BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Undocumented immigrants are a net benefit to the United States

That was a pretty great photo. I'll have to keep it on file!My apologies for missing the fourth round. I'm currently working on a school project that has demanded all of my time. Coincidentally, the project involves preserving the language of an immigrant group in South America who came as guest workers in the 19th century. Thanks for the fun while it lasted, brant.merrell. I'll have to hope the readers enjoyed the material already presented. Cheers!
Undocumented immigrants are a net benefit to the United States

I must also apologize for a necessarily short reply; my schedule was hijacked by a pretty crazy situation today.It's true the drug trade has made law enforcement very expensive, but it is economically rooted in a demand for narcotics by American citizens, and a supply of firearms from American citizens. If undocumented immigrants are removed, documented citizens will smuggle drugs, in much the same way they smuggled alcohol during the prohibition era.It is always good to assess the costs and benefits of adding or removing an economic force, such as undocumented immigrants. But when asking in the present tense, are undocumented immigrants a net benefit to the United States? We must tailor our answer to the current number of immigrants, which peaked at 12% of the U.S. population in 2006 [1], and while adding a few might be costly, removing a few would also be costly. Economically, these individuals are responsible for vast amounts of infrastructure built within our borders, which was not possible with the forces of supply and demand to which our own citizens respond. 1. http://www.pewresearch.org...;
Undocumented immigrants are a net benefit to the United States

I apologize in advance for what I predict to be a short reply (I'm typing this out in a brief quiet interval in an otherwise hectic week). I won't be able to give the proper attention to brant.merrell's thoughts, which is a pity. To generalize a little bit, I'd like to refer to the context of our debate. We're speaking of undocumented immigrants in an economic context, so it's useful to consider the marginal value of undocumented immigrants. What I've attempted to show is that there is both a marginal cost and a marginal benefit to having these migrants stay after their time is done. A good economic analysis would ask, "What is the marginal value of adding the next undocumented worker? What would be the marginal value of removing one undocumented worker?" The truth is that crime and the policing of crime are very expensive in the United States - one balanced report reports that every murder costs millions, drugs offenses cost upward of $30,000 a pop, and drug trafficking is frequently prosecuted alongside gang-perpetrated violence [1]. Having established that undocumented immigrants are much more likely to commit gang-related violence and be the victim of felonies, it seems that we could save a lot of money both in legal costs and in costs to the community by reducing the total number of undocumented immigrants.Having said all of this, my personal belief is that the marginal benefit of removing one undocumented immigrant would be the highest if we turned that undocumented immigrant into a documented one. Imagine what would happen to the economic potential of that worker once he or she could receive grants and attend college, report crimes to the police without fear of reprisal, and become an active member of both his foreign community and the American society. So, are undocumented immigrants a net benefit to the United States? Economically speaking, no but that doesn't mean the solution is to forcibly remove them from American soil. 1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...;
Undocumented immigrants are a net benefit to the United States

Thanks for your research Veritas! It is true, undocumented immigrants are far more likely to be the victims of crime, and protecting immigrants on this front is a matter of legalizing them. In the discussion about immigrant impacts in the United States, we must vigilantly shed light on misconceptions among millions of American voters who believe the victims of crime are the causes of crime. Though the crime rates respond to an increased number of victims, the victims are not a threat to the United States. I agree, the demographics of gangs and the impact of gang activity is difficult to gauge, as is sorting the many potential motives of gang formation. But while gangs may patrol urban neighborhoods and compete for niches in the drug market, they cannot be interpretted as the kind of widespread economic force to shape a national economy. And economically speaking, if we removed those gangs within the next week, urban police officers would still work the same hours and take the same risks. The unskilled labor performed by migrant workers reduces the price of products, which either reduces costs for American consumers or increases profit margins for American exports. Both effects benefit America's GDP through the private sector, and it should not be forgotten that America's public sector benefits through taxation. Efficiently filling the niche for unskilled labor also economically enables and pressures Americans to pursue higher-quality jobs. Although this debate is restricted to the slice of immigrants who are undocumented, we must not make the mistake of assuming that the undocumented population in five years is the same as the undocumented population five years from now. It is true that undocumented jobs have a highly predictable and easily replaceable skill set, but our discussion observes people in a transitional phase. Undocumented immigrants become documented, and while waiting in that long process they participate in building businesses and often even attend college and pursue a higher education. My third source was what I called a "liberal" estimate, alongside my second source which I referred to as a "conservative" estimate. Just providing a healthy range!
Undocumented immigrants are a net benefit to the United States

I believe nerdiness is the pursuit of genius, and good friends with natural-born genius, such as Veritas, have always inspired my relentless nerdiness. Demographic data predicts a waning workforce participation rate in the United States [1], Europe, and Japan as the post-WWII boomer generation retires. Immigration helps buffer these effects. Workforce-aged immigrants follow supply-demand ratios, filling the vacuum of work left by retirees. Japan's border control is most effective, and is enforced by the Pacific Ocean. Its GDP has only grown from three trillion dollars in 1990 to four trillion in 2014 [2], with a 2014 debt-to-GDP ratio of 227.7 percent. This was while the world's GDP grew from 23 trillion dollars to 78 trillion, so Japan has dropped from being 13.8 percent of the world's GDP to only 5.9 percent, to say nothing of its debt. The European Union has legally welcomed immigration as a buffer for its workforce, using social programs and economic stability as a lure for (mostly Arab) immigrants to participate in its economies as equal citizens. Its GDP has grown from eight trillion dollars in 1990 to eighteen trillion in 2014 [2], so its 'global wealth share' only dropped from thirty-four to twenty-four percent, and with only a 92 percent debt-to-GDP ratio in 2014. America's solution has perhaps been the most efficient of all, luring in immigrants with temporary work visas, without forcefully removing the workers after the visas expire. Because undocumented workers cannot file with the IRS, the government can withold all the taxes it wishes. Because they are not citizens, they do not unionize or file with OSHA, are not protected by minimum wage laws, and can never collect Social Security. At least ten billion dollars of unclaimed taxes clearly come from undocumented immigrants [2], and liberal estimates suggest it could be as high as 130 billion [3]. It is difficult to obtain exact, extensive data on undocumented immigrants. What are their work hours? Their hourly wages? Their household incomes? But it is clear that we have historically always been a nation of immigrants, and that our immigration policies have always served our economic purposes. It is also clear that migrant patterns respond to supply and demand, allowing the economy to shape itself according to its own needs, with a simple accuracy that can never be matched by the agendas of border legislation or political rhetoric. 1. . http://fivethirtyeight.com... 2. . http://data.worldbank.org... 3. . http://www.thefiscaltimes.com... 4. . http://www.immigrationpolicy.org...
Undocumented immigrants are a net benefit to the United States

I accept this debate and will take the con position; namely, I'll argue that undocumented immigrants are not a net benefit to the United States. In the interest of full disclosure, the opposition is a long-time friend and previous schoolmate. I have great respect for him and his ideas, and often defer to his knowledge and analysis. Although we commonly disagree, it's rare to not learn something from him.Best of luck to brant.merrell!
Open debate

"Apparently theres this whole thing about "hating liberals good". Please explain it to me, because I don't see anything wrong with us/them." You would not see anything wrong with a liberal because you are one. I see plenty wrong. To name a few, I support: low corporate taxes, deregulation, 2nd Amend. Rights, traditional marriage, strong military, well funded intelligence service, domestic petroleum production (ANWAR, gulf…). I am against ethanol as an "alternative fuel" (it's inefficient, costs more per mile, difficult to transport…). You believe opposite on every one of these issues, and if implemented, that would be disastrous for this country. "---They're actually pretty black and white, as you have still not provided any burdens to make it clear to the readers of this debate what we each have to do to win this debate." Winning debates is not a priority for me. Being right is. And I'm right. You're wrong. "---Nah, don't worry about it. I've been called worse things by better people." See? Self-absorbed. Worst things by better people? So that means my insults were not worthy enough to describe you? A better person would have more accurately nailed you with more harsh insults? You confuse yourself when you attempt to mock me. "Almost everything is debatable: as long as the statement does not come in the form "X is X", then it is debatable. If you make a resolution saying "The sky is blue", that's "X is Y". I can easily disprove it by saying "Cloudy days" or "Rainy days" or "Dawn" and "Dusk", because there are different colors then. Or I could go off on a really confusing tangent about how we all see colors differently.…" It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that people see colors differently. Some are color blind (red-green). Some are color deficient. Some can't see colors at all. Even others are totally blind. "Regardless, you don't give any reason why I'm not winning, therefore, there is no reason the audience should believe in what you are saying." Are you representing the audience? Who elected you to speak for the audience? Was there an election I'm not aware of? Arrogant comes to mind again. Listen, you can't continue to self-analyze yourself and substitute your opinion for others. "All you do is muddle things up…" If you want me to clarify something I've written, just ask. "and you continue to refuse to give some sort of burden for either of us to reach in order to win or lose the round…" Ditto. You have not given me such a burden either. " because that's why you oppose ‘open debate‘." I've never said I oppose open debate. I'm debating you, and I'll debate anyone. You seem to think I'm afraid to debate. Who might that be? "I give the audience a very clear way to affirm the debate: Since technicalities are exactly the same thing as arguments/contentions/refutations/debate points, and you have not responded to that, I am STILL winning the debate." You are anything but clear. Your arguments run together, are contradictory at times, and poorly written. You can do better.
Open debate

I meant debate theory. As for your responses to my beliefs: They just go to show you that your initial claim was incorrect, as I have more convictions than just to oppose others and gain win percentage on debate.org Apparently theres this whole thing about "hating liberals good". Please explain it to me, because I don't see anything wrong with us/them. "Not good to prejudge people. For example, I am just beginning to realize you're a self-absorbed, arrogant cabbage head." ---They're actually pretty black and white, as you have still not provided any burdens to make it clear to the readers of this debate what we each have to do to win this debate. "Did I offend you?" ---Nah, don't worry about it. I've been called worse things by better people. ""Torture is retarded" certainly fits your non-theory debate points." ---Alright, I'll make it a bit clearer for you: I didn't ONLY bring my debate points. "I suppose you could incorporate them into a debate the way I have." ---I'm sorry, what's your way of incorporating them? "That's debatable." ---No it isn't. And even if it is, you don't do anything other than say "that can be debated". You don't give any reason why I'm NOT winning. You don't give any sort of extrapolation to your initial claim. Almost everything is debatable: as long as the statement does not come in the form "X is X", then it is debatable. If you make a resolution saying "The sky is blue", that's "X is Y". I can easily disprove it by saying "Cloudy days" or "Rainy days" or "Dawn" and "Dusk", because there are different colors then. Or I could go off on a really confusing tangent about how we all see colors differently.... Regardless, you don't give any reason why I'm not winning, therefore, there is no reason the audience should believe in what you are saying. All you do is muddle things up, and you continue to refuse to give some sort of burden for either of us to reach in order to win or lose the round. The only criterion for affirming that I see is to show that technicalities and arguments are the same thing, because that's why you oppose "open debate". I give the audience a very clear way to affirm the debate: Since technicalities are exactly the same thing as arguments/contentions/refutations/debate points, and you have not responded to that, I am STILL winning the debate.
Open debate

"---No, I'm against this debate because I hate theory." All spoken arguments involve considerations of ideas (theory) first. Ideas just don't pop out of your mouth in any meaningful way. And theory doesn't go away after it is confirmed or widely accepted. True, it is less useful to revert back to it once a conclusion is accepted unless some other evidence is discovered that may challenge the theory. "---Do I really? I'll name off a few just to humor you: I believe…torture is a retarded method of getting information…" What's a better way? "I believe that people should tell the truth…" If your wife is homely, will you tell her she is homely or will you lie and tell her she is attractive? "I believe that people think the grass is always greener on the other side…" Only liberals think that. I think highly about my grass. "hell, just look at my profile. Oh yeah, I believe the topic of this debate is retarded so I'm going to make you get another loss." I don't have to look at your profile to color my talking points. Not good to prejudge people. For example, I am just beginning to realize you're a self-absorbed, arrogant cabbage head. "'You are quibbling.' ---I beg to differ. You started this bs about theory." Did I offend you? "I HAVE brought my debate points, and I've used them to the best of my ability. However, since you have not provided me with a specific burden, all I can do is attempt to figure out how to sufficiently affirm and respond to all of your points." "Torture is retarded" certainly fits your non-theory debate points. "…technicalities are exactly the same thing as debate points…" I suppose you could incorporate them into a debate the way I have. "I am currently winning this debate." That's debatable.
Open debate

Some of us call our arguments against our opponents "refutations". Some of us call out opponents refutations "technicalities". There is no difference between a "technicality" and a "refutation". Therefore, I affirm. __________________ In other news, "You're against this debate because of a technicality?" ---No, I'm against this debate because I hate theory. "You have no true ideological convictions except to oppose others'." ---Do I really? I'll name off a few just to humor you: I believe in love, I believe in respect, I believe that Guantanamo Bay giving high quality universal healthcare is ridiculous, I believe torture is a retarded method of getting information, I believe that people should tell the truth, I believe that democracy is bound to fail, I believe that people think the grass is always greener on the other side..... hell, just look at my profile. Oh yeah, I believe the topic of this debate is retarded so I'm going to make you get another loss. "You are quibbling." ---I beg to differ. You started this bs about theory. "You should bring your debate points instead of arguing about "technicalities."" ---Two parts. The first response I have to this is at the top of my case, above the 18 underlines. The second response I have here is that: I HAVE brought my debate points, and I've used them to the best of my ability. However, since you have not provided me with a specific burden, all I can do is attempt to figure out how to sufficiently affirm and respond to all of your points. And since I have, and since technicalities are exactly the same thing as debate points, I am currently winning this debate.
false=anywhere beoyond my personal physical experience of now

a ctv camera, dosnt experience, its not aliveWell, it sees. And according to your definitions, sense (of which seeing is a part of) is life, and therefore, the camera is alive. And what's to say it doesn't experience? Humans, especially in the evolutionism sense, aren't hard-wired to create CCTV cameras, but we still do it. CCTV cameras might not be hard-wired to experience what they see, but that doesn't necessarily mean they aren't doing it at all. There is a large difference between something not being able to be proved to be true, or something just being plain old false.a blind man eyes are deadNope, not unless there was no supply to the cells and as such they expired. In fact, a large proportion of people who are classified as blind can still see. The main problem is that they cannot see well enough to be able to function normally without artificial help to improve sight or other senses, or giving up and bumping into everything. These peoples' eyes are not dead, firstly because they can still see. Even people who cannot see at all - their eyes are still alive: maybe not functional, but still living. They can still grow and repair - although not enough to restore/give sight, and complete all of the life processes (ref 1).there is no grey zone between false and true... its either true or false, and you will die if you stop eating real food and imagine eating food instead, and i begin to call you call you corpsiFirstly, the grammatical wording of that sentence implies that one can only be truly dead if you (and only you) call them a corpse. But that's beside the point. Secondly, there is a grey zone. For example, take a byte. It is comprised of eight digits, each of which can either be a 0 or a 1. 0 represents false ("not real"), and 1 represents true ("real"). If everything was either true or false, then the collection of one byte could only either be 00000000 (all false) or 11111111 (all true), instead of something like 10100010 (some true, most false), which would be invalid. Things in life and nature don't follow the strictness of two options of existence. Some flowers can be white, or red - or pink. Human eye colour can be blue, or brown - or green. Not everything is simply one way or another.Finally, just because something cannot be proved to be true (i.e. you can't see it) doesn't mean it is necessarily therefore false (i.e. it doesn't exist at all). All that remains for you to do to prove its boolean value - whether it is true, or whether it is false - requires just one thing. Look at it. It wasn't false when you weren't looking at it, you just didn't know it was there. Say you imagine that thing, and then look at it. You imagined it, therefore it was false (according to your logic), yet when you looked at it, it was true.Oh but wait.there is no grey zone between false and true... its either true or false(ref 1) Full list of life processes (with explanations): http://www.biotopics.co.uk...
false=anywhere beoyond my personal physical experience of now

nature is life a ctv camera, dosnt experience, its not alive a blind man eyes are dead imagination is false, not real there is no grey zone between false and true... its either true or false, and you will die if you stop eating real food and imagine eating food instead, and i begin to call you call you corpsi imagination is false, and only know is true, therfore only at the point i know is it true. if there is another possibility by default i dont know, and therfore the i dont know position is true
false=anywhere beoyond my personal physical experience of now

Without senses i can not experience things(i would be dead, therfore sensory experience is life and life is trueSensory experience is just one of the several life process required to be classified as "alive", and by your definition, true. The others are movement, respiration, growth, reproduction, excretion and nutrition. Because a thing cannot truly be alive if it does not have at least one of these properties, therefore, something cannot be alive if it just has sensory experiences. A CCTV camera is not alive. i dont know is i have to imagine it / imagination is false Not necessarily. If you have to imagine it, it means that according to your definitions, it cannot be proved to be true. That does not mean it is not true, and even it being not true doesn't mean it is entirely false. There's a grey zone between true and false, and that is where most definitions become hazy.Going to the movement: false=anywhere beoyond my personal physical experience of now, I state that just because something cannot be proved to be true doesn't immediately show its falsehood. Just because you didn't know a fact before, but know it now, doesn't mean the fact wasn't true until you learnt it. It might not have been true to you, but it was true to those who already knew the fact.
false=anywhere beoyond my personal physical experience of now

without senses i can not experience things(i would be dead, therfore sensory experience is life and life is true), without my imagination i can not experience false i can at best imagine my neighbour right now, so i dont know if he is even alive, as i dont know is true, and i dont know is i have to imagine it imagination is false sure i strike some definitions:belief=(is)imaginary=future=0 know=physical experience=now(true, matter, nature(not machine not supernature))=1 knowledge=memory of know=past=0 0=information=nothing 1=matter=something now is the balancing point between future and past, future is the opposite of past, and now is the opposite of future and past, now is true, 0 and 1 the future and past is information, and my imagination only happens now to me a star is a light in the night sku and nothing beyond that