BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
birthright citizenship should be abolished in the U.S.

1) Illegal babies are harmful to the economyThis argument was that illegal immigrants harm the economy by having babies in the US and then using birthright citizenship for the illegals to keep their kids in the US thus having them consume US services. I provided abundant proof showing that illegal immigrants do offset their own burden they put on the economy. Since illegal immigrants do not have a negative impact on the economy, birthright citizenship should not be abolished since it does not harm the economy. 2) HypocriticalMy entire arguments have been that all men are born with rights and that rights are not earned from generation to generation. Making people have to earn birthright citizenship and earn other rights is completely contrary to how we as a nation have gotten our rights in the first place. People shouldnt have to earn their rights and I never said that people should have to earn their rights, which is a reason why birthright citizenship shouldnt be abolished sicne rights are not something one has to earn.3) Other countries dont have birth right citizenshipThe point of this argument is that there is no valid reason why just because other nations dont honor certain rights the US shouldnt honor them either. There is also the argument that countries that do abolish birthright citizenship suffer economic backlash immediately afterwards, giving another reason why birthright citizenship should not be abolished. The Pro hasnt even addressed this point. 4) Birthright citizenship and racism"Because these people are coming here to have children, their neighbors for example, may engage in racist activities and stereotypical activities, which promotes racism and does nothing good."You're arguing that birthright citizenship causes racism, I have pointed out that racists cause racism. Then you completely misinterpret what I said by saying "when you abolish birthright citizenship, you are harming the welfare of average people, which is a Pro point."So not only does my argument that birthright citizenship doesnt cause racism stand, but the Pro has single handedly admitted that abolishing birthright citizenship hurts people, which is a reason why it should NOT be abolished..."I would like to ask my opponent, Do you understand the resolution?"To answer your question, yes I do. I am CON abolishing birthright citizenship, you are PRO abolish birthright citizenship. However all you have done is claim that my arguments help your case and that I do not understand the resolution even though my arguments go against abolishing birthright citizenship
birthright citizenship should be abolished in the U.S.

i do not think that my opponent understands that his arguments are FOR the abolition of birthright citizenship, that is why i have not answered them, if you do not agree, i will explain. 1. Illegal babies are harmful to the economy- this is a Pro point because this is saying that yes birthright citizenship hurts the economy so we should abolish it. 2. its hypocritical, basically that it should be earned- also a Pro point, it proves that we should not have birthright citizenship and that it should be earned. 3. other countries don't have this right- exactly, other countries dont have this right, so why should we have it? 4. it promotes racism- this contention is not well enough explained, so i believe i know what my opponent is saying, and yes, you guessed it, its a Pro argument. This shows that when you abolish birthright citizenship, you are harming the welfare of average people, which is a Pro point. I would like to ask my opponent, Do you understand the resolution? you are saying that it shouldn't be abolished not that it should. Now, read your case, obviously, you are arguing for the Pro, so my opponent agrees with me so i have to win because he even agrees with me. Thank you.
birthright citizenship should be abolished in the U.S.

" I would also like to just ask my opponent why he knows i was on here 16 hours ago, just asking"I was online when the forfeited round alerted me. I went to your profile to see when the last time you were online was. It was listed at 16 hours after you forfeited the round you had 3 days to submit........"Extend all of MY arguments because he never answered them, all of his arguments are invalid because i have proven that nothing is wrong with birthright citizenship."All my arguments completely debunked yours since mine were actually backed by facts and common sense...."IT SEEMS MY OPPONENT CAN NOT READ, HE IS ON THE CON SIDE OF THIS RESOLUTION, AND ALL OF HIS ARGUMENTS ARE FOR THE PRO"#1, take your finger off the shift key#2, my arguments most certainly are against the abolition of birthright citizenshipFirst argument: Illegal immigrants benefit society so abolishing birthright citizenship on the grounds that they harm the economy is irrationalSecond argument: Rights are literally things that all people are entitled to and dont have to earn them to enjoy them. Repealing birthright citizenship because people should have to earn their rights goes against centuries of how US citizens have come to enjoy and appreciate the rights their ancestors fought to give them. Third Argument: Just because other countries dont have it doesnt mean America should automatically try to be more like them, especially since it is shown that countries that did abolish birthright citizenship suffered economic setbacks. Fourth Argument: Birthright Citizenship doesnt promote racism since racism is caused by racists, not birthright citizenship"I WANTED TO BE NICE AND TELL HIM THIS NOW, BUT IMAGINE IF I DIDN'T, WE WOULD GO THROUGH THIS ENTIRE DEBATE WITH BOTH OF US ARGUING FOR THE SAME SIDE, WHICH IS MINE, HE IS LUCKY I BROUGHT THIS UP."This is why weed shouldnt be legalized...."YOU SHOULD STILL NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ANYTHING HE SAYS IN THE NEXT FEW SPEECHES BECAUSE IF HE BRINGS UP ARGUMENTS THAT ARE FOR HIS SIDE, THAT IS UNFAIR BECAUSE I WILL ONLY HAVE 2 ROUNDS TO ANSWER IS ARGUMENTS AND HE HAS 4 TO ANSWER MINE"Now wait a second, you forfeited a round you had 3 days to complete, and you were online 16 hours before that round expired so that was your own fault. Dont use your own laziness to try to cry for a sympathy vote when you could have just as easily submitted arguments this round like any normal person who actually knows how to debate...." i was having a busy schedule which included debating at Harvard between Friday-Monday, and then having school and debate on Tuesday"If you spend so much time debating how come your record for debating on here is 0 for 3, your grammar is dreadful, and you dont cite any evidence at all?I apologize to voters for the actions of the Pro, I extend all my arguments which went unrefuted....
birthright citizenship should be abolished in the U.S.

I apologize for not being able to say anything in the last round i was having a busy schedule which included debating at Harvard between Friday-Monday, and then having school and debate on Tuesday, which brought us to today. I would also like to just ask my opponent why he knows i was on here 16 hours ago, just asking. Please read the rest of this message, it is very important and is a HUGE voting issue in this round. Extend all of MY arguments because he never answered them, all of his arguments are invalid because i have proven that nothing is wrong with birthright citizenship. AND THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT: IT SEEMS MY OPPONENT CAN NOT READ, HE IS ON THE CON SIDE OF THIS RESOLUTION, AND ALL OF HIS ARGUMENTS ARE FOR THE PRO, BECAUSE OF THIS, I OBVIOUSLY WIN BECAUSE HE AGREES WITH ME. THIS COULD POSSIBLY BE EVEN MORE IMPORTANT: I WANTED TO BE NICE AND TELL HIM THIS NOW, BUT IMAGINE IF I DIDN'T, WE WOULD GO THROUGH THIS ENTIRE DEBATE WITH BOTH OF US ARGUING FOR THE SAME SIDE, WHICH IS MINE, HE IS LUCKY I BROUGHT THIS UP.
Planned Parenthood should be defunded by the USFG

Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Contentions, no rebuttalsRound 3: More contentions, no rebuttalsRound 4: Rebuttals. No defense of arguments allowedRound 5: Defense of argumentsRules1. Please keep the discussion of the morality of abortion out of this debate, for it is an entire different topic and it would make the discussion far to broad. I want to have a discussion about Planned Parenthood and not morals of abortion.2. Don't troll.3. Keep your arguments on topic, while K's are allowed if you are making a K keep it as relevant as you can.4. No forfeiture.5. No semantics. If you accept this debate you agree to the terms layed out by myself.Failure to follow these rules results in full forfeiture of 7 points to the opposing side.6. Follow the agreed to debate structure.Terms-USFG- United States Fedearl GovernmentPlanned Parenthood- The non-profit organization that offers mostly reproductive services known as Planned Parenthooddefunded- Revoked on fundingshould- implies the most beneficial optionGoodluck to you Lannan
muslims believe enough about Jesus 2 be saved by christianity

In regards, that we agree a Muslim is not a Muslim because he or another human being claims it is so, or because he believes that the Quran or any other holy scriptures are real, But instead his Islamic Faith is determined by his true Faith in God All-mighty. Then Yes, I forfeit. However. Jesus Christ who is saintly in person, Is the Son of God, the Light of the World, the Wisdom of God, and thus only through believing in him can you worship, acknowledge or be saved by God. (* this does not change any prayer or religion or person, this is how reality has always been manifested, and in this way, Things have been made clear. *) "What Muslim can one point out to me? What Christian have I seen!? Show me a man who is not Pagan saying, God is many, the God of Christians and the God of Jews and the God of Muslims!!! For truly I see no wisdom in man!" ~ Gord
muslims believe enough about Jesus 2 be saved by christianity

The Magical Formula: The answer tot he debate question is no. "Muslims" do believe enough in Jesus to be saved. This is not to say, and I am not arguing that, Muslims cannot or will not, have not been saved. I am saying that as a Muslim, their faith in The the Saintly Figure Jesus will not be their salvation by any means. And that they will be humbled. ** A man is saved when accepts the message of God. ** Thus, a man is saved when he received Jesus, because he is such a message. He is the Wisdom of God itself. ** A Muslim is entirely capable of being completely disregarded by God, such as, a Muslim that marries a child but says to himself, "My God is not a God who loves chastity, and I am married so I may go into this girl now while she is young, Or if not, I will take her for myself because it is what III desire! and the will of my wife is subject to my own!" that is blasphemy and this Muslim believes nothing of Jesus and should and will likely be punished. Likewise, this example is very easy to interpret and believe, but many examples exist. And by disbelieving in God's true message and being a blasphemous shrew, any Muslim can be said to not even be ISLAMIC! So. truly. I lose this debate. For a true Muslim is a Christian, but being Muslim as what has been accepted as Muslim grants no man salvation or protection. For he is as a pagan who follows blindly a false religion.
muslims believe enough about Jesus 2 be saved by christianity

muslims believe enough about Jesus to be saved by christianity they believe he was born of a virgin, died and was raised up to God. they believe he performed miracles. ===================== here is a debate where i say the required threshhold of faith to be saved as chistians is not clear. but we often say there has to be a 'holistic' approach, which could be said to save muslims. unless you go without reason to require things like "jesus is my savior" as a required tenant. the requirements are either too vague, or too listy/dogmatic. the bible says if you confess with your mouth jesus is lord, and beleive in your heart that he was raised from the dead you will be saved. it also say if you believe in the lord you will be saved. it also has all kinds of other statements. i'm sure if you do these, that is sufficient. but what about various other scenarios, like the content of 'sinner's prayers' that dont include those things? what or where exactly is the threshhold? if you believe he existed or is God is that enough? probably not cause the bible says demons do likewise. what about a list of of common beleifs? that you rely on him generally, that he is your savior, that you are a sinner, that he is lord, tha he rose from the dead, that he was incarnated, that he is God, that he is the son of God, that you believe you are saved (plenty of christians say you must believe you are saved, or you aren't saved), substitutionary atonement v 'christus victor' etc etc. ask different christians, get a different answer, almost every time. they just have 'gut feelings' but dont have firm answers. see past debates from me on this topic, and you'll note a different answer pretty much every time. some say you have to admit you're a sinner and that he is your savior. what if you believed all the other things and not these? or what if you believe you're a sinner, and that he's a savior, but not that he's God, or a various type of atonement belief. eg, chrsitaus victor v substitutionary. some say that he is God is required, some say legal substitution is mandatory. and how do you demarcate the requirements for those who are new to the faith, and those who are really knowledgeable? it might be seen a okay for a newbie to miss a thing or two, but less understandable for the expreinced etc. does this come into play? so what's the magical formula?
muslims believe enough about Jesus 2 be saved by christianity

Claiming to be Muslim does not make one Muslim. Thinking one is Muslim does not make one Muslim. A Muslim believes the true message of God which he speaks to one in secret and in the open places. as Abraham did not have neither The Light nor the Book, he is still regarded as Muslim not because he believed the same things as Muslims, but because he Believed in the truth! and so. Because a Muslim cannot be a Muslim unless he accepts Jesus, who is the Light of the World, First son of God, and Wisdom of the Cosmos, Dairygirl4us2c Wins this debate, despite her lack of conduct.
Newsweek: Evangelical Christians Time as a Major Political Force Is Coming to an End

First of all, I would like to say this, I only wish this were true, These are awful people evil and stupid, And dangerous to our liberal democratic society. I will concende this the influence and number of secualr people and ism has grown, But evangelicals are still the back bone of this nation and they will not go quietly, And let us not oforget they are extemely stupid hostille paranoid and violent, They have guns. . They will not go quietly but i am on the side of those trying to get rid of them
Golden Goose Sneakers to

"Society is fundamentally responsible for capitalism," says Derrida. Baudrillard uses the term "dialectic rationalism" to denote the difference between art and society. "Sexuality is meaningless," says Marx; however, according to Werther[1] , it is not so much sexuality that is meaningless, but rather the rubicon, and some would say the stasis, of sexuality. However, the subject is interpolated into a Lyotardist narrative that includes truth as a paradox. Many discourses concerning dialectic rationalism exist. Therefore, Lacan uses the term "capitalist nationalism" to denote the role of the reader as artist. Bataille suggests the use of dialectic rationalism to attack class divisions. It could be said that Foucault uses the term "Lyotardist narrative" to denote not desituationism, but subdesituationism. A number of theories concerning a postmaterial totality may be discovered. Therefore, the subject is contextualised into a cultural Marxism that includes art as a reality. Any number of discourses concerning capitalist nationalism exist. 2. Neocapitalist semiotic theory and subcapitalist capitalism "Sexual identity is intrinsically unattainable," says Debord. However, the subject is interpolated into a subcapitalist capitalism that includes culture as a whole. The primary theme of the works of Eco is the futility, and eventually the genre, of dialectic class. If one examines postcultural narrative, one is faced with a choice: either reject subcapitalist capitalism or conclude that reality is part of the meaninglessness of culture. Thus, Buxton[2] suggests that we have to choose between Lyotardist narrative and precultural deconstruction. The main theme of Abian"s[3] model of capitalist nationalism is not discourse, as Lyotardist narrative suggests, but neodiscourse. Therefore, subcapitalist capitalism states that the purpose of the participant is deconstruction. The subject is contextualised into a Lyotardist narrative that includes sexuality as a paradox. But Baudrillard"s essay on capitalist nationalism implies that the law is fundamentally a legal fiction. The subject is interpolated into a subtextual sublimation that includes narrativity as a reality. In a sense, Derrida uses the term "capitalist nationalism" to denote the bridge between sexual identity and art. Lyotardist narrative states that language may be used to entrench hierarchy, given that narrativity is equal to language. But the dialectic, and subsequent collapse, of materialist postpatriarchial theory which is a central theme of Eco"s The Island of the Day Before emerges again in The Name of the Rose, although in a more self-falsifying sense. Sartre uses the term "Lyotardist narrative" to denote a mythopoetical paradox.
Golden Goose Sneakers to

cardholders may use [b]http://www.goldengoosedeal.com... [/b] the corporate credit card for the purchase of other goods and services associated with official University business activities. "The information provided to the national human trafficking hotline by community members and victims is data that can then be used to make it harder for traffickers to operate. While the celebrations did not include any alcohol, we're sure Jinger indulged in some ginger ale. You wanna be a gangster and do awful things to society then society should have the right to put you on the fast bus to Antartica Prison colony where you will remain until your heart beats no more. Ultimately he chose to work with a video camera, from which he extracts highresolution photographs. Among respondents who were primed to feel afraid, the impact of sexism on support for Trump was smaller, compared withrespondents primed to feel [url=http://www.goldengoosedeal.com...][b]Golden Goose Sneakers[/b][/url] angry or relaxed. Customers can choose products ranging from milk to cottage cheese, yogurt to string cheese all organic, minimally processed and produced with milk from grassfed cows at local farms, said Ewer. The Lamborghini test driver Valentino Balboni whose name appears on a specialedition Gallardo plays the gated shifter like the maestro he is, but it is something that even mere mortals can do in this LP5602.
Though experiments are important.

Sweet! Thank you, you as well Samreay. a. If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, it does not make a noise.Can trees make noise?No, a falling tree does not make a noise itself; simply falls.On the way down, it breaks branched and looses leaves, but never did the tree itself make a noise. When the tree collides with its surrounding area, there is a disturbance in surrounding air pressure. More commonly known as sound waves.These sound waves, or vibrations, don't make noise untill they are picked up by a perciever. It's not a noise until it finds an ear or a microphone.If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, it does not make a noise.The conclusion is generally rationalist.b. It would be morally right to leave train switch.Consequentialist or non consequentialist?When faced with the decision, it is heroic to flick the switch to save the many. However, when flicking the swich, the 'flicker' becomes personally responsible for the death of the one.When deciding via consequentialism, there is no action wrong in itself, and little sense of right and wrong.The 'flicker' would have used the one as a means to an end. When the action of killing is understood as wrong in itself, the flicker can do nothing.It would be morally right to leave train switch.This conclusion is non-consequentialist .c. The chicken does come before the egg. What would happen if...A researcher placed an egg alone in the wild? Eggs need warmth and care. When a baby chick hatches, it's every need is met by another.An egg can't survive to be a chicken when alone in the wild.The chicken does come before the egg. This conclusion rides on empiricism.
Though experiments are important.

I will be arguing in support of the following three statements:If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, it does not make a noise.A train is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the train down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. It would be morally right to avoid the switch and leave the train on it's current track.The chicken does come before the egg.Acceptance means:You will argue against each of the three claims made.You are aware this is one of my very first ‘formal’ debates.Rounds:I. AcceptanceII. ArgumentIII. RebuttalsIV. Rebuttals and conclusionMost importantly; teach something, learn something, and enjoy it.
An non interventionist strategy is the best way to curb population growth

I negate the resolution: "An non interventionist strategy is the best way to curb population growth" BETTER WAYS TO CURB POPULATION GROWTH: 1) Mass genocide -Mass genocide would kill lots of people, thus curbing population growth. Killing millions and millions of people would surely curb the population better than non interventionism. 2) World War -A World War would work even better in curbing the population, because all countries in the world would be involved. Tens of millions dieing around the world would surely curb the population better than non interventionism. 3) Nuke stuff -Nuke yourself, nuke others, hell, nuke the moon. Either way, it kills millions of people. And is most definetely a better way at curbing population growth than non interventionism. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttals.
An non interventionist strategy is the best way to curb population growth

We have a population crisis on our hands whether people want to accept it or not, let alone openly talk about it. The human populace will reach an unsustainable level at some point in the future if it continues to grow at the same exponential rate of 1.2% (1). My side of the argument is that we should not adopt strategies to tackle the problem but rather leave it to nature. This would take place through a series of natural checks like the ones set out by Thomas Malthus in his Principle of Population essays. These checks would include famine, drought, disease whilst not excluding other social factors that would arise from an increase of population. These social factors which would curb population include wars over resource scarcity, and general ground level murder and violence that would arise from increasing pressure on communities. This in my opinion is the better route to follow rather than the interventionist route. I may sound morally corrupt and very callous, but I believe that the majority of people would not be in favour of the amount of infringement on liberties by the government that would be needed to tackle such a problem. Any one wishing to take part in this debate should first agree with the premise that the human population will outgrow the earth's providing capacity if it carries on growing at the same rate. I am not debating whether or not the earth has a optimum population because I would hope my opponent would be rational enough to agree that it does. I look forward to being challenged. (1) Page 3 http://www.un.org...