I know this wasn't a serious debate, but i wanted to have more of a back and forth at the very least. Since my opponent did not respond much it left me with nothing to argue against. I understand that this could be partially due to the holiday season being a bit more hectic than we would like and therefore do not fault him.
I have nothing against MagicAintReal, we had a very pleasant conversation before i cast this vote and must ask that people not judge his character based on this one debate.
That link did have more information that you posted but it didnt have actual data that i could look at, just the claims that you made. I am not saying that you are lying or that you are in anyway wrong, just that you still have not given me a reliable source for where you get your information on the fairtax model. This is through no fault of your own as i am sure that you are not in anyway responsible for the issues that FAIRTAX.org is experiencing.
I went to Fairtax.org, it seems their website needs some work. When click on the link provided for me to learn more about how their taxing system would work, i get taken to a page that says "This XML file does not appear to have any style information associated with it.". Could you perhaps help me figure out how the systems works since it seems you were able to attain the information for yourself. From what i can see i would be paying 23% of my total household income, that is more than i ever have.
I apologize for the way in which i submitted my vote. I was informed after i posted my vote that i did so in a way that went against the rules of this forum.
"By comparing them as two living organisms.
It's like when you compare a human cell to a plant cell in biology.
Yes plants are an entire kingdom and yes a human is only one species of animal, but the two organismic cells can still be compared because both the kingdom of plants and the species of human contain types of cellular organisms.
Make sense?"
Comparing a human cell to a plant cell would be a lot simpler. However there are about 200 different cell types in the human body, by comparison, conifers have a fractional amount of cell types.
"Your inability to imagine how it could be properly done, doesn't make it ridiculous."
With all due respect, the reason i find the premise ridiculous is based on my study of taxonomy and zoology.
The main reason i think the premise of this debate is flawed is because of the large degree of separation between the two things being compared.
"Yeah, being superior was defined in the debate as being better than another of the same type and type was indicated to be a living organism.
A conifer is a type of living organism and a human is a type of living organism, no?
Why can't I compare superiority between two members of the same group?"
You may have defined "type" it in no way helps to compare them. You could argue that one living organism is superior to another living organism that exists within the same group, but a conifer and a human do not exist in the same kingdom let alone the same taxonomic group.
"Thanks for the fact, but this is irrelevant because the superiority is being weighed between two types of living organisms not two taxonomic ranks.
Superiority mentions nothing about taxonomic ranks, yet it does mention others of the same type, and humans and conifers are both types of living organisms."
The reason i mentioned taxonomic ranks was to point out the fact that these two things that you are attempting to compare are so different from one another that superiority can not be properly established.
As someone who used to prepare taxes for a living i can assure you that a flat tax would not better. The wage difference between the highest, middle, and lowest earners in this country are too large for there to ever be a single tax rate that works well for all taxpayers. This is the reason why we do not use it, and if you believe that the issue with our tax system is that people aren't paying their fair share, then you should argue to eliminate peoples ability to classify themselves as a corporation in order to pay a lower tax then they otherwise would.
The premise of this debate is flawed from the start, whether it was done purposefully or accidentally is irrelevant. The instigator is trying to argue that order of living organisms is superior to one specific organism. An order of species is three taxonomic ranks above a species, in this case there are over 700 species of conifers that live all around the world and can be traced back to 300,000,000 years ago. Humans, while we do live in most of the world have been around as a species for about 200,000 years. How is there any objective way to compare one order of species with one specific species of animal, these two organisms aren't even in the same kingdom of organisms. It would be ridiculous to even assume such a thing could properly be done.
That is more or less my stance. I believe that captain america is physically and tactically superior to batman, however batman does have the resource advantage. Yet i have had too many batman fanboys argue against me, which is why i made the post.
sorry i was going to be taking captain Americas side, again this is my first time with this and i should have made my position clearer. Also the reason i didn't allow upfront knowledge is because it would cause too much trouble trying to figure out how much information one could pull up on the other. However Batman is no pushover, he is arguably the best hand to hand combatant in the DCU, he is a brilliant strategist able to come up with plans on the spot, his speed and strength are also incredible for someone who is supposed to be a human with no meta human abilities or artificial assistance, not to mention his vast array of tools built into his suit and in his utility belt.
I believe that the first couple of rounds should be used to establish a baseline on what each one can and can not do as well as what attributes one has over the other.
I know this wasn't a serious debate, but i wanted to have more of a back and forth at the very least. Since my opponent did not respond much it left me with nothing to argue against. I understand that this could be partially due to the holiday season being a bit more hectic than we would like and therefore do not fault him.
Thank you for voting. I would like to have argued this a bit more but i didn't really get points to argue against.
I understand.
I have nothing against MagicAintReal, we had a very pleasant conversation before i cast this vote and must ask that people not judge his character based on this one debate.
That link did have more information that you posted but it didnt have actual data that i could look at, just the claims that you made. I am not saying that you are lying or that you are in anyway wrong, just that you still have not given me a reliable source for where you get your information on the fairtax model. This is through no fault of your own as i am sure that you are not in anyway responsible for the issues that FAIRTAX.org is experiencing.
I went to Fairtax.org, it seems their website needs some work. When click on the link provided for me to learn more about how their taxing system would work, i get taken to a page that says "This XML file does not appear to have any style information associated with it.". Could you perhaps help me figure out how the systems works since it seems you were able to attain the information for yourself. From what i can see i would be paying 23% of my total household income, that is more than i ever have.
I apologize for the way in which i submitted my vote. I was informed after i posted my vote that i did so in a way that went against the rules of this forum.
Could you tell me how a consumption tax is fair?
sorry for the delay, it looks like the issue has been fixed
"By comparing them as two living organisms.
It's like when you compare a human cell to a plant cell in biology.
Yes plants are an entire kingdom and yes a human is only one species of animal, but the two organismic cells can still be compared because both the kingdom of plants and the species of human contain types of cellular organisms.
Make sense?"
Comparing a human cell to a plant cell would be a lot simpler. However there are about 200 different cell types in the human body, by comparison, conifers have a fractional amount of cell types.
"Your inability to imagine how it could be properly done, doesn't make it ridiculous."
With all due respect, the reason i find the premise ridiculous is based on my study of taxonomy and zoology.
The main reason i think the premise of this debate is flawed is because of the large degree of separation between the two things being compared.
"Yeah, being superior was defined in the debate as being better than another of the same type and type was indicated to be a living organism.
A conifer is a type of living organism and a human is a type of living organism, no?
Why can't I compare superiority between two members of the same group?"
You may have defined "type" it in no way helps to compare them. You could argue that one living organism is superior to another living organism that exists within the same group, but a conifer and a human do not exist in the same kingdom let alone the same taxonomic group.
"Thanks for the fact, but this is irrelevant because the superiority is being weighed between two types of living organisms not two taxonomic ranks.
Superiority mentions nothing about taxonomic ranks, yet it does mention others of the same type, and humans and conifers are both types of living organisms."
The reason i mentioned taxonomic ranks was to point out the fact that these two things that you are attempting to compare are so different from one another that superiority can not be properly established.
test
I am having some issues posting on this forum
As someone who used to prepare taxes for a living i can assure you that a flat tax would not better. The wage difference between the highest, middle, and lowest earners in this country are too large for there to ever be a single tax rate that works well for all taxpayers. This is the reason why we do not use it, and if you believe that the issue with our tax system is that people aren't paying their fair share, then you should argue to eliminate peoples ability to classify themselves as a corporation in order to pay a lower tax then they otherwise would.
The premise of this debate is flawed from the start, whether it was done purposefully or accidentally is irrelevant. The instigator is trying to argue that order of living organisms is superior to one specific organism. An order of species is three taxonomic ranks above a species, in this case there are over 700 species of conifers that live all around the world and can be traced back to 300,000,000 years ago. Humans, while we do live in most of the world have been around as a species for about 200,000 years. How is there any objective way to compare one order of species with one specific species of animal, these two organisms aren't even in the same kingdom of organisms. It would be ridiculous to even assume such a thing could properly be done.
That is more or less my stance. I believe that captain america is physically and tactically superior to batman, however batman does have the resource advantage. Yet i have had too many batman fanboys argue against me, which is why i made the post.
sorry i was going to be taking captain Americas side, again this is my first time with this and i should have made my position clearer. Also the reason i didn't allow upfront knowledge is because it would cause too much trouble trying to figure out how much information one could pull up on the other. However Batman is no pushover, he is arguably the best hand to hand combatant in the DCU, he is a brilliant strategist able to come up with plans on the spot, his speed and strength are also incredible for someone who is supposed to be a human with no meta human abilities or artificial assistance, not to mention his vast array of tools built into his suit and in his utility belt.
What do you mean outruling
I believe that the first couple of rounds should be used to establish a baseline on what each one can and can not do as well as what attributes one has over the other.