfast, (H.O. Great Eastern Street London). Cutting through the even more boring stuff, I eventually formed my own company which I ran successfully for 26 years employing over 100 people for all that time. For many years I made a net-net profit of £2,000 per day, £ 10,000 per week, before tax. This figure is peanuts I know, but I feel it was a reasonable level of earnings for someone from my background trying to run a business through the bombs, bullets and daily riots occurring in Belfast. I had a number of my trucks hi-jacked and burnt out, constant threats made on my life from the para-military organizations of both sides and so forth. On top of all this and more, I was under the constant pressure of having to obtain sufficient contracts to keep my workforce ''gainfully employed'' ensure the work was carried to the required standard and then secure payment. If I could make it, ( albeit on a small scale) in Northern Ireland, anyone could, especially in a go-ahead country like the U.S.A. So, I don't have any sympathy for people who blame the financial plight on the ''system'' or the so called establishment nor their deprived social background. Let them tell their hard luck story to the Marines.
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: More, they should pay more!

Everyone is in a competition. In all competitions there will be winners and losers, we can't all be winners. Everyone with ability can make itThat would be true, on an even playing field. Seeing as how we do not have an even playing field, that remains untrue.Now your story is indeed very impressive, as I am sure you know, and you have done quite well. That said, one who truly went through those experiences would have sufficient knowledge that not everyone is physically capable of such. For example, you actually had a basic education (not much, obviously, but not something everyone has). You also seem to have your physical health (unless I missed something), which is something not everyone has. You also lived in an area that seems to have had a variety of job opportunities, something that not everyone has.The point is that while there are people who have the ability and opportunity yet squander it and complain about bad fortune, there are also people who spend their lives working hard and never see themselves break out of squalor. To generalize them all with such insults does them, and yourself, a disservice.
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: The rich are being soaked!

Re:" For example, you actually had a basic education (not much, obviously, but not something everyone has). "Ad hominem attacks, I see. Apparently, you don't have the mental capacity to make your argument so you insult those who have a different. That is typical of bigoted people.
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: The rich are being soaked!

Thanks for the support HighFalutin, it didn't go unnoticed. Initially I too interpreted the comment on my schooling, or the lack of it, as an insult, but I feel he was taking my self description as the basis for his appraisal of my education.
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: The rich are being soaked!

Indeed I was. While I can't see how it could come across as an insult, I do apologize for that none the less.Edit: And for a touch of indignation, you'll note that I actually apologize when I insult someone, even when it was unintentional :P
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: The rich are being soaked!

Apology appreciated and accepted. It is good to have the ability, or even the empathy to understand why some people react more aggressively to criticism, either real or perceived. For me to have achieved my modest success I had to live my life making sure that everyone knew who the boss was. I was known in the industry in which I was involved as Mr. Hyde and Mr Hyde.
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: More, they should pay more!

That comment made absolutely no sense, what so ever.From his comment: "I had a basic education and left school without any qualifications"In terms of its advantageous quality, a basic education is not much, as he recognized by his comment. Agreeing with him is not an ad hominem attack by any even vague meaning of the term.So it seems you have demonstrated that you do not know what "Ad hominem", "insult", and "bigotry" mean. Next time, read an entire conversation rather than trying to jump at opportunities to insult or belittle others, particularly in such an ironically projectionist fashion.
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: The rich are being soaked!

Denial, a typical bigot's response. Your road to recovery begins with acknowledging your problem. Until then, there is no hope for you.
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: More, they should pay more!

You do realize even he recognized what I said?
Debate: The Wealthy Don't Pay Their Fair Share? Au Contraire
Side: More, they should pay more!

The top 10% of the country own 75% of the wealth, but only pay 69.8% of the federal income tax. They need to pay an extra 5.2% in order to pay their fair share.