BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Illegal Immigration

"Those statistics are applying a 5% illegal alien participation component. Whether it is 5% of arrests or not, if the illegal aliens had not come into this country in the first place, those 704,709 crimes would not have been comitted." Wrong. Most of the crimes relate to a drug market (see CNN documentary breaking point, etc.) Even if you take producers (in this case criminals) out of a market, someone else will fill their place. Because black markets are based on wars for territory and not open competition, there is also no evidence those crimes would have been done even less efficiently. Indeed, you yourself said illegal immigrants do no jobs Americans won't do, guess what? drug dealing is a job. "hat statment is the truth. The reason the construction workers hire the illegals is because of the small amount of money they will get paid to do work. Actually, it is not more cost-effective to fix the errors later. If you do the job right the first time, you won't have to buy more materials to fix the house the second time." You have no evidence for this, and the entire history of economics tells me you are wrong, because successful businesses rarely do things that are not cost effective, and successful businesses hire illegal immigrants. Materials do not necessarily cost more than wages. "Those statistics are from 2005. This is 2008. That info is 3 years old. Get up to date information." Your statistics are no more recent. In any case, the situation doesn't appear to have changed drastically in the past 3 years. You have yet to address the argument that all of your arguments rely on collectivist premises, which necessarily judge the innocent for the actions of others. Human beings have rights. You do not have a right to prevent them from going anywhere except your property.
Illegal Immigration

Your Argument: My source for the percentages was YOU. YOU said: " CRIMES (actual arrests) 1. Number In USA 2. By illegal aliens Total 1. 14,094,186 2. 704,709 Murder & non-negligent manslaughter 1. 14,062 2. 703 " That means, that if you do the math, illegal immigrants commit, in fact (correcting earlier math) less than 5% of arrests for murders are of illegal immigrants. Factor in the likelihood (unconfirmed I'll grant) but nevertheless a high likelihood forwarded by many studies, that minorities (including illegals) are more likely to be arrested for a given crime than the majority, and the percentage of actual murders is likely far less. My Response: Those statistics are applying a 5% illegal alien participation component. Whether it is 5% of arrests or not, if the illegal aliens had not come into this country in the first place, those 704,709 crimes would not have been comitted. Your Argument: For one thing, anecdotal evidence is inadmissible. Your dad can think whatever he wants, but if it were true as a general trend, NO ONE WOULD EMPLOY THEM. They do, therefore they must receive a higher value to price ratio from the illegals than otherwise. Maybe he's viewing the exceptions, maybe he has a bias, maybe just maybe the illegals do make the errors but it's still more cost-effective to fix the errors later than to hire natives to do it the first time. Ask the businesses in question. My Response: That statment is the truth. The reason the construction workers hire the illegals is because of the small amount of money they will get paid to do work. Actually, it is not more cost-effective to fix the errors later. If you do the job right the first time, you won't have to buy more materials to fix the house the second time. Your Argument: My source for the department of justice thing, if I remember right, was right here: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov....... It doesn't state percentages, but it states total prisoners and total noncitizen prisoners, do the math and it's less than 8%. My Response: Those statistics are from 2005. This is 2008. That info is 3 years old. Get up to date information.
Illegal Immigration

"Illegals do the jobs for a lot less pay because they want whatever they can get and people will not pay them more than they are getting paid. For the statement that the jobs are done better is not true. My dad is a home inspector and has done many inspections regarding construction defects. So many of the construction defects are done by illegal aliens who constructed the house. When natives do the job, they do it right. The reason the natives do it right is they are licensed in that profession. Illegals don't have licenses, they only do the work fast and inefficient." For one thing, anecdotal evidence is inadmissible. Your dad can think whatever he wants, but if it were true as a general trend, NO ONE WOULD EMPLOY THEM. They do, therefore they must receive a higher value to price ratio from the illegals than otherwise. Maybe he's viewing the exceptions, maybe he has a bias, maybe just maybe the illegals do make the errors but it's still more cost-effective to fix the errors later than to hire natives to do it the first time. Ask the businesses in question. My source for the department of justice thing, if I remember right, was right here: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov.... It doesn't state percentages, but it states total prisoners and total noncitizen prisoners, do the math and it's less than 8%. "You cannot say without the drug laws, most of the illegal aliens don't commit crimes because we would have to see that. Keep in mind, they broke the law in the first place by crossing the border ILLEGALLY. They need to enter the country like everyone else, LEGALLY. If we legalize all immigration, our country would become like China. Way overpopulated." When crimes are committed pursuant of the illegal drug trade, it is obvious without testing, from the theoretical matter, that that crime goes bye-bye when drugs are legal. China did not get where it was by immigration, it got where it was by reproducing so much. And keep in mind that the reason people move to "overpopulated" places (e.g. cities) is that high population density makes places better! To see this, look at New York versus South Dakota, where would you rather live? Most people pick the former. And it is the most laughable thing in the world to say "they need to enter it legally." If you outlaw it, they can't DO that. It's not their fault people like you decide to be tyrants and make stupid laws. My source for the percentages was YOU. YOU said: " CRIMES (actual arrests) 1. Number In USA 2. By illegal aliens Total 1. 14,094,186 2. 704,709 Murder & non-negligent manslaughter 1. 14,062 2. 703 " That means, that if you do the math, illegal immigrants commit, in fact (correcting earlier math) less than 5% of arrests for murders are of illegal immigrants. Factor in the likelihood (unconfirmed I'll grant) but nevertheless a high likelihood forwarded by many studies, that minorities (including illegals) are more likely to be arrested for a given crime than the majority, and the percentage of actual murders is likely far less.
Illegal Immigration

Your Argument: The economy doesn't consist of "whether the jobs would be done anyway by Americans. " The fact is, the jobs done by illegals are done better and/or cheaper by illegals. My Response: Illegals do the jobs for a lot less pay because they want whatever they can get and people will not pay them more than they are getting paid. For the statement that the jobs are done better is not true. My dad is a home inspector and has done many inspections regarding construction defects. So many of the construction defects are done by illegal aliens who constructed the house. When natives do the job, they do it right. The reason the natives do it right is they are licensed in that profession. Illegals don't have licenses, they only do the work fast and inefficient. Your Argument: Less than 8% of US prisoners are non citizens, according to the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, a rather credible source on the matter. My Response: Can you show me the source you got that information from? Your Argument: Keep in mind that without the drug laws, most of these illegal alien crimes don't occur. The solution then is not to get rid of the illegal aliens but the drug laws. And if all immigration is legalized, guess what? You get a more accurate sample of the potential immigrants, rather than just the ones willing to break laws. My Response: You cannot say without the drug laws, most of the illegal aliens don't commit crimes because we would have to see that. Keep in mind, they broke the law in the first place by crossing the border ILLEGALLY. They need to enter the country like everyone else, LEGALLY. If we legalize all immigration, our country would become like China. Way overpopulated. Your Argument: Your "11 to 15%" crap is the worst sort of statistical lie. You are claiming estimated total murders (way above the ones arrests were made for) as a percentage of ARRESTED murders, rather than a percentage of estimated total murders. In other words, Mac Johnson never took a statistics class, nor a logic one. Considering how arrests naturally skew towards "arrest the brown guy" it would be far more rational for Mac Johnson to estimate that, considering how about 2% of murder arrests are of illegal immigrants (the statistics you put above the mac johnson bit), the actual percentage is EVEN LESS. My Response: Can you show me your source where you got that info from?
"Under God" Should Be Removed From the Pledge of Allegiance

Yes, the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance should be removed. To begin, America is a country of many religions/beliefs along with ethnicity, sexuality, etc. and should never favor one of them more than the other. Also, The United States of America is not a Christian nation at all. I do understand that the majority of our founding fathers were Christian, but that never meant that they implied religion to everything that they did. For example, take President Obama; he is religious, yet none of the decisions he makes are revolved around God. Lastly, the sole reason America was founded was because of people wanted to have their own religious freedom. Great Britain had forced their beliefs on the people that had lived there and punished them for thinking differently. Why would the people begin a country for those who want religious freedom and equality then take it away by adding "Under God;" that would be absolutely ridiculous. In conclusion, the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance should be removed, and nobody should be required to say it.
"Under God" Should Be Removed From the Pledge of Allegiance

Addressing 1/2 and 3 and other final comments. 1/2) Pro says he agrees that the principles that the nation was founded on come from religion, then proceeds to state that "even if all the founding fathers were atheist, they would still know not do those things and include those laws". So this means take "Under God" out of the pledge? If someone creates something and later you give credit to where the creator believed he received the ideas for that something, should you not give credit because people that use the product don't like the source of the ideas. Forgive me if my example is confusing, but that is essentially what is happening. Great that atheists are morally sound people. The pledge doesn't say they aren't. The argument has nothing to do with the moral uprightness of the atheist community. 3. By saying the phrase "One Nation Under God" you are in no way admitting or referencing that the people in our nation are people of God. In fact, to be specific, saying that one is "a person, or people, of God"(quite a different statement than 'under God') is the same as saying one is a Christian. Those saying the Pledge of Allegiance have not proclaimed to be Christian. Again as I've said before, "Under God" does not denote an official state of religious beliefs, but instead a recognition and admission of the source of a moral tradition original attributed to God. This was a great discussion/debate and I have only respect for Pro and his arguments. I wouldn't have thought you were twelve. Very mature and logical debater. LET THE VOTING BEGIN!
"Under God" Should Be Removed From the Pledge of Allegiance

1/2. I can certainly agree with you that morality such as murder, rape, and stealing were from religion, but even if all the founding fathers were atheist, they would still know not do those things and include those laws. Nobody needs religion to be a moral person. In fact, around 15% of prisoners are atheists (pewresearch.org) (atheismandthecity.com) (commonsenseatheism.com). Many more state that only 1% of prisoners are atheists! 3. No, saying the phrase "One Nation Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is not acknowledging the Nation's history. It means that the people in our nation are people of God! What is separation of church and state and religious freedom for if people are required to say it routinely! I didn't mean for it to support my argument, I just wanted to state a personal experience of being discriminated against by my own teacher on the subject of the Pledge of Allegiance. As this is my final say, I want to let you know this is my first debate on here and 12 years old so I am just a beginner.
"Under God" Should Be Removed From the Pledge of Allegiance

Three points to address with a few other comments. 1) Although the USA was not founded as a Christian nation, it was founded on Judeo-Christian based principles of morality. Again AtheistPerson's statements that the country is diverse does not negate the fact that the country's principles first formed from Christian, "God" based ethics. Pro's argument here falls short. 2) Its not a prudent assumption that because "In God We Trust" was "stated to combat atheism" why wouldn't "Under God" be as well. Both situations came as a result of completely different motives. Also as I mentioned before, "In God We Trust" was targeting STATE ATHEISM specifically, not atheism in our country. It was not a way to eliminate atheism, but instead a method of making a political stand and distinction due to the confusion of the Cold War time. In addition, the reason for coining "Under God" is to recognize the source of the nations founding moral code. This is a fact, not an opinion, and history backs what I'm saying. Finally, "In God We Trust" came two years after "Under God" so if anything, "In God We Trust" should have the same motivation as the prior statement. With all respect, Pro's argument here falls short. 3) As for the students in the classroom being forced to say the Pledge. By reciting the line "One Nation Under God" one is not giving up freedoms or even stating that they are Christians. By saying this part of the Pledge, one acknowledges that they understand the history and moral background of the nation. To not say the pledge would be perfectly understandable, given that the person may not like or agree with the moral system or its origin. Pro still has not given sufficient grounds to remove "Under God" from the pledge. I'm curious as to who's freedoms are being taken away or inhibited, and the teacher sounds like a quite ignorant person. Even though I'm not sure as to how it supports Pro's arguments.
"Under God" Should Be Removed From the Pledge of Allegiance

As I had previously stated, the USA was not founded as a Christian nation, but a country of diversity. As you have also stated, "In God We Trust" was stated to combat atheism, so why wouldn't "Under God" be, especially being the same person who proposed the idea around the same time area. To continue, it is not fair for it to be in the pledge. Students are expected to stand up every day and recite it. And because of that phrase, some students don't speak any of the words, singling them out from the rest of my class that does. I have experience; my teacher is a fat bag of bull EVERY single day. He tells everyone to sing the pledge as loud as they can while adding "'Murica" to the end of it because of one day where no one was singing the pledge with spirit and asked "What are we now, communists?" He also makes direct references to atheism that every day that his life that he finds boring is atheist day because atheists have a life of no joy. I'm sorry for getting off topic there, I just wanted to exploit my teacher for that bs. Anyways, what I have to say.
"Under God" Should Be Removed From the Pledge of Allegiance

Thanks you for clearing that bit of history up. I hadn't done any previous research on this subject. Two points you made that I will address. 1) Eisenhower didn't add the phrase to combat atheism at all. It was coined because of the influence of a religious group(The Knights of Columbus) that understood and recognized the foundations of our country's moral system. "These words will remind Americans that despite our great physical strength we must remain humble. They will help us to keep constantly in our minds and hearts the spiritual and moral principles which alone give dignity to man, and upon which our way of life is founded" as stated by Eisenhower in addressing the nation. In no way was the motivation for "Under God" based upon destroying atheism, but instead as a means of recognizing an origin, as I mentioned in the first round. I'm not sure where you found your information as to the reasons for the phrase being added but its largely inaccurate. And yes "In God We Trust" was created to combat atheism; but not atheism as an individual ideology, principle, or belief system. More specifically it targeted STATE ATHEISM in order to distinguish America's political foundations and ideology from that of the Soviet Union. However, the argument isn't about "In God We Trust" so there's no point in even discussing that. 2) You stated "Under God" is going against another group or religion. Again as I discussed above, the motivation for the phrase was to serve as a reminder of the basic foundations of the country. This doesn't go against any group or any religion.
"Under God" Should Be Removed From the Pledge of Allegiance

ray. I may have had you misunderstood about my last statement from my previous round. I was saying that for the founding fathers to want the phrase "Under God" was ridiculous, not that the founding fathers had originally adopted it. Anyways, the phrase was added by President Dwight D. Eisenhower on June 14, 1954 to mainly combat/target atheism and communism. Eisenhower also added the motto "In God We Trust" to our coins in 1956 for the same reason. So yes, "Under God" is going against another group or religion.
"Under God" Should Be Removed From the Pledge of Allegiance

Accepted... In order to make the statement "should be removed", especially for a long established tradition, one should have sufficient grounds to remove. The phrase "Under God", as stated by founding Fathers is not a phrase that states an exclusive or official religion for our nation. Such an example would be "The Islamic Republic of Iran" which in itself denotes an official state of policy and preference. "Under God" as used in the Pledge of Allegiance refers to the founding Fathers idea that the principles and moral foundations of our nation originate from "God's principles", hence the saying "Under God". When they were drafting the constitution as well as bill of rights, etc, they used Christian principles as a moral guide; therefore, the phrase does not state an official religious ideology or take away religious freedom and equality as Pro mentioned. It ultimately represents a source of origin. P.S. many of the Founding Fathers weren't Christian. one more P.S. I'm not religious
The NFL should not allow a team to be called the Redskins

I won't pretend to be a sports guy. I enjoy watching and playing sports, but I'd sooner turn on CNN. However, there is one issue that I feel can't be ignored. That is the issue of team names. And, a little disclaimer, I am a fan of the Dallas Cowboys, but that will not change my argument for the worse. I'm going to start out with some background in my area of more expertise, then I will come back to how that is relevant today. Andrew Johnson succeeded President Lincoln after he was tragically murdered. Johnson objected to Lincoln's freeing of the slaves. However, it was too far done for Johnson to do it (thank goodness). So instead, he took the nation backwards and instated the Jim Crow laws, what we now know as segregation, that we had to wait for another Johnson to undo. We now look back at A. Johnson as the second worst president in American history, according to a recent C-Span poll (Buchanan being worst). If you go back a few years, you get to Andrew Jackson. I can't deny, I wouldn't be an American if it weren't for his idea of Manifest Destiny, but he basically led the great purge of America, where he let go of the natives (who were here before us). Despite that, he was ranked by the same survey as the 13th best president. Not only that, he got his picture on the $20! Now, I recognize he did do some good stuff, so did Hitler, you didn't see his face on the Mark (until they replaced it with the Euro, anyway). My point is, people often write off Natives as "fair game," so to speak. Now I will get on to how this applies to the argument. Most people would not say that they went to the casino at a redskin reservation (then again, I live in one of the more polite areas of the world), but anyhow, most people agree that it is more polite to say Native American, or even Indian. However, I even object to the Cleveland Indians (for whom I watched lose in spring training last week). Here's why. Most people would object to a team called the Harlem Negroes. People would object to the Oregon Honkies. It would cause a stir to create the Albuquerque Spicks. Few people would agree with the name of the Honolulu Japs. Ideally, teams such as the Cleveland Indians should also change their name. People wouldn't even like the D.C. African Americans. I would prefer not to have the Vermont Caucasians. What do you think about the Laredo Hispanics? Hey, what about those San Jose Asians? If you haven't figured out my point already, you aren't qualified for this debate. But, most people on here are very intelligent, so that shouldn't be a problem. I'm looking forward to a rebuttal, and I am thrilled about having this debate!