BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
U.S. Immigration policy is too harsh on the southern border

Do you have locks on your doors? Do you allow anyone to just enter your house and do as they please? And if they come into your house does that make them part of your family? No. If a non-family member wants to come into your house they must first knock. If you determine that they wont do you harm, you may invite them in. If they want to become part of the family, you would want to know that they would contribute - do chores, etc. and actually become part of the family rather than just a roommate. You would want them to care about their new family name, your house, and all that goes along with it. So is it their right to come into your home and join your family, or a privilege? Or do you not allow everyone into your home? Would you allow just anyone to become part of your family because you are wealthier than them? Based on your argument, this means that you see them as unequal to you if you answer no to these two questions. So what if the immigrant is a serial killer or rapist? should we bring them in? Ok, so we dont let those people in...but how are we to know who comes in (or where to find them) if we have an open door? Yes, i understand why they want to be here, and that doesnt make them bad people, but it doesnt change the fact that they are breaking the law. but wait! HERE'S THE GOOD NEWS!!!! Immigrants CAN become citizens, and they can be successful, rich, happy Americans. There is a process by which they can be naturalized, and that is a great thing for all. How many rags to riches stories have you heard of immigrants becoming Americans and being very successful? In your arguments, you seem to suggest that it is near impossible for immigrants to become citizens of the US, but thousands of people do it every year. When national security, economics, and other issues are so greatly affected lowering the bar is NOT an option. a few notes about some statements you made: "By the way, there are many other ways of getting to America... for example, they just found a huge tunnel, so even if the wall does some help, it won't do much. Where there's a will, there's a way" So people who want to break out of prison bad enough can find a way, that doesnt mean that we shouldnt do all we can to prevent it from happening (and for the record, no im not in any way implying that immigrants are comparable to inmates...dont even go there) also, you say: "when the victims of injustice come knocking on our door, is it right not to free them?" based on this statement how the heck can you be against the war in Iraq? They were victims of great injustice (ruthless dictator, the murdered kurds, secret police, tortured civilians) So you cannot doubletalk and defend both...sorry for getting off topic but this is a whole different debate...
U.S. Immigration policy is too harsh on the southern border

I am going to have to disagree with you when you said that being a citizen of this country is a privilege and not a right. As far as I am concerned (and as you should be too unless you are racist) all men (and women) are created equal. So why is it that because I am born within the boundaries of the U.S. that I get to benefit off of the wonderful freedoms that this country gives me, but someone who was born south of the border does not? If all men were truly created equal, shouldn't they be allowed to have what I have? If they are denied it as they are now, isn't that a sign of the country treating MANKIND, not illegals or immigrants or any other degrading term, but men who are supposed to be equal, unequally? They have just as much of a right to be here as you and me do. what is so dehumanizing about closing off the border, is that we are excluding our brothers from the great opportunity and wealth that can be achieved just by living in this country. One thing that bugs me about your arguments is that you look at the illegal immigrants as bad people. Well, here is a wake up call. THEY DON'T WANT TO TAKE AWAY YOUR FREEDOM. Is it so wrong for them to want a piece of the pie? If you were in their shoes and you were poor with only a slum of a village to stay in, you would look at America and say, "that's where I want to be." If they won't take you legally, you'll go illegally. After all you have nothing to lose. What happened to freedom? Why is it that only a select few can be free? Is it right to turn a cheek to the injustice in this world, and when the victims of injustice come knocking on our door, is it right not to free them? The one problem with people in this country is that they have lost touch with reality. No more helping the ones who need it, only help yourself. By the way, there are many other ways of getting to America... for example, they just found a huge tunnel, so even if the wall does some help, it won't do much. Where there's a will, there's a way
U.S. Immigration policy is too harsh on the southern border

Let me begin by saying that it is a privilege to be allowed to become a citizen of this country - not a right. No government has to allow people in, and when the country in question is the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, the privilege of becoming a citizen has even greater worth. As we have already established, it is necessary to have a process of legalizing immigrants rather than allowing all in, so here are reasons why the legalization process is difficult. - the admitance test should be challenging. Im not at all saying it should be near impossible to pass, but it should require studying of the testable info. It is important that new citizens understand the history of this country and the basics of our government. Which is the basis for the next two points: -This allows them to better contribute to society and the political process. This is another reason for the tediousness of the process. When there is a pool of billions who want in, those who become citizens should prove that they can and will contribute to society. The best way of doing this is to teach them many vital aspects of the US. -Also, the more one knows about their new home, the more a "part" of it they feel, which leads to greater assimilation. Assimilation is vital to our country's survival (united we stand,devided we fall)- if new citizens dont become part of the American culture then it creates division and competition among groups (im not saying that immigrants should forget their native culture either). -I want those who apply for citizenship to be scrutinized. Not just anyone should be allowed in. As i previously stated, it is a privilege. I dont want other country's criminals and others that will contribute to problems in our country. Also, this step of the process is even more critical post 9/11 for obvious reasons. Yes, the process is long, tedious, and slow; and i concede that it is not perfect. But for many reasons it requires more than just a sign-in book to become a legal citizen. A few quick notes on other comments you made: I beleive that it should be mandatory for immigrants to speak and read english (at least enough to operate in society). Not being able to speak the country's primary language (basically im proposing english should be the national language) obviously leads to many problems. The proposed fence is a double fence meaning a two fences with a patrolled space between (in addition to the patrolled US side). The design and proper implementation of the fence would be very effective and would make a difference.
U.S. Immigration policy is too harsh on the southern border

Wow...where do i begin? first, one of the sole purposes of a government is to protect ITS citizens. A government cannot allow anyone and everyone in who wants in without going through the proper channels. This means that if an immigrant wants to become a citizen, there is a means of doing so, in which they will then recieve all the rights of a natural born citizen. along with protection, it is necessary for a government to know who is coming into the country. Are you suggesting that we allow any and all to just walk across the border and call themselves a citizen? that would have been great for America during the cold war when soviet spies and sabatours could just walk right in and out to never be found again. This goes for terrorists today as well. Is it worth risking American's lives? Illegal immagrants are breaking the law...PERIOD. besides that fact, should not an American wanting a job take precedence over that of an illegal? Is it fair that illegals should be allowed to live in this country and reap all the benefits without paying taxes like everyone else? Also, an increase in illegal immigration is directly proportional to an increase in crime. Besides the negative effects of that fact alone, this leads to a strain on government resources - police, jails, etc. which are paid for by taxes, which are bad enough, but lead to a strain on funding for other needed things. And you think the US gov. is too tough? I say make it tougher, build a fence, do what is necessary to reduce illegal immigration.
Morals Exist Without Religion

I accept your apology. Now, if morals are completely dependent on the agenda of the stronger power, what is this stronger power you refer to if it is not God? It seems that you only think of religion as Christianity, which is not true. Also, what you say about the Bible is wrong. You have not thoroughly researched enough to get your facts straight. The Bible does not say that we should judge others and discriminate. In fact, it is completely against it. I see your basis for stating that the Bible teaches us Christians to stone homosexuals is the Old Testament, whose teachings are virtually irrelevant to today's world. Instead, shift your focus to the New Testament. Its teachings are more updated, morally sound and more logical. Plus, the New Testament was written during the period when God the Son (who goes by the name Jesus) came to earth. Back to your statement 'that is not a good moral to follow'. To begin with, the outdated teaching that says that homosexuals should be stoned and killed is NOT a moral. Rather, it is an (obsolete) rule. It is a punishment for those who refuse to follow the moral of being heterosexual.
Morals Exist Without Religion

First off I apologize, I sounded somewhat hostile in my Round 2 opening. This was not my intention. Morals are completely dependent on the agenda of the stronger power. Both sides of a war claim that they are correct and that its the other side that is immoral and bad. obviously there is no set objective morality. It always is changing based on what people want. As for morality and religion, what religion teaches is terrible. For example, lets follow the morals in the Bible. The Bible says we should judge others and discriminate. If we followed the Bible people would be stoned left and right for stupid things. According to the Bible homosexuals should be stoned and killed. That is not a good moral to follow.
Morals Exist Without Religion

According to you, if morals did derive from religion, how would the world be a thousand times worse? Morals exist because man realized that he wanted to maximize his life, which is to do good. There would be no point in causing chaos and mayhem among others, which would cause unnecessary stress and other negative emotions. I pose you this question out of sheer curiosity: how can morality exist without God? You are right in saying that objective morality fails to exist. But you are wrong in saying that religion has nothing to do with morality. Religion is, in fact, based on morality. Why else would religion exist? What man is so powerful to have influenced on the world what is right and what is wrong? This is why I believe God is the reason for morality existing. (I hope you have realized that you have foolishly misused the word 'than' in the past rounds, the proper word being 'then'.)
There is No Evidence in Favor of evo THEORY

https://en.wikipedia.org... - Savannahs are bred between servals and domestic cats. They can then breed with other domestic cats to produce less wild Savannahs.Looks like you still have failed to refute my opening. Fossilization works when empty areas in an organism are filled with minerals. That is not exactly complex.Speciation happened in a lab - did God intervene? I don't see the need for a God in order for random mutations to genetically isolate a species. http://darwinwasright.org... "You lost the debate"I'll let the judges decide that. I ask them to look at the comments as well.Now that I have shown you the Savannah cat, where's my 2 bitcoins($5000)?
There is No Evidence in Favor of evo THEORY

Inter-species propogation is required for evo THEORY to be true unless you don't understand it. "Savannah cats are an example." You mentioned housecoats and Savannah cats. Are you alleging that housecoats and Savannah cats have ever produced genetically viable offspring? If so, then please provide evidence for that claim. Lions and tigers have bred to create infertile "tigons" in captivity. Yes, and infertile tigons are not a genetically viable species. You lost the debate.
There is No Evidence in Favor of evo THEORY

Alright, so you want me to refute that video! Fine.First, read my previous statement in full for evidence of evolution.Inter-species propogation is not required for evolution unless you don't understand it. Evolution is about the development of new species through a series of beneficial mutations leading to genetic isolation.As for two species which have successfully propogated - it depends on what you mean by successful.Housecats and wildcats (different species) have been bred to create fertile children, though with varying degrees of success - Savannah cats are an example.Lions and tigers have bred to create infertile "tigons" in captivity.But let me remind you - those have little to do with evolution.The link that Ockham gave you is a list of Wikipedia articles detailing these hybrids - take a look at those.
There is No Evidence in Favor of evo THEORY

I don't plan to watch that video, becuase it is age-restricted by YouTube.Could you perhaps summarise yout point?Even creationists agree that there is evidence for evolution (and yes, it's a theory, meaning that it's not a hypothesis and is supported by some evidence). Let's go over some of it.1. FossilsThere is a clear and documented progression of fossils throughout the fossil record, including hundreds of fossils of transitional species like Ambulocetus natans(pakicetid to whale) and Homo habilis(Gorilla-like ape to human).2. Microevolutionary experimentsThere have been experiments in which new species are created in a lab - in fact, several have been done with flies. New species can develop in small, isolated populations of flies after several years.Ever wonder why you have to get new flu shots every year? It's because the flu virus is evolving to evade detection by your immune system, and flu shots boost the ability of said system to detect the new virus.Also, if you watch news regularly, you've heard of a strand of bacteria that cannot be killed by any known antibiotic.If (as is very likely) life on earth has been aroud for billions of years, it is probable that evolution happened on a larger scale.3. ImperfectionThe human body has several "vestigial" organs - organs with no clear purpose. The wisdom teeth, tailbone, and some ligaments are examples.Also, there are several examples of "bad design" such as the fact that images are reflected on the retina upside-down and that the brain is more emotion-driven than reason-driven.
Abortion

No, in fact, the names used as the heading for the Supreme Court case Roe V Wade are meaningless. It doesn't matter that one person involved with the case has changed her mind. The key here is when life begins. You contend, I assume, that life begins at conception. At which point an embryo is merely half egg, half sperm. As I mentioned before, 99% of abortions occur in the first trimester. When the embryo is the size of a bean. Most states regulate abortion at 20 weeks, just after the embryo's nervous system has started to form. I agree with this logic, as well as with exceptions for rape, life of the mother, etc. It is statistical fact that outlawing abortion will only increase illegal and unsafe abortions. Besides, 1 in 5 children live in poverty today. It seems anti-abortionists care only for a child's life until it is out of the womb. Abortions should be limited by providing free birth control and sex education across the country. But any decision dealing with a person's body is that person's choice alone.
Gun control is a stupid idea

Cherry-picking data that only supports your agenda is still a biased source. I can list all sorts of cherry-picked seemingly unbiased sources opposing gun control. For example: "* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18] http://www.justfacts.com... And "More guns, less crime. In the decade of the 1990s, the number of guns in this country increased by roughly 40 million"even while the murder rate decreased by almost 40% percent.7 Accidental gun deaths in the home decreased by almost 40 percent as well.(8)" http://gunowners.org... There's no shortage of sources cherry-picking. I can throw out your sources for the same fallacy and sources remain inconclusive as I've stated in round 2 when I said "Gun control statistics have been debated wildly with conflicting results from each side." By focusing your argument on the IDEA of whether or not gun control is stupid, you'd have to refute my claim that by enacting gun control you'd be taking guns from law-abiding citizens. Criminals, who are not law-abiding, will smuggle guns and use them on an unarmed public. So the IDEA of gun control is stupid. Any laws, restrictions, procedures, or regulations that ordinary citizens have to go through act as a disincentive towards owning a gun and less guns will be kept by law-abiding citizens as a result. I'm not using Nazi Germany as "an appeal to extreme" fallacy. I'm using Nazi Germany as one of many examples of a tyrannical government taking over an armless public. China, Guatemala, Turkey, Cambodia, Uganda, and the Soviet Union are all examples of genocide from a tyrannical government on their armless citizens. http://www.mercyseat.net... We were originally discussing why gun control was a stupid idea and the threat of tyranny historically shows that this is yet another example of this stupidity. Our government or any government for that matter is no exemption. By opponent doesn't even try to see the sense in my drug addict analogy. Let's condense this debate on the central issue: is gun control a stupid idea? Yes. Guns prevent a tyrannical government Gun controls are a disincentive for the vast majority of responsible gun owners to own guns It's common sense to believe that criminals won't obey gun laws and use them on an armless public. It's common sense to believe that robbers seek to rob in places where they know no guns can be found. The idea of gun control is stupid.
Gun control is a stupid idea

I'll keep it short and sweet. 7 of your 8 sources were from a website with the name "gunpolicy." I can provide just as many sources using a website named "gunfreedom" except you wouldn't expect that website to produce unbiased statistics. The truth is that gun control statistics vary wildly depending on the source and how the information is displayed given the context of the information. Gun control statistics have been debated wildly with conflicting results from each side. Laws are restrictions and could serve as subtle removal of freedoms. Over the course of Nazi Germany the Nazi's leveraged existing gun control laws to round up the Jews and other minorities that they despised without a threat The constitution allows Americans the right to bear arms as a personal right because the founding fathers recognized the threat of tyranny and the need for self-defense. The threat of tyranny still exists in our modern world today and is a very valid reason for having the rights to own and use a gun. "So, here's my question: how is the right to bear arms affected by gun control? People are still allowed to bear arms, but not any kind. I mean, my opponent most certainly does not include nuclear arms in the "right to bear arms"? So, why the fixation on firearms?" When the founding fathers wrote the constitution no nuclear arms existed and it's common sense to recognize firearms or any other kind of weaponry for that matter is within your right to have. Gun control commits the fallacy of assuming that guns in circulation will be eliminated once gun control laws are enacted. They won't. They'll be in the hands of criminals who disobey the law and out of the hands of the vast majority of responsible gun owners. Consider this: imagine you're a druggie and need money. The town you live in allow guns but the town right next to you doesn't. Would you rather rob a store in your hometown or go right next door the the one that poses a much lesser threat and more successful chance of getting away with robbery? Police can't be there the moment you are confronted with somebody posing a threat to your life. Guns are self-defense for the vast majority of responsible gun owners, protection from the threat of tyranny, and common sense to acknowledge guns won't be removed from circulation once gun control laws are enacted.
Gun control is a stupid idea

Everyone advocating gun control forgets one thing. What would stop criminals from illegally obtaining guns and using it on an armless public? It's stupid and it would happen. Criminals don't obey laws. The vast, vast majority of gun owners use them appropriately and responsibly. If we take guns away from those who are responsible, who will be left with the guns? The irresponsible criminals who get them illegally. More kids die in swimming pools each year than from guns. People sensationalize every act of violence from guns and immediately call for a nationwide ban without thinking of the implications on the good citizens who have the right to bear arms.
All policemen should use tazers as a last resort.

"Here is the source you wanted about Llandudno and it's existence. http://www.llandudno.com...; This source is not reliable because it is not a government website. My opponent could have made that website while debating to prove his point true. The victim was tazed as a first resort because the song last resort by Papa Roach was not playing to show it was a last resort. So I believe tazing should be used as a first resort because it quickly solves the situation and does very minimal damage to the victim. Tazers are given to the police for a reason, to use them. Having refuted these arguments, I believe the negative ballot should be cast. Thank you for your time.
All policemen should use tazers as a last resort.

Here is the source you wanted about Llandudno and it's existence. http://www.llandudno.com... "They tazed him for what he said, if my opponent had their audio on. Therefore, my opponent is doubly incompetent. " First of all, I never said my audio wasn't on. Nonetheless, it is clear the the victim was restrained as a first resort, then he resisted, then he was tazered later. Thus debunking my opponents arguments. My opponent says that "Tazing is not that life threatening". As I have shown with evidence earlier, tazing has the potential to kill, so it is extremely life-threatening. He then goes on to try to venture off-topic and attempts to provide an alternate definition of last-resort. This shall be regarded irrelevant to the debate. Because my opponent has not adequately refuted my arguments, it can be seen that a affirmative ballot should be cast. Thank-you for your time.