BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
For now being born in the US should not make someone a citizen unless 1 of there parents is a citize

Utilitarianism: The greatest good for the greatest number. Having quality of life with quantity is in no way contradictory. Next my opponent attempts to define problem as: perplexity, distress, or vexation. This is obviously not true. For instance if a child may consider school to be distressing but this does not necessarily mean that school it a problem. It simply means the child has not yet come to the conclusion yet that it isn't a problem. The same can be said of my opponent. He considers illegal immigration to be a problem, this however I will show to be untrue. Our country as my opponent points out is seeing record job loss. This my opponent feels must have to do something with illegal immigrants entering the country. Sadly this is not a true on a few different levels. For starters there are jobs out there that still need more people, for instance if you walk into any town in the United States you can most likely attain a job as a dishwasher or a maid. These are the kind of jobs that we have a surplus of and are the kind of jobs that immigrants typically take. An immigrant typically does not have an education as to achieve higher end jobs, which are, many of the jobs that are being lost. So let us examine why these jobs are being lost. For starters our economy is slowly faltering, everyday the Euro, Canadian Dollar, and Pound pull a little farther ahead of us. This decrease in economics could have something to do with spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a war. A war which constantly taxes United States citizens, a situation which leads the common citizen to hold onto what money they can. An attitude that does not well birth entrepreneurship. On the other hand of course, when people feel like they are financially stable they spend more freely, putting money back into the economy, and take more chances (new business). Thus the current job deficit is not a cause of immigrants. Furthermore I will be bringing a new issue to the table. That of equal opportunity. My opponent has a preconceived notion that we somehow inherently have a right to dwell in the United States, that we are somehow greater than every other human outside of it. This is fallacious at best, no one has the ability to pick their place of birth and thus it is wrong to condemn someone simply because they were born into a third world country. Everyone on this earth should be afforded an equal opportunity of success, it is WRONG to bar our gates to starving people and tell them that they must go back and starve simply because it might cost the king a few extra pennies at the end of the month. There is a problem in this debate, that problem however is not illegal immigration but instead the deplorable situation in many third world countries. We have NO right to limit immigration to any part of this world.
For now being born in the US should not make someone a citizen unless 1 of there parents is a citize

first off you definition of problem is not acceptable becuause the basis of utilitarinism is quantity of life over quality so you can not have a definition of problem that is inherently hypocritical for now on we will use the merriam webster definiton of problem considering that this is the most common source of definition and one of the most relaible. The definition is as follows :a source of perplexity, distress, or vexation next illegal immigration is a problem.There are many in this country who believe that illegal immigration is the cause for the biggest loss of jobs seen in recent generations and the reasons why taxes have been increasing across the board. with this said according to my definition of problem i dont even have to prove that this is true i only have to prove that many people believe it and it causes them distress. If you want to prove that no is distressed or vexes over the problem of illegal immigration than you would have to say everyone who has complained about illegal immigration doesnt really think its a problem (which is impossible...haha) next you said "Illegal immigration is not a problem, therefor illegal immigrant babies are also not a problem." this statement is flawed even if you say that a problem must actually be a "problem" instead of using my interpretation of problem saying it only has to cause distress among people. Our country is seeing record job loss like never before and at thesame time we have an influx of an unprecedent 22 million people (in addition to the natural growth rate of the country) that come here looking for work. ANd i think that you have to agree that most of them find work doing some odd jobs. and as long as one immigrant has a job and one american citizen doesnt have a job that is a "problem" because that job can be given to the AMERICAN. now according to your logic by proving illegal immigrants are a problem i prove there kids are to since your only argument was well u kno wat it was. so to reinterate my original point the problem is the children of illigal immigrants because it by making them citizens it gives reasons for illegal immigrants to stay in the country which is basically there way of finding a loophole in the laws. secondly the population stabilizes at certain rates at a really technicaly level and an increase to our population by 6% (22million of the 300 million american citizens) is bad enough but that 6% reproducing will cause instabilization of our country like never before. the recources we have are finite and in an energy and land scarce world we do not have resources to spare.... deuces
For now being born in the US should not make someone a citizen unless 1 of there parents is a citize

In the status quo there are over 22 million illegal immigrants in our great country. If half of these immigrants were to produce one child with another illegal immigrant that would mean 11 million more unexpected people in our population. Now i am pretty sure that my opponent will argue that populations naturally balance themselves out but this argument would only be relevant if these were normal circumstances. Our country has never seen an illegal immigration problem like the one we are currently having and this will distrupt the natural flow of population stabilization which can lead to a lack of resources such as jobs and energy. We are a well off country but if this problem is not effectivly solved we will not be in the near future.... challenge me if you dare
I think every country should have Nuclear technologies

The main benefits of nuclear power are that it is good, scientific as well as environment friendly because of which it is being supported by many ecological organizations and environmentalists who were previously biased against it. Nuclear Proliferation: Proliferation is the spread of nuclear weapons to unreliable owners. I think it is some kind of advantage. [1] http://www.benefitsofnuclearpower.com... [2] http://www.benefitsofnuclearpower.com...
Should Music Be Optional In ALL Schools

Music should NOT be optional in all schools as students deserve opportunities to try new things. If they like music, the students become a part of not just a world of music, but also gain many other benefits. Such as social benefits, and this is from personal experience as a student, that those in band become a part of a band clique making new friends and going to social events for the band. Band provides another social group for those who are perhaps not good at sports or popular. All kids should at sometime in their life try music (and should have the opportunity to try music).
Should Music Be Optional In ALL Schools

Music should not be optional in schools. In school one of the main goals is to have students experience as much as they can to prepare for adulthood and widen their view of the world. Kind of like when mothers tell their kids to try something to see if they like it (I discovered my love of ice cream this way). This is not mentioning the learning benefits that playing music can offer. http://www.aep-arts.org... Sorry if this argument is inadequate but I am having a hard time motivating myself with this debate as you have practically quit it.
Public School is a better choice compared to Private School

Because I've already established that electives are equivalent or better in private schools than in public schools, all your debate narrows down to is cost and size. You cannot determine whether or not a school is worse than another because they are smaller and more expensive than another. There are many different types of public schools varying in size, yet you shape public schools as a whole regardless of enrollment numbers. In conclusion, there is a reason that people who can afford it send their children to private schools and it isn't just because they can afford it or just because they don't want their child to participate in the "small amount of electives."
Public School is a better choice compared to Private School

I was not using the argument that more costly equals worse. In many ways it might be better. The average American cannot afford to pay for a private school though, and they still deserve good educations. Public school is a better, more inclusive option, for those who are not necessarily wealthy. According to thinkprogress.org, only 46% of Americans make above $60,000 a year, and when you factor in costs for mortgage, food, and other things families might need to pay for, a good private school might cost more then half of their income. On the topic of marching bands, and other clubs and groups in general, the larger number of kids in a public school provide for more variety in after school sports and clubs. With a smaller school there might not be enough kids to form a team for a certain sport. Public schools tend to have better sports programs due to this. Also, the same thing goes for clubs and electives. In a private school the number of different classes and after-school activities due to the lower number of students. This problem is much less common in public schools. Also, you state that Public School activities like theater and band aren't useful, when in fact, many people make a living off of these very things. Entertainment via plays and music is at a constant demand, so kids who are good at these are not wasting their time, but preparing themselves and possibly helping them with the process of getting a job in the future. You also state that public school clubs besides those are not helpful, but that is untrue. Issaquah High School has electives like Math Club, Global Problem Solving Club, Biology Club, and a few language clubs. All of these could be viewed as helpful. Math is the 5th best thing to major in; being good at solving global problems might help one become a politician; according to csnu.edu a background of biology is required in many jobs (involving Medical Technologist and Surgeon); and many companies are in need of translators of people that can speak the language of a company they do business with. http://www.csun.edu... http://connect.issaquah.wednet.edu...
Public School is a better choice compared to Private School

You can of course argue that private school are typically smaller than public schools, but that does not make up for the gap in test scores unless proven otherwise. To negate this, I can compare it to a marching band. Marching bands have upwards of 100s of people in them, yet the biggest marching bands can do just as well, if not better than, smaller marching bands. The point is that practice makes perfect and just because one is smaller doesn't mean they are automatically better or vice versa. Yes, there are people in public schools who drag down the average. I am taking 7 AP classes this year, but it won't matter to the school if 100 others fail all of their classes. Also, private school is not worse because it is more expensive. Private schools are for those who can afford it and are willing to pay for it. Compare Harvard to your local community college. Harvard is 1000% better than your local community college and is unarguably more expensive. Using the argument that more expensive=worse is illogical for just this reason. Pearblossom Private School offers useful electives such as Accounting and Business Law (http://www.pearblossomschool.com... for a full list). Not only are there an abundant amount of electives, but these electives are arguably more useful than any other public school elective such as band, theatre or art. So to say that private schools have less electives and less students, therefore constituting that they are worse than public schools, is illogical and cannot be supported without sufficient evidence and sources.
Public School is a better choice compared to Private School

It is true that on average private school kids score higher, but private schools are on average much smaller than private schools. The private school Eastside Prepatory School only has around 200 or 300 kids, while some public schools have thousands. There are kids that are just as smart in public school, who can take honors and A.P. classes, but because the grades are so much bigger there are also more people to drag down the average. Also, most private school's cost a good amount of money. Once again, I will use the school of Eastside Prep as an example. Tuition to get in is 30,000 dollars. The Census Bureau found that the average American Income is $51,017. That is over 50% of a persons income to get into a school. Public school's on the other hand are free, and also (because of the greater number of kids) have a bigger variety of electives, sports, and clubs.
Public School is a better choice compared to Private School

When you say better, which areas do you believe are better? I will argue that education in private schools is better because according to HowStuffWorks, private schooled students took the same tests as public schooled students and scored higher in every subject (http://people.howstuffworks.com...). From the same source,The place where private schools really distinguish themselves is in college acceptance and graduation rates. Not only do private school students score higher than public school students on the SAT exam, they're also more likely to graduate from college across all socioeconomic levels. This shows that private school better prepares the students for college and the SAT test. This is more beneficial than having more variety and better sports, if public schools are proven to have those things.
Presidents should serve 6 year unlimited non-consecutive terms.

This is a terrible idea. Six year non-consecutive terms are a horrible idea. 1) The senate currently has six year terms. This would sync the presidency with one of the three senate groups so that a third of the senate would *always* be elected at the same time as the president. 2) Six years is too damned long. If you want to make a modification to presidential terms it should be towards cutting the term shorter when people lose all faith in the leadership. Being forced to endure several additional years of bad leadership is not a boon. 3) Non-consecutive terms is a joke right? You think that you could elect somebody to be president and then have the same individual reelected again 12 years later (6 years of their term, 6 years of next term) and not have them too damned old? 4) What's wrong with people staying in office if they are good at it? You're going to make us dump talent in order to get fresh blood into office? Why not keep the best person for the job. The longest serving president was just over 12 years. 5) There are so many better modifications you could make if you're going to modify. Runoff elections, terms limited by official support (at 2 year congress elections vote out the president and call up a new election), shorten the terms to two years, drop the term limits, etc.
Presidents should serve 6 year unlimited non-consecutive terms.

Frame work: 1. I am referring to presidents of the United States of America. 2. The overlying assumption is that they are duly elected for each term. 3. I am referring to changing the current system for the future, not saying that this would have been better in the past. 4. Unlimited is referring to the number of terms. Arguments: 1.6 years is a compromise between the current 4 or 8 years that is the current law, and would result in an easy transition. 2.Unlimited terms would allow a good president to be elected repeatedly, and discourage presidents from last minute actions that would prevent them from being elected in the future. 3.Non-consecutive terms would prevent someone from staying in power for too long, allow the president to focus on running the country rather than trying to get elected for another term, let the people and business be able to plan ahead more accurately, allow the people to see the long term results of any actions by a president before voting for them again, and help prevent presidents from starting wars to stay in office.
Presidents should serve 6 year unlimited non-consecutive terms.

Wasting money on an extra election when the current system works just fine isn't helpful. Further you're still going to sync up between some of the senate elections which effectively makes the senate classes very different when the entire point is that they are suppose to be the same. And ignoring the main problem with your argument it isn't worth it. If you're going to make profound changes to the way government works there are countless ways of doing that... some random unhelpful nonsense you pulled out of your hat doesn't qualify. Also, everything you offer as benefits could be achieved equally and easier by other methods. Presidents should not serve really odd terms as you suggest. ---- The founding fathers set up the time periods so that they sync which is my point. I don't think there should be any limit on quality persons serving in the office of president. But, I'm okay with term limits. My main objection to your plan is that it's utterly absurd, it's a lot of work for no improvement, and it ruins the sync set up by the founding fathers. The 6, 4, 2, year setup between senators, presidents, and house members is very specific and done for good reason. You are suggesting that presidents get half of a second term (4+2) regardless if they are completely horrific or absolutely fantastic. It whitewashes skill completely as getting elected 12 years after you're first elected is pretty much a joke. What's worse is pretty much everything you're saying is better done with simpler methods. Don't let presidents take special interest money. - My measurement is between first election and end of third term which is 30 years. >>Yes. And now that my opponent has mapped it out, it is easier to see all the advantages. This would make it possible for the incoming president to know who all will be in the senate he becomes elected. As it stands now 1/3 of the senate leadership could change just as the president is trying to get in and oriented. Um, there's a grace period of several months where the president elect can get to know the new junior senators. 1 election is more expensive than 2. You need to pay a lot just to setup shop. In California alone an election costs about 13 million. >>Bush's approval ratings went from low to about 90% to about 50% in just a few years. 9/11 happened and people rally. He never did anything impressive. >>My opponent appears to be arguing what would be better for my opponent rather than what would be better for the country. Consider how the price of oil has consistently gone down ever sense Obama said that he might consider drilling, That's simply not true. If anything the drop in oil is because of a drop in demand. If people actively stop driving because of the prices then there's hope for the near future oil markets. Presidents are more likely to get reelected during a war, but they typically don't start them just to get reelected. In fact, very few of them start them at all.
m&ms should be colored

Pro "There is lot of candy that is one color that does well." Do you have any proof for that? I cant prove that one company does better than another. But if you look at the candy that is one color or as you called it "monotone" I wrapped in colorful warping paper. If someone were to ask you "would you like some monotone candy?" Does that sound appealing? What is more popular: Resees' or NoworLater? Remeber: the CANDY is one color, not the wrapping and such Does the voters want a source to tell us that chocolate is popular? But it is only one color!
m&ms should be colored

Pro--Imagine a world without multiple colors. Everything just one color. Not only would this just be boring, and scary but also odd. M&ms aren't suppose to be boring or odd and they are definitely not scary. M&Ms should appeal to the consumer, and the way to do that is by being multiple colors. What better to catch your eyes than a big multi color rainbow of M&Ms? Now, in this world there is a load of colors. But if you were born, oh, maybe 100% color blind, would you think anything about said m&ms? Color blind people also are 'fine' with their way of life is. Pro, there is other ways to "catch an eye". Besides, only the m&ms are one color, not the world. If there is only 1 color, kids won't whine that there's too much red or what ever.
Gay Marriage should stay legal

Firstly, in a debate that has another round, it is poor tact to say 'THAT'S FINAL' because obviously it is not. Secondly if we are bringing religion and god into this, thus is my next argument. God gave us free will, the ability to choose between good and evil. Saying God wants gays/lesbians because he made them is like saying he wants murderers/rapists because he made them too.
Gay Marriage should stay legal

Yes but, it's like I told my teacher. It's fine to be gay or a lesbian if you want and it's no ones right to tell you how to live your life. If god didn't want gays and lesbians in this world he wouldn't let this become a thing. Like I'm bisexual and so I don't care if your a person who likes old men, old women, women, guys, or whatever. It should stay legal. AND THAT'S FINAL!
The God Hypothesis is the best scientific explanation for the origins of existence

If I may be so bold, allow me to define science as (from Wikipedia) "a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. " There are two key concepts here, testability and knowledge. Testability means that to be scientific, there needs to be a test for whether or not God exists that God doesn't fail. Knowledge was famously defined by Plato as "justfied true belief". It's not enough for God to be a belief - to be scientific, there needs to be a justification for why God is true. This implies that God must not only fail to fail the God-test to be scientific - God must actually pass. It is my contention that there is no convenient God-test, and even if there was, then God would probably fail it. Now that we both know where the other debater stands, let the debate begin!
The God Hypothesis is the best scientific explanation for the origins of existence

So its a little bit different. I expect you to debate and argue under this context: I am arguing that the God Hypothesis indeed qualifies as a scientific explanation as well as the best one for several reasons. It is a rationally conceived hypothesis, it does not violate occam's razor, there is enough evidence that would describe the nature of this cause from connecting the data points, and most importantly its falsifiable.