BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Immigration (w/ 5 rounds)

Americans and the American government choose to limit immigration to the United States strictly out of greed and racism. Individuals in other countries face horrible conditions and only enter the United States with the wish to help their families. The extreme courage and bravery needed for immigrants to illegally enter the United States shows their heart is in improving their lives. Research across the country indicates that there is very little connection between immigrant labor and unemployment rates of American citizens. On the contrary, immigrants actually help the United States" economy; they provide a cheap source of labor and take American jobs that many native-born Americans would not even want. The cheap labor of immigrants allows products to be sold cheaper, helping the economy. The American economy today is far stronger than in the past, yet the population of foreign-born Americans is far higher than in the past. If immigrants hurt the economy, how could this be so? Research shows that when immigrant labor increases by 10%, native-born Americans face a wage reduction of only 1%, a very insignificant amount; this does not drive down the net pay of employees. Also, since undocumented immigrants currently do not receive federal benefits, immigrants" families actually add $88,000 in tax revenue per household and a total of $463 billion in social security taxes that they cannot use. While most families in the United States receive more from the government than they pay in taxes, undocumented workers are actually the opposite. The immigrants may not be the reason for the strong economy, but they should not be targeted as the scapegoats for any and all problems in the country"s economy. The idea that immigrants bring crime to the country is also false. Most illegal immigrants are law-abiding workers who just wish to live their lives. As a whole, they actually take fewer risks than native-born Americans because they have more to lose. The rate of immigrants incarcerated in the United States is actually far lower than the rate of native-born Americans in jails. Estimates of gang members and homicide warrants are skewed by those who wish to target the immigrants. William F. McDonald, a PhD of Sociology and Anthropology, noted that, "[...] The criminality of the first generation of immigrants (those who migrated as opposed to their children) is less than that of the native-born. There have been many studies in the United States and abroad that have addressed the question of the criminality of immigrants. [...] there is little reason to believe that the findings would be substantially different for illegal immigrants assuming data were available that would allow us to make the necessary statistical controls for age, sex, economic status and immigrant status. Public fears about immigrant criminality have usually not been born out by research." With these points being made and the arguments against illegal immigration proven false, there is no reason to deny immigrants citizenship besides prejudice and greed. http://www.heritage.org...... http://www.tolerance.org...... http://immigration.procon.org......
Immigration (w/ 5 rounds)

America should work to control its borders and halt the flow of illegal immigrants into this country. America should have no problem with those granted entrance to live in the nature, but there should be no room for illegals. There are more than ten million illegal immigrants in America and that number is growing by over seven hundred thousand a year. One of the main issues with illegal immigration is national security. The presence of millions of illegals distorts law, creates a cover for terrorism, and distracts resources. In Los Angeles, 95% of outstanding homicide warrants are for illegal aliens. More than 60% of gang members in Southern California are illegal immigrants. Another major issue comes with the economy. In a 2002 survey, illegal immigrant households cost the government $26 billion dollars while they only took in $16 billion in taxes. Big corporations exploit undocumented workers while taxpayers pay for the infrastructure. These undocumented workers are taking low level jobs from Americans and drive down the net pay of low level employees. George Borjas PhD and Robert Scrivner, professor of Economics and Social Policy at Harvard University have stated in an essay that "Economic theory predicts that increasing the supply of labor... will reduce earnings for natives in competition with immigrants... Statistical analysis shows that when immigration increases the supply of workers in a skill category, the earnings of native-born workers in that same category fall. The negative effect will occur regardless of whether the immigrant workers are legal or illegal, temporary or permanent. Any sizable increase in the number of immigrants will inevitably lower wages for some American workers. Conversely, reducing the supply of labor by strict immigration enforcement and reduced legal immigration would increase the earnings of native workers." Illegal immigration is a problem in America and legislators should work to control immigration. http://www.heritage.org...... http://www.discoverthenetworks.org...... http://immigration.procon.org......
Immigration (w/ 5 rounds)

There should be no such thing as illegal immigration and those individuals already in the country that are labeled as illegal immigrants should be granted amnesty. Immigrants fuel the economy, whether or not they have entered the country legally. By entering the country, immigrants join the low-cost labor pool that increases American money in circulation and government tax revenue (procon.org). Jobs that working-class Americans do not want will be taken by these immigrants, in no way taking jobs from Americans. The main argument of the opposing point of view, that immigrants hurt the American economy, is completely false. Morally, illegal immigration is wrong and without reason. Immigrants generally bring good values to the country, and it is unfair to arrest millions of immigrants due to an opposition that stems from racism (nationalreview.com). As politician Jack Kemp once pointed out, "Americans and immigrants share the same value of work, family, and opportunity. There is no reason to fear the newcomers arriving on our shores today. If anything, they will energize what is best about our country" (nationalreview.com). There is no reason to disallow immigration in this country besides from ideas of Caucasian superiority. Targeting the entire illegal immigrant population in America would fall just short of genocide, targeting and removing a whole body of people from the country. Immigration is the foundation of America and should be made completely legal for all individuals. http://www.tolerance.org...... http://immigration.procon.org......
Immigration (w/ 5 rounds)

You point out that prison numbers fluxuate and are not accurate and shouldn't be used to describe illegal immigrants as a whole. However, you are forgetting the point that illegal immigrants are concentrated in certain areas. They tend to settle near the border or in large cities. It's in these places that the prison numbers are high. You also point out amnesty. If an illegal applies while they are already in America, then they can recieve amnesty. If they go through this legal process then they should be welcomed into our nation with open arms. You say that Americans do not want the jobs that illegals. Where is the evidence of this? You offer no support for that claim. Many Americans do want these jobs and many need them to support their own families. Illegals come in and take these positions and they drive down wages as they are paid less. These people are not scapegoats for all of America's problems. But they are a part of it and that cannot be ignored. Stopping illegal immigration isn't the total solution to all of our problems, but it is definitely a step towards improvement. Our nation was founded by immigrants and those who want to immigrate to America should, but they must come in legally. There is no need for illegal immigration and all it does is hurt our nation.
Immigration (w/ 5 rounds)

Morally, illegal immigration is wrong and without reason. Immigrants generally bring good values to the country, and it is unfair to arrest millions of immigrants due to an opposition that stems from racism. Most illegal immigrants are law-abiding workers who just wish to live their lives, but there is still a racist belief that they cause crime. Estimations for the percentages of prison populations that are illegally in the country range wildly, yet even if the immigrants did appear to be more likely to commit a crime, an entire group of people cannot be targeted for the actions of a few. This is an invalid reason not to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants. Research across the country indicates that there is very little connection between immigrant labor and unemployment rates of American citizens. Undocumented workers provide a cheap source of labor and take American jobs that many native-born Americans would not even want. The cheap labor of immigrants allows products to be sold cheaper, helping the economy. By entering the country, immigrants join the low-cost labor pool that increases American money in circulation and government tax revenue. The immigrants may not be the reason for the strong economy, but they should not be targeted as the scapegoats for any and all problems in the country"s economy. There is no reason to disallow immigration in this country besides from ideas of Caucasian superiority. Does the United States really have the right to deny them the right to enter the country because they are deemed unworthy of the American label? Immigration is the foundation of America and should be made completely legal for all individuals.
Immigration (w/ 5 rounds)

The point is that illegals are not American citizens and should not be treated as such. Your argument wants to give everyone who wants to, the rights of American Citizens just for hopping a border. This is not feasible nor should it be treated as such. Myron Weiner, PhD, a professor of Political Science at the Massachussets Institute of Technology, on ther issue of immigration and illegal immigrant rights stated that "What we don't need--at the expense of workers and taxpayers--is the kind of solution [where] everyone present within the boundaries of the United States ought to have the same rights and benefits. It would be politically irresponsible to turn these legislative issues over to the courts to decide on the basis of constitutional principles. Instead, we need reasoned analysis and public discussion of how we can balance diverse objectives to accomplish what is fiscally possible, what is humane, and what best serves the goals of incorporating migrants into citizenship, deterring illegals, maintaining public health, and protecting children." The constitution protects American citizens, not illegal immigrants. There are difficulties, and genocide, and civil war, and strife across the world. Much like we cannot send our military to protect those around the world, we cannot be expected to take in the refugees of the world. As Americans, we need to dedicate ourselves and our country towards the betterment and portection of U.S. citizens. That should be the nation's top priority. Helping illegals should not take priority over U.S. citizens. As stated before, if someone wants to flee from turmoil, they can escape to America and receive amnesty. There is no reason or need for illegal immigration.http://immigration.procon.org...
Immigration (w/ 5 rounds)

You make the point that the diseased or the dangerous were turned away in the past, but the extent of individuals who are turned today extended far beyond this. If a person is deemed unworthy of the rank of American citizen, they are simply turned away. The potential immigrant could be a perfectly healthy, hard-working, honest individual, yet they are forced to remain in their country because they have no special skill. You are missing the point of how difficult it is to immigrate to the United States. Unless an individual faces extreme turmoil in their home country, has relatives in the country, or is a skilled worker or professional, they cannot easily enter the country legally. Since the days of Ellis Island, the immigration system has been changed drastically and become far more complex. You state that Ellis Island could only handle 15,000 people a day as if this is a small number of people; 15,000 people a day is a very large number" that amounts to nearly 5.5 million people a year immigrating to the country, a number far lower than the statistics of the modern era. Currently, there are only about 300,000 illegal immigrants to the country each year, yet more people than ever are turned away by the United States office of Immigration. If you believe that immigrants should always just wait for strangers to judge them before they get the chance to improve their life, then you do not understand the concept of personal initiative. If immigrants waited for visas, they might have to wait decades for a green card that is not even guaranteed to arrive. In the last line of your argument, you say, "If our ancestors could go through the much stricter entrance exams of old, then so can those who want to immigrate today." Honestly, the examinations of the past do not even compare to those of the modern era. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... http://www.energyofanation.org...
Immigration (w/ 5 rounds)

Your first argument points out that most Americans are descendants of immigrants. This is very true. However, it is important to note that even then, many people were turned away. All incoming immigrants, especially the poor and lower classes, were subject to rigorous examinations before they were allowed to become part of American Society. Ellis Island in New York was the gateway for thousands of immigrants and during its peak, could handle 15,000 people a day. Even then, not everyone was admitted into the country. All immigrants were subjected to screening. This screening helped to ensure that those who carried diseases and those who would cause trouble would stay out of the country. Why can this not be done today? Those who enter illegally have not been screened and can be dangerous. THESE ARE NOT AMERICAN CITIZENS, they do not have the same rights. Since it would be impossible to screen all illegals, then they should not be allowed in the country because of the risk they pose to real American citizens. Those who truly want to become Americans for the right reason should seek legal immigration that way all immigrants can be deemed suitable for American society and can mesh well into society without threat. It makes no sense to allow illegal citizens access to America when there is a legal process to do so. If our ancestors could go through the much stricter entrance exams of old, then so can those who want to immigrate today.
Immigration (w/ 5 rounds)

Your claim that "Immigration to escape awful conditions at home can be done legally," simply because the United States will accept people fleeing war or genocide, is false and ignorant; there are plenty of viable for which an immigrant may have to leave a home country that the United States denies are true reasons. The lifestyle in the United States" is superior to that of many other countries, influencing individuals to migrate to America. Does the United States really have the right to deny them the right to enter the country because they are deemed unworthy of the American label? For the majority of Americans, our ancestors were given the opportunity to immigrate to America without having complete strangers judge your usefulness to society. Estimations for the percentages of prison populations that are illegally in the country range wildly, yet even if the immigrants did appear to be more likely to commit a crime, an entire group of people cannot be targeted for the actions of a few. The reason to deny illegal immigrants entry to the country based on individuals" actions would be synonymous to passing bills about the personal actions of individuals aged 18 to 21 because they are more likely to commit a crime. In the scientific paper, "Fear vs. Facts: Examining the Economic Impact of Undocumented Immigrants in the U.S." published by the Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, it is concluded that although undocumented workers may cost the government some money, in the end, their economic impact is positive on both the state and federal levels. There is no solid evidence or citations that show the cost or benefit of undocumented workers on the United States, yet the economic benefit of their work is great enough that it guarantees the individuals" necessity in America. Even if the United States cracked down on illegal immigrants, deporting or securing the borders, the extreme cost of these actions would far exceed current expenses. http://www.teachablemoment.org...... http://immigration.procon.org...... http://www.bjs.gov......
Was the nuclear and platonium bombing on japan nessesary

The bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were totaly necessary. Near the end of world war 2, the U.S pacific fleet began the invasion of japan. But there was A problem. There were tons of island shielding Japan's mainland borders. This made the U.S invade every single island before they could move in and invade japan. The problem with this is that the Japanese army wasn't just fighting back , the civilians were fighting back with them. During an invasion it was reported that U.S solders with a escort of tanks were charged with hundreds of thousands of civilians armed with only bamboo spears and knifes. Tis would obviously be a slaughter for the Japanese but they didn't gun down all of the. Some of them had satchel explosives that they would use for exploding tanks or hurting nearby infantry. The us suffered over 30,00 casualties. But japan suffered hundreds of thousands, including the civilians who jumped to their death rather than surrender to the enemy. This was only 1 island they had plenty more to go. But even if they did get to japan they ran a simulation that predicted it would result in over half a million U.S casualties along with over a million Japanese, mostly civilians. Rather than take out a huge chunk of the Japanese workforce, not to mention a large number of our military personel. We decided to do japan a favor and take out under 100,000 Japanese. If you think about it even if we tried to invade Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They probobly would have attacked us like the rest of the Japanese populace. So we were just taking out potential threats. If we wanted to hurt japan in a serious way we would have bombed the major city's such as Tokyo. We were just ending a war they unprovokly started. Our attacked was 100% justified. We were simple returning the favor for there barbaric and savage bombing of innocent us soldiers.
Utopia

A utopia is indeed defined as previously said. However, having one is almost impossible in the first place, since human nature is full of arguments and opposing sides (look at the site you are on right now). Most of our accomplishments are because of a fight or challenge, both of which require someone to end up unhappy unless there is a person who remains the same level of happiness before and after losing. Examples include the Space Race in its entirety. It was just a country and union arguing about who's better. Look where we are now, a ship and car already sent to Mars. Also, psychology states that being angry makes you stronger for a side, improving your argument. That is a big boost for technological advancement since all competitors in a market want to be the best. That gives us frequent improvement. The education system is similar, especially with awards. It gets very competitive during the high school valedictorian placement. One of my teachers said she won valedictorian by hundredths of a point GPA. All of this is a form of competition, which as stated before, never ends with everyone happy (usually). While it seems like I changed the subject, I simply proved that while achievable, it is unmanageable, which is why it is bad. Here are some more arguments that should get us out of the gray. Utopia is bad because if you were to try to manage it, you will end up with people more unhappy, as that is how most arguments go. To attempt to maintain utopia would require too many resources. Sadly we are not in a computer game such as Minecraft where resources are practically infinite. We have limited time and materials that need to be focused on more important areas of research and pioneering, such as space exploration in case of human evacuation/overpopulation and medical treatment creation i.e. cure for cancer. A utopia would simply be in the way. Another flaw of utopia: specialization. Imagine this: Einstein in a utopia where he had to work as a farmer to maintain equilibrium in jobs. He would, of course, get free time, but his main area would be farming. He also had to learn at the same rate as everyone, instead of boosting through physics and eventually proposing special relativity. Do you think anyone could do a hard labor job AND work in a completely new area of research at the same time, among other things like sleeping and eating? And depending on your extremity of utopia, he wouldn't even be allowed to pioneer. Where would we bo now? Thomas More might not even be alive because the wheel, fire, and other basic innovations wouldn't exist. It is like the campaign video of FreeMarketAmerica (look it up on youtube). While they are not intended to be discussing utopia, they do come across it quite neatly. I understand that it seems out of topic, but it is hard to talk about how utopia is bad without talking about how it can't be achieved and is impossible or not.
Utopia

Imagination all of your problems vanquished and replaced with everything you have always dreamed of! (Special thanks to the author of this debate and Have Fun!) To clear things up there are two significant things to note: 1. This debate is about whether a Utopia is good or bad not whether is exists. Now I am (pro) for Utopia's and my opponent is (con) against Utopia's. 2. As Cambridge Dictionary states a Utopia is: a perfect society in which everyone is happy (https://dictionary.cambridge.org...) With that out of the way, I want to explore the main argument that is likely to come from con. which is: Utopia's haven't been reached. My answer: sure, no one is perfect here on earth, however this debate isn't about whether the perfect Utopia exists, but rather whether Utopia's are a good thing. In other words, don't mistake communism and other worldly failures for a Utopia. Simply put, Utopias are what we all strive for. Though there may never be a Utopia, Utopias are the perfect and happy versions of us that is irrefutable better than the chaotic and imperfect current world. I hope you vote that a perfect and happy world is better than what we have now.