BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
All Illegal immigrants within the United States of America should get deported

First off I want to say this already, and were only half way through is going to be a pretty pumped up debate. I like it! Welfare: The first graph i showed was to get an Idea of how much goes into welfare in general. I wasn't yet focused on illegal immigrants will the second graph which showed how many illegal immigrants were enrolled. Also in my second graph I was not focused on housing, I was focused on welfare and medical the main things that are paid for my the government. Jobs: My point I was making about Illegal immigrants taking our jobs is the illegal immigrants are coming into the US then the government tries to get them a job. However with so little jobs yet so many people (US citizens and Illegal Immigrants combined) it makes it harder for us natives to get jobs and were also getting laid off from our current jobs to be replaced by these illegal immigrants. About 8.5 million jobs are encumbered by illegal immigrant workers[1]. So deporting these illegal immigrant will make sure there are jobs for US citizens. Deportation: Can you please show all the expenses going into deportation? In my claim I showed all the expenses, ill even show them again. https://cdn.americanprogress.org... Sources: 1. http://www.fairus.org...
All Illegal immigrants within the United States of America should get deported

In this round I shall move on to refute my opponent's case. Contention 1: Welfare Though my opponent's statement on how much the welfare budget is true, he is incorrect for the graph. As seen above, it has nothing to do with illegal immigrants, but just a general overview of welfare. My opponent's argument here is irrelivant. Another argument my opponent makes is that the percentage of Illegals on SNAP, also known as food stamps. When we look at the claim that 43% of food stamps go to illegal immigrants we have to do some math here for some fact checking. 46.4 million on SNAP43% claim on SNAPThis results in 20 million illegal immigrants on SNAPNumber of Illegal immigrants in US 11.2 million. [1]That's a weird answer. How can that be true when that excedes the number of illegal immigrants that are actually in the US. This argument by my opponent is negated. Though even if we ignore the math for just a minute we can see that the Welfare and Public Housing aspects are actually occupied more by Americans than illegals. My opponent's own graph refutes his own evidence here. Contention 2: JobsMy opponent gives the stereotypical "They took are jobs" argument here. Though my question is, why is that important? Why does this matter? Illegal immigrants hold US jobs and my opponent has not brought up an impact here as to why this is a bad thing. On the flip side, I extend my arguments across the board. In my last round I have shown that illegal immigrants holding US jobs raises long term US wages and if we deport them it causes a massive drop in wages in both short and long term. This already shows that we should continue the status quo we will have a better economy and the average American will be better off. Contention 3: DeportationIndeed taking $285 billion is a big cost, but that's just deportation by itself. You have to consider everything. I have shown that this will harm the US GDP by itself $1.6 trillion! That is a huge number and already in itself trumps any and all economic and expense arguments that my opponent makes as this drop will push the US into a Great Depression and is simply not worth the action. Sources1. (. http://www.fns.usda.gov...)
All Illegal immigrants within the United States of America should get deported

Welfare: So I would like to start off with showing how much us legal citizens are paying all together to give these illegal immigrants welfare. When these illegal immigrants are coming into the US, they are either homeless or are given a home through welfare. So us Americans all together (through taxes) are paying 235 billion dollars to keep welfare up and running to help these illegal immigrants to live in the US. Here is a chart to prove it. Figure 1: http://www.motherjones.com... I would also like to show how a large majority of people enrolled in welfare, medical, etc are illegal immigrants. Figure 2: http://cis.org... In figure 2 we see that there are far more illegal immigrants enrolled in welfare than natives (US Citizens). So yes there are some illegal immigrants that are doing good in the US and paying taxes like a normal citizens. However we see that we spend more money through welfare alone to keep these illegal immigrants in the US. So when you get your paycheck that you worked so hard for and you see the tax deduction chances are that money went towards paying for some illegal immigrant's housing, food, phone, etc. So if we were to deport these illegal immigrants there would be less people enrolled in welfare, medical, etc so then you tax rate would decrease due to there being a lesser amount of people enrolled in welfare. Jobs: Disney right now is facing a lawsuit because around 250 US citizen tech workers were laid off and replaced with Illegal Immigrants and here is the article to prove it. http://www.nytimes.com... I would also like to compare the amount of jobs that are taken away for US citizens to be replaced by illegal immigrants http://www.fairus.org... In this article we see that 1,887,695 jobs are taken in California and in Texas 1,296,670 jobs are taken. So these illegal immigrants are getting their jobs because they are taking them from natives (US Citizens). Deportation: My final point will be the cost of deportation in the article that I cited below we see that the total cost for deportation of ALL illegal immigrants is 285 billion dollars. It may seem like a big number, however if we instead of using our money to keep the illegal immigrants in the US (welfare, medical etc), used the money to get them out, it would easily fund all the costs of deportation. https://cdn.americanprogress.org... Sources: 1. http://cis.org... 2. http://www.nytimes.com... 3. http://www.fairus.org... 4. https://cdn.americanprogress.org...
All Illegal immigrants within the United States of America should get deported

Ok, so I would like to start saying that i believe that illegal immigrants that are on US soil need to be deported. They aren't called illegal immigrants for no reason. They broke a law and they need to be punished for it, and that punishment is being deported. These illegal immigrants that are hopping the border are also getting financial aid from the government, which is coming out of legal US citizens paycheck. Its not hard to come over the boarder legally and if you cant come over legally then obviously you shouldn't even be over in the first place.
All Illegal immigrants within the United States of America should get deported

I thank my opponenrt for his eggarness in this debate.Contention 1: Welfare My opponent is focusing on welfare, but when you observe the graph that my opponent has provided, it shows that between that the numbers are as follows: "Cash Welfare" Natives (meaning Americans, I presume) 10%, illegal immigrants 5%. His graph shows, under the welfare section, that illegal immigrants use less welfare than Americans. Thus this Contention is negated.Contention 2: JobsMy opponent claims that there is not enough jobs, but Obama has created 8.7 million jobs last year on top of the fact that unemployment is down to an all time low at 5%. [1] Compared to the past 10 years, unemployment has dropped significantly to the point where it has been nearly haved. [2] Not to mention that this is under average, so my question is, if illegal immigrants are taking American jobs then why is unemployment so low and under average? If we deport all illegal it may open jobs up, but it will devestate the economy as I have shown that the US's GDP would drop by over a trillion dollars. Contention 3: DeportationGladly, My sources for wage loss: R2's sources number 7 and 9. Source for GDP loss R2 source 10.I extend all other arguments across the board. Sources1. (http://money.cnn.com...) 2. (http://data.bls.gov...)
Sharks for equal rights

RebuttalsI. "This was not a claim"My opponent says that his comment, "sharks are the most lovely creatures ever" is not a claim. He then goes on to say it's the truth. I think my opponent misunderstands what a claim is, and proves that point by following it with another claim that "it's the truth". A claim is defined as: to say that (something) is true when some people may say it is not true. [1]So, I think it's clear to everyone now that when someone says "sharks are lovely creatures" that it's a claim. My opponent defeats himself on this one. What Pro needed to do was prove the truth-value of that claim, which he completely failed to do. II. "Try to poop with them"Okay, this does nothing to affirm his original statement that we shouldn't poop with sharks. It's like someone saying "don't drive" and then when asked "why? " they respond with "just try it". Such a response literally does nothing to prove a point. To be honest, I've pooped in the ocean before, and never found myself at risk of a shark attack. I've never had the opportunity to poop *with* sharks, but that's mostly because they aren't lovely creatures to be around. I poop with my cat all the time though, she always joins me in the bathroom whenever I'm on the toilet. .. don't know why though. My original point still stands unchallenged. In closing, Pro has accomplished nothing in terms of affirming his position. He's rebutted my challenges with misunderstandings on his part and unproven claims. Thank you. Sources[1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Sharks for equal rights

Well............ I am sorry to everyone that has been awaiting my response, many things in my life are going on, but I am here in round 5, to win. I believe that sharks should get equal rights. Much like American citizens. In regards to the so called 'claim' of my comments on them being the most lovely creature ever, this was not a claim. It's the truth and I believe my opponent has yet to realize that. With the don't poop with them comments, I would like to see you try to poop with them. It is quite hard. That is why. I look forward to your response.
Sharks for equal rights

My opponent has forfeited another round. I will now begin with my arguments which serve to negate the resolution at hand. First, though, I will rebut what my opponent has already said. RebuttalsI. "sharks should have equal rights in the United States of America"Equal rights to who, or what? Pro fails to actually present anything to compare the rights of sharks with... For instance, should sharks have equal rights as humans, or cats, or a piece of bread? See, that's the problem. With such ambiguity from Pro, there is nothing to work with here, since he has failed to present anything as an equivalent to sharks in regards to rights. I'll leave it up to Pro to present something in comparison, because at this point this is a nonsensical statement and nothing more. II. "They are the most lovely creatures ever"This is called an absolute claim. For such a claim to be acceptable (valid) we need proof which supports the claim. Without any proof backing up this claim, this is nothing more than an unproven opinion. Thus, it holds no ground in this debate whatsoever. III. "Don't poop with them"This is yet another nonsensical claim from Pro. Why can't I poop with sharks? Pro gives absolutely no reason as to why we shouldn't poop with sharks. If anything, the common knowledge is that we shouldn't bleed around sharks, since sharks are attracted by blood [1]. ArgumentsIV. Nonsensical position Pro is taking a nonsensical position, nonsensical = meaningless, thus his position is completely meaningless. Until Pro actually makes meaningful arguments, he stands defeated. In closing, I've rebutted each possible point that was raised by Pro. In addition to those rebuttals I've presented my own argument negating the resolution at hand. I eagerly await Pro's response, and now return the floor to Pro. Thank you. Sources[1] http://www.australiangeographic.com.au...
Being successful in life is easier with a college education.

College does not make success in life more easily achievable. 1) Some of the most successful people did not attend college, or did not graduate college. http://elitedaily.com... 2) College causes a lot of people to go into debt leading to insecure financial standings. http://projectonstudentdebt.org... 3) With the technological age there are a lot more opportunities outside of a structured college environment to receive exposure to the world, and access opportunities. http://www.examiner.com... http://www.crossculturalsolutions.org...
Being successful in life is easier with a college education.

College does make success in life more easily achievable. 1.) College makes financial success easier to obtain. Students that graduate from college have tremendously larger average lifetime salaries than students that do not attend or graduate college. You can more than double your income though attending college, and college graduates are more likely to obtain jobs with better benefits, saving them tremendous amounts of money over a life time. College graduates also have more job security and a lower rate of unemployment.2.) College allows you to experience new things, and expands your point of view, allowing for a life that is based off of more experiences, and is open to many more perspectives. Going to college allows you to have experiences you would not have otherwise, which allows you to feel more fulfilled in life. Self-fulfillment is a large part of success as it leads to happiness in life.3.) College opens doors and allows you more choice in your future. By obtaining a better education, you also have the opportunity to explore different fields of study and work that you would not be able to explore without a college education. The choice of what path to take in life is a form of success because it makes it easier to be an autonomous individual.College allows oneself to be more successful in life financially, though self-fulfillment, and through allowing more autonomy and opportunity for happiness.Sources:http://www.finaid.org...I look forward to hearing my opponents arguments.
Your race/ethnicity/nationality matters in everything you do in life

The time period literally has nothing to do with race. Why are ghettos mainly composed of Blacks and Latinos? Is it because they chose to? Do they have the same privileges and benefit at birth as those with European/Jewish descent? Why are prisons filled to the brim with Blacks and Latinos? is it because the beds are nice? I don't think so. I think it's because these races are held under higher scrutiny. Not to mention, the American police force is heavily White. Bias is a real thing. It's not always necessarily bad. It's natural for some to have favor and advantages over others in the world. It's been that way since the dawn of humanity. Racial equality is a myth made up so people can feel better and not have their feelings hurt. It's time to take off the rose-colored glasses and see the true colors. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... https://www.dosomething.org... http://www.bjs.gov... (Police Statistics) http://www.bjs.gov... (More Police Statistics) http://www.prisonpolicy.org... (Racial Demographics in Prison) http://www.usnews.com... http://articles.latimes.com... (Jewish majority in Hollywood)
Your race/ethnicity/nationality matters in everything you do in life

Your race/ethnicity/nationality truly does matter in everything you do in life. If you're a white in America, you will be treated better. If a white man walks down the street, a white woman will most likely not clutch her purse and try to ignore. In fact, she'll most likely engage eye contact and give a nice hello. If you're black, congratulations! Your ancestors were most likely slaves and the white people around you see you as outdated farm equipment! If you're mexican, you're seen as an illegal citizen that steals jobs. If you're asian, you're treated as a highly intelligent, highly disciplined human being. All these stereotypes that people have anchored in their minds affects how they interact with people of their respective race/ethnicity/nationality.
Iron Man 3 is the best Iron Man movie ever

In The Avengers that saved him from possession by Loki and helped him stall Loki for a long enough time for the rest of the team to save the world. Although this was not an Iron Man movie it is important to note the core's importance.You say he can now live as a normal person but isn't being a superhero, playboy philanthropist billionaire freak better than just being an average guy on the street? That's all the more reason to like this movie the least.He did the least significant things out of all three movies, he didn't actually save the world this time and wasn't anything special.This has, overall, got the least revenue in gross from the three movies in their initial release.The second had millions more by this time after release.
Female should be treated equal to their male counterparts

Hey fellow debaters. I am searching for an opponent to take the Con side that Women should be treated equal to Men. This debate will consist of 4 rounds. Round 1 will be Acceptance/greeting. You can also put here anything you want to clarify such as from which standpoint you will have. ***Please do not put any arguments in this round. Round 2- Opening argumentRound 3- RebuttalsRound 4- Closing argumentsI look forward to this debate! Thank you!
Female should be treated equal to their male counterparts

My opponent keeps providing excuses for the unequal treatment of women. The fact is globally, Women have fewer opportunities for economic participation than men, Less access to basic and higher education, Greater health and safety risks, And less political representation. This is a problem that needs to be fixed. Modern day feminism makes the actual women's rights advocates look like a joke. Guaranteeing the rights of women and giving them opportunities to reach their full potential is critical not only for attaining gender equality, But also for meeting a wide range of international development goals. Empowered women and girls contribute to the health and productivity of their families, Communities, And countries, Creating a ripple effect that benefits everyone. While the world has achieved progress towards gender equality and women’s empowerment, Women and girls continue to suffer discrimination and violence in every part of the world. Bringing light to the issue is the first step in solving the problem. That is what I have done in this debate. By providing you with factual statistics, I hope that the individual reading this has become more knowledgeable of the problem that women all over the world face every day.
The USFG should eliminate the penny

When the Baby Boomers were young, a penny still had some value. Economist Henry Aaron of the Brookings Institution, a nonprofit research group, reminisces in a 2013 anti-penny screed about paying a nickel for an ice cream cone as a boy. Even during my childhood in the 1980s, there was a candy store not far from our house that sold "penny candy" in jars " one penny for a mini Tootsie Roll, or two for a Mary Jane. Today, there"s literally nothing you can buy with a single penny " and you can"t do much else with it either. Vending machines don"t accept them, and neither do most parking meters. Even automatic toll booths won"t take them " except in Illinois, the home state of President Abraham Lincoln, whose face adorns the coin. And if a single penny is useless, a whole bunch of pennies isn"t much better. If you try paying for something in a store with a fistful of pennies, you can expect dirty looks from both the clerk and the other customers " if the store doesn"t just flat-out refuse to take them. Pennies are so hard to spend that many people don"t even bother " they just store them all in jars, or even throw them away. Economist Greg Mankiw of Harvard University argues that pennies are simply no longer useful as a means of exchange: "When people start leaving a monetary unit at the cash register for the next customer, the unit is too small to be useful." There are precedents for getting rid of coins that are too small to use. Back in 1857, the U.S. Mint stopped producing halfpenny coins " which, according to the historical information calculator at MeasuringWorth.com, had a purchasing power of $0.14 in 2015 dollars. So at the time it was eliminated, the "useless" halfpenny could buy as much as 14 pennies can today. If consumers in 1857 could get along without halfpennies, then modern consumers can almost certainly manage without a coin that"s worth less than one-tenth as much.
Atheism is not theism

I'm just going to finish this debate quickly, since you seem to want to prove your point with multiple debates about this topic I'm ending it. The A in atheism is a root word which means "without" (don't try and deny it like you have before.). Theism basically means your religious. Now if you put the root word A and theism together you get atheism which means "without religion". Leave the site you idiot, you handle your debates like 12 year old. Absolutely no thought put into them at all.
Mowing the lawn and weed wacking the places that can't be mowed are different chores.

I believe Jim is right. Here is the scenario: Bob's job is to mow the lawn with a riding lawn mower. Jim's job is to weedwack the grass on the lawn that Bob can't get to. Jim also has to put away the clean dishes. Jim claims that Bob should have to weedwack as well as mow the lawn because that's part of his chore: cutting the grass on the lawn. Bob claims that mowing the lawn and weedwacking are different. Bob also claims that him having to mow the lawn and weedwack is the same as Jim having to wash, Rinse, Dry, And put away the dishes where Jim was only putting the clean dishes away. Jim says that Bob's job is to cut the grass, No matter what method is used (which would include using both a riding lawn mower and a weedwacker). Jim's job is to only put the dishes away, No matter what method is used. Who's claim is right? Pro: Bob's claim is right (Bob only has to mow the lawn with a riding lawn mower and Jim has to weedwack the grass that Bob can't get to with the riding lawn mower and put away the clean dishes) Con: Jim's claim is right (Bob has to mow the lawn with a riding lawn mower and use the weedwacker to cut the grass he can't get to with the riding lawn mower and Jim has to put away the clean dishes)
should you be able to drink at any age

I affirm the resolution, "should you be able to drink at any age. " Definitions: you- one; anyone; people in general. [1] able- having necessary power, skill, resources, or qualifications. [2] drink- to take water or other liquid into the mouth and swallow it. [3] I believe that people in general should be able to drink at any age. The entrance of water into the body through drinking is a necessary part of living within the human population. People need to be able to drink to sustain human life. If people were not allowed to drink at any age, they would end up dieing from a lack of the consumption of fluids. The importance of drinking, especially consuming water, is too important to be looked over so quickly. [4] My opponent states, "i think you should have to be at twenty one because you are mature enough to make your own decision. " However, you would not be able to make it to twenty one years of age if you were not able to drink before that time period. The resolution is affirmed. Thank you. Sources: [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [4] . http://www.ask.com...