BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The US should invade Mexico

before I post my argument, dude shouldn't you be in school? I believe that my opponent has failed to understand the meaning to invade, for the Encarta English dictionary the 1st definition of invade is "transitive and intransitive verb to enter a country by force with or as an army, especially in order to conquer it" the Germans didn't invade France to chill out and say "hey French guys, were just gonna chill here" no they went to make it Germany. The Mexicans wouldn't be Mexicans because there would be no Mexico, jus about 20 more states for the US. Yes we could take out the guys running down the street with shotguns, I recently went to Mexico on vacation and there were 2 pickups with mounted 50s on them, full of the swat teams, and standing on the deck of the ship I heard fire fights. And to eliminate the drug lords, find the marijuana fields, pack them with C4 or something like that and blow it into next week. Yes we are spread across the globe, but remember, we still got tons of national guard, and since they helped in Afghanistan, why not aid in the Mexican invasion? I was not intending for this to be immediate, the economy will recover, and maybe in a year or two woe can all email our people and see what can be done. and I believe we can throw at least $2,000,000 more at this. We have a right to bear arms, and last I checked we still had the right to have autos and semi-autos. Call me a absurd stereotyping person but I don't think you would know about about guns, you being a democrat. You say absurd allot.
The US should invade Mexico

I would briefly like to go over my opponents arguments then go back to my case. "If we invade and takeover Mexico, the Mexicans would become Americans thus making it legal for for them to move from state to state." Two things are wrong with this, first the fact that these citizens would not be United States citizens. This is like saying all the citizens in Iraq are citizens of the United States. They are not, in fact they are still citizens of Iraq, just like the Mexicans would still be citizens of Mexico. As well, even if this was true, it would still be hiding the problem and would not solve it. "Mexico was successfully invaded, it would become American soil, thus allowing the national guard to smash the rebels drug lords, that have recently been blowing up stuff right and left." Even if we did allow national guard troops to smash the rebel drug lords, it would be impossible to identify who are the drug lords. My opponent tries to say it is the people who are running down the street with shotguns, however this is just a stereotype, because it is absurd to assume that all the drug lords are like that. Plus, even in Iraq and Afghanistan it is impossible to identify who are the enemy combatants because they blend into the population. The same thing would happen here. "Mexico does produce allot of drugs." My opponent tries to say that Mexico produces a lot of drugs hence why there is marijuana in California. First, that statistic is talking about the growth of marijuana as well, which can and does take place in California. As well, my Afghanistan example shows that there are drugs located all around the world and that invading Mexico will not do much to stop the proliferation of drugs. Therefore, it may eliminate a short supply of the drugs but will do nothing to curb the entire worldwide problem. However, my opponent fails to guarantee to me that invading Mexico will eliminate their drug problem. I mean we have invaded Afghanistan yet done nothing to curb the Heroin problem there. My Case: "Common' we just threw $800,000,000,000 at the economy, it wouldn't come to that much to take over Mexico. The Drug cartels doesn't have ieds and rpgs to plow up humvees, with the tactical body armor, the only worry is being shot in the face. the death totals are no where near the Vietnam, civil war and all the other wars." In fact, even if it did not have the death totals of the other wars, it would still cost United States soldiers some life loss. With our military soldiers stretched out all over the world, and declining enrollment this would have a significant cost. As well, our occupation of this place would cost a lot of money, and would further hurt out declining economy. My opponent failed to refute the point that this would hurt the everyday United States citizens. Thus I urge a Con ballot and await my opponents response.
The US should invade Mexico

If we invade and takeover Mexico, the Mexicans would become Americans thus making it legal for for them to move from state to state. We could take over make better schools that teach English and all is good. If Mexico was successfully invaded, it would become American soil, thus allowing the national guard to smash the rebels drug lords, that have recently been blowing up stuff right and left. Mexico does produce allot of drugs, the elimination of that source would drive up prices a noticeable amount. "and California makes about 14 billion dollars off the drug trade of marijuana in a year" Trade is when someone brings something from somewhere to somewhere. Quick geography lesson, California is next Mexico so where do you think the drugs that are being traded come form?? The Drug cartels has a network from Mexico (where the drugs were made) up into America. As you should be hearing, heedmyfeed, Phoenix Arizona, about 16 miles from you, was named the US kidnap capital of the world. Haven't you heard that some of national guard was deployed into Iraq and Afghanistan? this map shows the Mexican drug lords there is a place of distribution in all 50 states, even Alaska. http://www.diggersrealm.com... The national guard could take care of this, it is not hard to find some one, just look at the people running down the streets with shotguns, they are easy to find just look at this news report. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... Common' we just threw $800,000,000,000 at the economy, it wouldn't come to that much to take over Mexico. ï¿½ The Drug cartels doesn't have ieds and rpgs to plow up humvees, with the tactical body armor, the only worry is being shot in the face. the death totals are no where near the Vietnam, civil war and all the other wars. sources are at the following locations: http://www.nytimes.com... http://www.judicialwatch.org...
The US should invade Mexico

I would first like to post my rebuttals against my opponent's arguments then move on to my sole point. "Invading Mexico would eliminate illegal immigration,..." This argument is absolutely absurd. First, because not all of the illegal immigration into the United States comes from Mexico. In fact, according to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in 2006, Mexico made up only 57% of the illegal immigration to the United States [1]. Therefore, it is absurd to assume that invading Mexico would eliminated illegal immigration. Second, not even invading Mexico would eliminated illegal immigration from there. In fact, the only way to eliminate illegal immigration from Mexico is if we had control of every single Mexican citizen, which is practically impossible. "we can use the national guard to get rid of the drug lords" This is another absolutely absurd argument. First, because the National Guard is not responsible for invading country and cannot leave United States soil [2]. The national guard is responsible for matters on United States soil such as suppressing rebellion, dealing with natural disasters and repelling invasion. However, in this case the use of the national guard is inappropriate because we are invading foreign soil. Second, it is impossible to get rid of all of the Mexican drug lords. This is practically impossible and in some cases it will be impossible to determine whether a person is a drug lord. "and eliminate large amount of drugs around the world." In fact, Mexico is not even responsible for the large amount of drugs around the world. For example, the largest Heroin producer is Afghanistan [3] and California makes about 14 billion dollars off of the trade of marijuana in a year [4]. The second fallacy present in this argument is that by invading Mexico we eliminate all the illegal drugs present in Mexico. This is not true because the trade of drugs can still continue under United States presence for example with the Heroin trade in Afghanistan. "Not a bad idea if you ask me." On the contrary, it is a very bad idea. My Case: Contention One: Invading Mexico is impractical The United States should not invade Mexico because the decision is impractical. The first reason it is impractical is because the United States is already engaged in two other wars. There are already claims that our presence in two wars is more than enough. However, our presence in three wars would be impractical and absurd. Especially when the third war is completely unnecessary. It is completely unnecessary because it will cost more money, and will cost more soldiers lives. The United States is currently in an extremely large deficit and another war would add to this. This would again have a much worse effect on the American citizen. As well, we have already lost enough soldier's lives in Afghanistan and Iraq, and a war with Mexico would add to this casualty total. Sources: [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] - http://www.24-7pressrelease.com... [4] - http://www.drugscience.org... So for these reasons I urge you to cast a negative ballot. I await my opponent's response.
People who believe homophobes are "bigots" are delusional.

To prove that homophobes are not bigots, if gays suppressed their homosexual desires and forced themselves to be with the opposite sex only, homophobes would not have a problem with that. I know because I'm a homophobe. This is proof that homophobes are against the behavior, not the person. Disapproving of a behavior is not "bigotry".
People who believe homophobes are "bigots" are delusional.

Let's just keep it simple. State your argument and we will see who wins Homophobes don't dislike gays because of their beliefs or opinions. Homophobes dislike gays because of their homosexual behavior.. Disliking or disapproving a behavior is not "bigotry". Therefore, anyone who believes homophobes are "bigots" are delusional Homophobia is rooted in unwanted sexual advances (Pirlott, Angela et al) Homophobia rooted in disgust, not fear. (Olatunji et AL 2001)" Bigotry -"intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself. Delusion -" A false belief held despite strong evidence against it; self-deception.
People who believe homophobes are "bigots" are delusional.

1.Gays have called people "bigots" for refusing to embrace gay marriage. 2. Embracing gay marriage embraces homosexuality because gay marriage is rooted in homosexuality. 3. Refusing to embrace a behavior is not "bigotry" 4. The problem is, gays are delusional. They view themselves as if they were a racial minority instead of a sexual minority. 5. People are not bigots for refusing to embrace polygamous marriage and incestuous marriage, Therefore, people are not bigots for refusing to embrace gay marriage 6. Gays are trying to keep themselves out of the category of sexual minorities all for the sake of having grounds to call people "bigots." Therefore, they must create a delusion that gays belong in the category with racial minorities instead of sexual minorities. In reality, gays clearly belong in the category with sexual minorities but accepting reality is not good for gays politically or socially
So you're against patriotism? I'm Pro patriotism.

It looks a bit like you failed to cut and paste properly. Let me just say, I love America. I'm highly looking forward to the next presidential elections. I hope we start going on the right track. I want a country I can be proud of, not a country that demands pride. Patriotism and nationalism are not virtues. A virtuous country doesn't need blind support, in fact, our democracy depends on us all doing what is right even if the current government disagrees. We should have a country that earns support when you simply open your eyes. Just because your born here, doesn't instantly mean this is the best place on Earth. Rather, you should try to make America a place worthy of respect. We've done some bad things and some good things, and though the scales still tip towards the good. We should not ignore the bad things because we support our country no matter what. I want an America I can support with my eyes open, not with my eyes closed. Lowering the bar to just being the best because I was born here is an insult. We can do better.
So you're against patriotism? I'm Pro patriotism.

"If I were a patriot in a Nazi concentration camp, I would be a Nazi." But you're not a Nazi in a concentration camp. You're an American. But if you were a Nazi in a concentration camp, wouldn't you rather be an American instead of a low paid enlisted man standing out in the cold, watching Jews filing into the gas chambers? (Tat, your pic shows you figuring out stuff like life is in the balance if you don't come up with the right decision.) You are confusing the idea of being a patriot with being pro-American. "My country is better than other countries because I was born here." Your country is better because people sacrificed. Some died for their country. You just shove chili dogs into your mouth. "America has done some great things in the past and has done some bad things as well." Typical secular progressive. America, good and bad, divided equally. In my opinion, American has done far more good than bad. The bad we've done has been more than reversed. "The idea of patriotism is loving your country strictly because it is your country." That's not what I meant. American tolerates chili dog eaters like you, as well as the poor and lazy, the homosexuals and the KKK. American's strength are the people, the soldiers, the volunteers, the people who go the extra mile. Even chili dog eaters like you. You will be a useful citizen some day. "I'm sure there were some patriots in Nazi concentration camps doing horrific things for the fatherland. They were wrong to be patriots, because their country was wrong for what it did." Now you're having second thoughts about what you said. You shouldn't rationalize Nazis and Americans as part of the same group, with similar motives. Terrorists verses Americans. There is a difference. "Your rather naive view that patriotism is a sort of global respect for America during the times when America earns respect is horrifically flawed. Patriotism is support for your country strictly because it is your country. " That's an asinine statement. Americans have plenty of real reasons to be patriotic. Most of us aren't robots like you who debate good and evil like they‘re equally deserving of their talking points. "Patriotism is support for your country when your country does bad as well as good." No. Americans really do have reasons to be patriotic. "I consider myself a citizen of the world. Historically my country has done good things and bad things. It is my privilege to exalt the good things my country has done... but it is also incumbent on me to point out when my country does wrong." You sound like some political science student after a few drinks, and a joint. Go ahead. Shove a few more chili dogs into your face and make like you are Plato. We're listening.
So you're against patriotism? I'm Pro patriotism.

If I were a patriot in a Nazi concentration camp, I would be a Nazi. You are confusing the idea of being a patriot with being pro-American. Patriotism is at it's core a form of bigotry. My country is better than other countries because I was born here. America has done some great things in the past and has done some bad things as well; so have most countries. I do not believe that universal patriotism is called for, rather respect is due to your country to the amount your country has earned your respect. Yes, my country was right to join WWII even though we did so several years later than we should have. The idea of patriotism is loving your country strictly because it is your country. I'm sure there were some patriots in Nazi concentration camps doing horrific things for the fatherland. They were wrong to be patriots, because their country was wrong for what it did. Your rather naive view that patriotism is a sort of global respect for America during the times when America earns respect is horrifically flawed. Patriotism is support for your country strictly because it is your country. Patriotism is support for your country when your country does bad as well as good. I consider myself a citizen of the world. Historically my country has done good things and bad things. It is my privilege to exalt the good things my country has done... but it is also incumbent on me to point out when my country does wrong.
Fox News is the Worst News in the US

I'd like to thank my opponent for taking me up on this debate, I shall focus on Fox news as a whole, and used NGO's (Non-government Organizations) as an unbiased support to my claims. I shall then give examples from several shows varying on Fox to demonstrate that this channel is by far the worst in the US. 1) Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting as a source. I would like to note that this organization critiques EVERY NEWS SOURCE in America. From CNN, to NBC, to Fox. Unfortunately, log into their website and type in Fox News you are bombarded with reports of "right and early" or other silly puns. They show without a doubt, but very true as I hope to show objectively. Peter Hart reports that: " In the eight-month study period, partisan-affiliated one-on-one interviews were 70 percent Republican166 guests to Democrats 70. [...] Men overwhelmingly dominated one-on-one interviews, at 86 percent: 228 male guests compared to 36 women [...] Guests were also also ethnically homogeneous, with 242 white interview guests (92 percent of the total), 15 African-Americans (seven of whom were Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain), four Arabs or Arab-Americans, and three Latinos." [1] This shows an extreme bias more so than any other news source, and thus makes it one of the worst channels that can be found. 2) The O'Rielly Factor. If I really have to go into too much detail about this we have problems. Although I still have to explain what's wrong with the show, I would like to give you an example (to your right) to view at this time. Blatant lies being told, on top of the crimes against O'Rielly due to his book being published -resulting in the deaths of 2 people and injured 7 others ALL CHILDREN- and his sexual assault allegations.[2][3] I haven't even started the revisionist historian Bill is either... 3) Diplomatic Relations harmed. The US's biggest ally is Canada. End of story, no debate here, it is unequivocal, unambiguous, whatever word you choose to say this. One night, upon hearing Canada was requesting a short withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, a show on Fox called 'Red Eye' made the grave mistake of mocking the Canadian military.(Again see video) Needless to say, the Minister of Defense -Peter McKay- asked for a public apology. Although he got one, this also ignores Ann Coulter's parade of 'take over Canada'. I shall get to this next to expand my arguments again in the upcoming rounds. -Sexual assaults, murders, biased news reporting to favor republicans, and harming international relationships. I stand by the words of this debate. Fox news is the WORST NEWS in the US. Thank you! Source: [1] http://www.fair.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...'Reilly_(political_commentator) [3] http://www.knoxnews.com... Interest reading: http://web.knoxnews.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
God is the best explanation for morality

I am in a lot of debates right now that are more serious and more important than this one.I request to my opponent that eithera) No-one votes and it is a tieor b) I'll concede this debate.In addition, I am very busy at the moment. When I am finished my more serious debates, we can resume this one and pick up right where we left off.I appologize to my opponent for this inconvienence.
God is the best explanation for morality

Recall that the topic of this debate is "God is the best explanation for morality." Con attempts to negate this by arguing that an evolutionary origin of morality is more plausible than theistic morality. As an example, he cites the changing American attitude toward slavery. However, there are a number of problems with his counterargument.1. It confuses facts with values Why did Colonial Americans regard slavery as perfectly acceptable? Presumably, they didn't think slavery was acceptable for their particular race, but they did in regards to the African American race. Thus, while they held to the moral principle "It is wrong to enslave a person," they simply didn't view African-Americans as persons. Indeed, slaves were counted as 3/5ths of a person for census purposes. What this illustrates is thus not a changing ethic, but a difference of facts which influence how the ethic is applied. Both Americans now and then held to the principle "It is wrong to enslave a person." Their disagreement was not over that principle, but what constituted a person. Their disagreement, therefore, was descriptive, not prescriptive.Thus, most moral disagreement arises not in the area of values, butthe underlying facts. Consider the abortion debate for instance. Both sides affirm the principle “Do not murder an innocent human being” to be true. The point of disagreement is thus not over moral principles, but the factual issue of what constitutes a human being. 2. This does not indicate a changing morality, only changing perceptions of itLet us consider a parallel argument to Con's example. Hundreds of years ago, it was common knowledge that the sun revolved around the earth. However, with the advent of the astronomic theories of Galileo, Kepler, and Copernicus, the people came to gradually realize that this was false. However, simply because people's attitudes toward what is true have changed does not mean that truth itself changes. The earth revolved around the sun, regardless of whether or not anyone was there to recognize it. Similarly, people's changing perceptions on moral truth does not indicate that morality itself is changing. At best, it deals only with our perception of morality.Attacks on Premise 1Con argues, "However, you then state that the intelligent mind has to be a supreme legislator."This is implied by my statement "Both commands and communication, however, can only originate from an intelligent mind. This mind must additionally be a competent authority in order for its objective commands to be binding on us. " The key word here is "objective." Recall earlier that objective was defined as the state of being true regardless of human opinion. Thus, this by definition precludes objective morality having a human source, since humans can only invent subjective morality. In order for objective morality to be objective, then it must have a source that is above human opinion -- otherwise, it wouldn't be objective (Since if the source isn't above human opinion, then it can't be objective). This is plain and simple.Con has not attacked premise two. As such, I extend my arguments. I now turn it over to my opponent.