BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: U.S. Birthright Citizenship should be abolished

Sorry about that I was super busy last week. Anyways... 1) Illegal immigrant children are a financial burden on the United States. In California alone, it costs $1.7 billion dollars for education benefits and $3.3 billion for welfare benefits. This money is not going to the children solely however, many of the healthcare and welfare benefits are going to the illegal immigration parents. Therefore, the U.S. is rewarding people by giving them money for breaking our laws. 2) Immigration would decrease if birthright citizenship was abolished. Natalie Smith of the Georgetown Immigration Law Journal says "By removing this incentive to illegal immigration, the amount of illegal immigration would decrease. The guarantee of citizenship to their children is a substantial, if not a motivating, factor in provoking illegal aliens to violate the sovereignty of the United States. It only follows that a decrease in illegal immigration would result from the removal of this incentive." And now to attack my opponent's case 1)He says that birthright citizenship is protected by the 14th amendment and that if we abolished it, we would reintroduce slavery. This is a slippery-slope fallacy and also the 13th, not the 14th amendment prevents slavery. 2) He says there have been supreme court cases that protect birthright citizenship, but none of these apply to illegal immigrants they have all been about legal immigrants. 3) Again, another slippery slope fallacy. Also, no birthright citizenship doesn't mean no citizenship at all. 4) This argument is based on the assumption that we will have to take a test if we abolish birthright citizenship. 5) This isn't an argument. If I did use that argumnt and used evidence it wouldn't be racism, it would be an educated opinion about the motives of illegal immigrants. I would also like to point out that my opponent didn't use evidence or even logic to support his claims.
Resolved: U.S. Birthright Citizenship should be abolished

(Forgive me if I seem bad at this I'm going out this Friday to Emporia and I need pratice.) 1. 14th Amendment protects birthright citizenship. You abolish this law you reintroduce slavery. 2. There have been many court case on this and all have been won for the citizen (sorry bussy right now so if you could read this http://en.wikipedia.org...) 3. No Citizenship means the Constitution Rights, which will lead to people thinking that the government doesn't care for them and establishes a hatered that leads to an anarchy or communist take over. 4. What do we do with the Americans that don't want to take this test, or fail it. 5. Pro will probably say it will stop Illegal immigrants from using their child as an ancor to get into the U.S., and that my friends is just being plane rascist.
America is in a decline.

According to the World Bank, U.S. GDP accounted for 31.8 percent of all global economic activity in 2001. That number dropped to 21.6 percent in 2011. That is not just a decline " that is a freefall. I'd also like to point out that America once had the greatest manufacturing cities on the face of the earth. Now many of our formerly great manufacturing cities have degenerated into festering hellholes. For example, the city of Detroit is on the verge of financial collapse.
Spanking

I argue that spanking is not a proper method of discipline under any circumstance. I take this stance because I find that there are a plethora of methods to discipline children that don't involve physical contact as a direct method of punishment. Now, hear me out. I don't think that a little spank will ruin a child's personality, but I do think that it is not an effective method. I am interested in seeing what my opponent thinks on the matter.
Spanking

Con... an argument from authority is only so if you are not providing any other arguments. Also, should I point out all of your grammar mistakes? That is rather immature. I am not doing this debate to win, but to share my opinion and see what others think. That shows a difference in our motives. Whether or not I win is irrelevant to me. If I can change the mind on one person that would be enough to make this worth it. "Next, Con said that he probably had a psychological disorder. People with psychological disorders don't necessarily have to have a bad personal history to be motivated to do what they do." I never insinuated that someone with a psychological disorder had to have a bad history to be motivated to do what they do. Adrian used his childhood beating (boundaries unspecified) as an excuse to violently beat his children. If you are unsure what I am trying to say... ask! Please don't make assumptions. It only looks worse on you in the end. Also, why just refuse to accept my "I feel" argument without rebutting it. If I didn't think it had a valid point I wouldn't have posted it. This is referential to the Adrian Peterson topic. Adrian did not specify the boundaries of his beating. Since he didn't say whether he was spanked or downright beaten bloody my argument still stands. "I didn't mean "Eye for an Eye;" I just was pointing out that a child needs to be hit to understand how hitting hurts. The same applies for pushing, shoving, slapping, etc." An eye for an eye or the "law" of retaliation, is the principle that a person who has injured another person is penalized to a similar degree By this definition (which I would assume you agree with) this is indeed, eye for an eye. At least until the child understands. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------Closing Statement--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pro, I almost had to give up on you during this debate. Since I know you in real life this only makes it even more disappointing. These are the two reasons that you angered me- - I didn't find your arguments convincing in the least. - I see now that you are in this to win, not to genuinely try to change things for the better. While I admit, you have much better organization and slightly better grammar I feel as though you don't have a strong foundation for your beliefs. I hope that you either find some better arguments, or change how you feel. I wish you the best of luck in all of your endeavors. Note to voters: Go ahead, downvote me for improper grammar or bad organization, but at least take a good, long look at my arguments before jumping to conclusions.
Spanking

First, I'm sorry I forgot to post my arguments. Okay, I'm starting to get confused. What I thought you meant in your opening statement was different from what you did. In any case, I need to move on to my rebuttals. In round one, Con only gave an argument of authority. I can accept that if his other arguments are strong enough, but I'm not so sure because... ...My rebuttals for round three: I didn't mean "Eye for an Eye;" I just was pointing out that a child needs to be hit to understand how hitting hurts. The same applies for pushing, shoving, slapping, etc. Your next arguments are mainly just stating your own feelings, making for some pretty weak points, but I feel I must argue against them as well. "If a parent teaches a child, in any respect, that violence is a fitting form of punishment than I feel as though it could be imprinted in his brain that violence is a solution when people won't do as he/she asks later in life." First, Con used "than" when he should have used "then". That is a grammar mistake. (I am saying this because spelling/grammar is a part of the voting.) Next, his argument merely says "I feel" rather than "it is". There is no source for what he is saying. Even if we can accept his no-source information he didn't even identify as a fact, there are still problems. First, he was beaten, which Con said, but I clearly said that I am for spanking ONLY within reasonable boundaries (or at least, I tried to). Next, Con said that he probably had a psychological disorder. People with psychological disorders don't necessarily have to have a bad personal history to be motivated to do what they do. Finally, Con concluded with a "what if" question. Since spanking has been done for quite some time, I refuse to accept a "what if" argument, at least in this circumstance. If we were debating about whether or not something should be done that hasn't been done before, that'd be a different story. I'd love to see your closing arguments, rebuttals, and closing statement. (Sorry you have to do all that in the same round, that was my fault.)
Spanking

Eye for an eye, I thought I knew you better. My point is that violence is not the solution PERIOD. I feel as though in this age 'psychological warfare' and 'reverse psychology' can go a lot farther than physical reprimands. I am not arguing that spanking is not an effective way to PUNISH, I am saying that there are other equally, if not more effective ways that are less likely to cause the child problems later on. Even a small spank can go a long way. If a parent teaches a child, in any respect, that violence is a fitting form of punishment than I feel as though it could be imprinted in his brain that violence is a solution when people won't do as he/she asks later in life. Also, if we are going to use real life examples I will use NFL player Adrian Peterson as an example. He was apparently beaten as a kid and this let him to beat his four-year-old child bloody. I understand that he probably has some sort of psychological disorder, but what if someone else like him gets the same message. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Spanking

The point of my opening argument is that spanking is an effective way to punish children. Please note, though, that I do believe spanking has its limits. I do not believe in spanking as soon as a child disobeys. I also do not believe spanking should be done with a harsh tool, especially not a belt. Now onto my argument. Spanking is often a very effective way of punishment because the effects are IMMEDIATE. Unlike a grounding or a "time-out" you can not merely defy a corporal punishment. In fact, spanking can be used to teach as a part of discipline. Example: your two-year old son is hitting his older sister. He won't listen to your reprimands because he doesn't want to and doesn't see any valid reason two. If you demonstrate to him what hitting feels like, he will feel less inclined to hit his sister because he realizes it hurts. Even if this is not the case, he has a valid reason now not to continue. Spanking can be used as a helpful way to teach even more so if you show your love for you child after the punishment and show you just want to help them. If you follow this pattern, your child will be much less likely to be negatively affected by the punishment. There are plenty of real life examples of people who have benefited from spanking. My own grandpa was a "wild child," so to speak. He told a story of how he was sent to a special school for kids who were called a "wild child". He was spanked till he bled, which would never even be allowed today, but he says he was thankful for the punishments in the long run. They straightened him out and he ended up graduating with the highest honors a student at that school could receive. So, what's your rebuttal?
Spanking

My opinions on spanking are not only my own, but a number of leading child psychologists feel the same. "It"s a very controversial area even though the research is extremely telling and very clear and consistent about the negative effects on children," - Sandra Graham-Bermann, PhD, a psychology professor and principal investigator for the Child Violence and Trauma Laboratory at the University of Michigan. Now, this is not an argument from authority as this is but one leg my argument stands on. Now, I ask my opponent, why would numerous studies by leaders in the field of child psychology say that spanking is bad for the mental well-being of children if it is not?
Western governments should not block the sale of genetically-reconstructed Neanderthal slaves

Due to a lack of access to a PC until after the point in which my argument will be due, I am going to post this as an extremely truncated version. To put things succinctly, lacking certain knowledge that Neanderthals are incapible of personhood, and ambiguity as to whether their known capabilities put them on equal intellectual footing as modern humans, it can only be the case that they must be extended the benefit of the doubt rather than risk excluding actual people from our society of peers. Dolphins and other animals are clearly different in that they do not seek to redefine their own existence in the way humans do. There is room for caution, and where the rights of persons are concerned, the inconvenience of caution is preferable to an accidental crime against an ethical agent.
Western governments should not block the sale of genetically-reconstructed Neanderthal slaves

Here at the Federal Trade Commission, we take our jobs very seriously. In conjunction with the Department of Social Services, it has come to our attention that the company named “Eggleston's Ethical Enterprises” is currently engaging in making false advertising claims through its company name, as well as participating in the illegal trafficking of persons. It is my unfortunate task to inform you that you must comply with the attached cease and desist order, and immediately halt all current and future contracting for neanderthal sales and further drop the phrase “Ethical” from your company name pending judicial review.The reason for this decision is that neanderthals are entitled to some benefit of the doubt as to their potential personhood, being an intelligent and innovating species according to all that is known about them scientifically [1]. Given the known hunting strategies of neanderthals, it is noted that they likely developed language. Further, given the self-adornment and burial practices of neanderthals, as well as their large cranial capacity, it is likely that they are the intellectual equals of many individuals we grant citizenship to [2].It is the decision of this board that Neanderthals may have the potential to attain a sufficient awareness of self and society to warrant a consideration of ethical personhood and thus citizenship, even if no known neanderthal has yet done so (similar to tea partiers, Westboro Baptists, meth addicts, online debaters, and William Lane Craig). We have already taken the time to appeal this decision to judicial review, however the injunction stands until such a review completes.Thank you and good day.Bibliography*[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org... *While the above cited sources are wikipedia pages, all significant claims made in it have primary and secondary support.
100 debate challenge 5: This house would ban homework

1. There is an education gap between rich and poor kids. [1] Like my opponent points out studying is important. What's taught in schools doesn't stick as well unless the brain is reminded of it at home. well off students have more opportunities to study away from school. Wealthier families tend to value education more and push their kids to study and they have the resources for extra books and to hire tutors etc. Assigning everyone homework insures that poor kids will be studying just as much as wealthier kids and have the same opportunities. This doesn't have to be 3 hours of homework a night like my opponent says. Just 20 minutes a day will do a huge amount of good. It's also been shown that kids who are assigned homework do significantly better on tests later on.[2] My opponent brings up studying but fails to realize that homework is a form of studying and that assigning kids study time would also be considered homework. If we want to give all student the same opportunity at a good education and make sure everyone get's the bes possible education, we need to make sure kids are doing homework. sources [1] http://www.nytimes.com... [2] http://www.washingtonpost.com...
100 debate challenge 5: This house would ban homework

Fighting a loosing battle but here I go. It It's basically forcing students to go home after a stressful day of school and activities and do pointless homework. Teachers should be teaching these things in class, not making the students learn it themselves. It's preventing children from leading balanced lifestyles, with a healthy amount of sleep and activities to keep them fit and active. How is a student supposed to do 3 to 4 hours of homework, study for a plethora of tests and quizzes, play sports, get involved in the community, eat food with nutritional value, and get an adequate amount of sleep, all in one day? That's not possible. The amount of stress homework causes kids is ridiculous, especially when they're already under so much pressure to get into a good college and do well in school, along with making friends and staying active. Homework is not necessary. Spending more and more time doing homework is making children's social skills suffer, and with all the technology we have teenagers and children are isolated enough as it is. If they banned homework, test scores might improve because then students would have more time to study and be prepared than if we have five different subjects to do on top of studying for a test the next day. You may continue;
Abortion

The woman does not necessarily have to lose all of the things she has going for her in her life, adoption is always an option. This way the woman can carry on with her life and the baby can too, and hopefully live a great life. Just because that woman does not want to be a mother does not mean some other woman out there doesn't want to be. So many women have trouble conceiving, why not give them the chance to be great mothers. It seems selfish almost. Many women also get abortions not realizing that there were emotional ties until the abortion happens. I've seen this happen first hand with one of my friends. They think that an abortion will just solve their "problem" and realize later that it only causes more problems than it would have if they would have kept the child or put the child up for adoption. There are many physical issues that can arise after an abortion as well as many mental and emotional ones. It is very likely for women who get abortions to become depressed as well.
Abortion

It is not always the fault of the woman's irresponsibility that causes an unwanted pregnancy. My friend's mom got pregnant twice while using birth control and condoms. Some people are just very fertile. Also, even if a woman is irresponsible and makes a bad decision, should she pay for that one small mistake for the rest of her life? Does she deserved to lose so much because of one mistake? "They have the most emotional ties to their baby, then they will be equally emotionally distraught by the abortion of their child."- I am not sure exactly what Con is trying to say here, but it takes a while for a mother to be emotionally tied to her baby. A woman with an unwanted pregnancy can get an abortion before she even notices the changes in her body other than the lack of menstruation. Also, if a woman wants an abortion she obviously is not that emotionally attached to the baby.
Abortion

A woman has the right to her own body. Not nearly as many people have emotional ties to the baby as people do to the mother. This should make her the priority. The mother could be very hurt mentally and physically by the pregnancy. It could also keep her from taking a job she wants greatly and that would change and improve her life, it could keep her from going to school and bettering her life, it could mess up her relationships with people, and many other bad effects are likely to happen. I look forward to my opponent responses and contentions.
Abortion

It is also very likely for a woman who didn't get an abortion who had to give the child up to be depressed too. It is often worse if they keep the child for so long, go though all that to have it, and then have to give it up. The mother's emotional attachment to the child is much greater after months and months of carrying it and then having it and seeing it. The risk of a woman being too attached to the child is greater if they have it and put it up for adoption. There are so many babies up for adoption right now, not to mention that our world is way over populated. Adding another unwanted baby to the mix is not a good idea. If a woman who can't conceive wants a baby, there are so many to choose from in almost every country. Even if the woman gives it up for adoption, the nine months that it takes to have a child can force her to give up job opportunities, schooling, and other things she wants to do.
the federation of planets(star trek) would lose a war against the galactic empire(star wars)

the federation has problems transporting people so what makes you think they can militarize it that quickly thats improbable. and proton torpedo don't compare to a death star that the empire could use to annihilate the federation fleet easily and the empire ships have hyper speed same thing. and ground armies do matter thats how planets get captured. your putting to much faith in just the fleet the imperial fleet is twice the size and has twice the fire power plus thousands of tie fighters. they could easily over whelm them they do have weapons and technology that match the federation.
the federation of planets(star trek) would lose a war against the galactic empire(star wars)

If the Federation had weaponized transporters, they would already be at a significant advantage. No matter how many clones you bring at them, the Federation could dematerialize them down to the atomic level, or transport entire ships halfway across the universe. Not to mention if the Federation has gravimetric torpedoes that can produce a yield of millions of isotons, they could literally wipe out an area several light-years across. How is the Empire going to compete with that? As I've already said, the Federation would be at a significant advantage with regards to speed. They have warp capabilities. How is the Empire even going to catch up to Federation Starships when they have warp maneuverability? All the Federation has to do is warp around the ships and launch a photon torpedo attack. The Empire may have an advantage at ground level, but the Federation doesn't even need to be on the ground. As I said, with gravimetric torpedoes, the Federation could blow up countless planets because of the increased isoton yield. They could blow up a system of the Empire's planets and warp halfway across the galaxy. What is the Empire going to do when one of their ships is transported halfway across the galaxy to an ambush surrounded by Starships launching photon torpedo attacks? Phasers can be adjusted to penetrate Borg shields, so I don't see why phasers couldn't be adjusted to get through just about any shield the Empire would have to offer. You also have to consider if the Federation had access to wormhole travel and time travel. There's the USS Relativity, with a temporal transporter that can beam someone to any point in space and time. The Federation could just use that, and go back in time to make sure the Empire never even existed. In DS9 the Federation was working on creating artificial wormholes. If we assume the Federation found out how to stabilize artificial wormholes, they could just create a wormhole and transport most of the Empire to another dimension, and then finish off the rest with a gravimetric torpedo blast before hitting warp 9 to another part of the galaxy. The Empire wouldn't even know what him them.