BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
America should support blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Citizens are more likely than illegal immigrants to commit crimes, but aliens still contribute to the imperative issue of criminality in America. One is more likely to die from a car accident than from drowning, but does that mean swimming safety should be taken any less seriously? In 2011, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement removed 396,000 people from this country, the highest number ever, and fifty-five percent of them were convicted criminals ("Republicans...crimes"). Therefore, illegal immigrants cannot be granted the rights of citizens because it would only encourage unrestrained immigration and an increase in the crime rate. The threat that amnesty poses to national security should also be considered. The majority of terrorist acts committed in the United States have been perpetrated by people from countries abroad. Granting illegal immigrants amnesty would "open the flood gates," relaxing our immigration policies even further and increasing the risk of terrorism ("Top Ten Pros and Cons"). The highly reputable Center for Immigration Studies predicts that, as the requirements for citizenship become easier to obtain, immigrants will create false documents just to obtain green cards or amnesty, heightening the risk of terrorists slipping through the cracks ("Is it...Illegal Immigrants?"). The risk that illegal immigrants pose to the safety of American citizens cannot be undermined, and granting them amnesty would only put the country's safety in jeopardy. Works Cited "Is it a Bad Idea to Legalize the Illegal Immigrants?" Illegal Immigration Statistics. 2013. Web. 21 October 2013. http://www.illegalimmigrationstatistics.org....... "Republicans decry 'deadly' policy as report shows illegal immigrants committing new crimes." FoxNews.com. 31 July 2012. Web. 23 October 2013. http://www.foxnews.com...... "Top Ten Pros and Cons." Procon.org. 2009. Web. 21 October 2013. http://immigration.procon.org.......
Humans Should Not Eat Pork Or Beef

While pork and beef do take longer to digest, they should not be cut out of a diet altogether. As with any foods, moderation is key. Eating lean cuts of pork in moderation can actually be beneficial as pork is a rich source of protein as well as vitamins and minerals including thiamine, niacin, selenium, zinc and phosphorous. As for eating beef, our bodies need vitamins like B12 and Vitamin D in order to function properly, and red meat is a good source of both. It's okay if you eat either beef or pork in 3 or 4 ounce servings once or twice a week, as long as you don't over consume. http://www.mana.md... www.ninacheriephd.com/you-your.../is-eating-pork-good-or-bad-for-your-health
Humans Should Not Eat Pork Or Beef

If you would've read correctly, my topic states humans are not supposed to eat Pork or Beef. I never stated humans aren't supposed to eat meat, it's obvious that way back to Homo- erectus we have been eaters of meat. Eating Pork and beef are not on the natural dietary spectrum for mammals. my source https://www.sciencedaily.com... clearly states that mammals have eaten meat since the dawn of our genus. But it also states that it hasn't always been this way, as mammals, and also omnivores, pigs and cow were never on our direct source of nutrition. Early Homo Sapiens in East and South Africa eat fish, chicken, fruit, certain plants and also bison, but pork and beef were not everyday consumables. This is a modern day phenomenon, and it's obvious at the fact that it takes 3 days or 72 hours to digest pork and beef but only 2 hours for chicken and fish.
Humans Should Not Eat Pork Or Beef

For more than 2 million years, humans have been primarily meat eaters. Our bodies are designed for it. We have our incisors and molars that are designed for eating meat. It helps keep blood sugar levels steady due to its fat and high protein content. There are no proven health benefits to not eating meat. While I do feel as if a vegetarian or vegan diet can be good for you, I have been eating both pork and beef my entire life and I have had no health problems. We have enzymes in our intestinal tract specifically to digest meat, and meat helps us grow. Larger brains have benefited from meat eating. So, in conclusion, I feel as if humans should eat pork and beef.
Contender chooses topic (Logic Debate)

Rebuttals ============= 1. Username (Hylian_3000) While, yes, this avatar links to a person, it isn't THAT person. The person controls the avatar, however the avatar itself does not exist. When we say Hylian_3000 exists we mean that the avatar with the name Hylian_3000 exists, not the person. Since the avatar exists in the virtual world and not in reality, Hylian_3000 does not exist. 2. Experience You may think that I exist in your mind, but you don't know if you exist, or if anyone exists. When we say exist, we mean exist in reality. If all of this took place in a virtual world, or in one's mind, neither of us would exist in the actual "reality". It's hard to wrap your head around, but if you think about it, it makes sense. 3. Self Refutation We can make virtual characters that can argue that they don't exist. So if we all were in a virtual world, we could still possible argue for our non-existence. What limits makes us unable to argue for our own non-existence, like what I am doing now?
Contender chooses topic (Logic Debate)

1. Username (Hylian_3000)Hylian_3000 is just a symolic link to real life person (or AI, or software, or councesness), by arguing for existence of Hylian_3000, I argue for existence of real life person (or etc.).2. ExperienceI had an experience of Hylian, therefore for me he exists. My experience being real or just some type of a process going in my mind is irrelevant. Because even if it exists in only in my mind that means it exists. How it does exist is irrelevant.3. Self-RefutationNon-existing thing or being cannot argue for its non-existence. Therefore Hylian exists.
Contender chooses topic (Logic Debate)

This will be interesting... I will be arguing for the stance that I do not exist. ======================== 1. Reality Argument Us "humans" think that reality exists, my question is, does it? Just like asking the question "Is your red the same as my red" we don't fully understand everything in the universe, even if there is a universe. How do we know that we aren't in a virtual world, or that everything (including ourselves) only exists in our minds. We don't. If we supposedly lived in a virtual world, we technically don't exist in reality. If we all exist in one's mind, this Hylian_3000 does not exist in reality. Same goes for you and everyone, we don't know if any of us exist. 2. Username Hylian_3000 is not an actual person, rather, it is a name or an avatar for a real life person. I will not give away my name, but. I assure you my name is not Hylian_3000. Just like how in MMOs, you have a character who goes by a different name, but you are controlling him. You aren't the character, however. Your character does not exist in reality since he is in the virtual world. So Hylian_3000 technically does not exist in reality. Therefore, it is probable that no one (including myself) exists. ======================== Rebuttals ======================== Using my arguments, I can rebut your arguments. If we do live in a virtual world or in one's mind, mental properties are not solid proof that we actually exist. Same thing goes for all his other arguments.
Contender chooses topic (Logic Debate)

1. Topic:The Hylian_3000 exists. 2. Explanation: I accept any type of evidence and reasoning, whether it is logical, rational, empirical, or philosophical. The topic is about proving something (in this case Hylian_3000) exists or doesn't exist. 3. Argument:(A) - Mental properties exist.Proving existence of mental properties is easiest one, because it will need mental properties to even ask the question "does mental properties exist?"(B) - ExperienceA posteriori knowledge is valid source as evidence or for reasoning. I know that Sun exists, because I had experience of Sun, I see it, I feel its heat (not these days), and etc.(C) - Existence of my mental properties and my experience of Hylian_3000 (also my experience of properties of Hylian_3000 - Asian, Christian, Moderate, Democrat, Student) is enough to prove existence of Hylian_3000.Thus, Hylian_3000 exists.
Contender chooses topic (Logic Debate)

This is just like my other "Contender chooses topic" debates, but with a twist. 10,000 Character limit Open to anyone (no need to comment) 72 hours to argue 10 day voting period BoP is shared You must abide by the rules. Failure to do so will result in an automatic 7 point forfeit RULES: 1. The topic can be about anything 2. The topic MUST be debatable 3. The topic MUST not be a rap battle, war, tic tac toe, etc. 4. (Here comes the twist) You CANNOT use evidence and sources in this debate. You must rely on logic and reasoning. 5. Due to the nature of this debate. You can have 1 source in your argument in round 1. It must be a factual source and about the topic in a non biased way. This is so both debaters knows about the topic. 6. You must argue in round 1, after explaining your topic. 7. No spamming or trolling. 8. You must take the Pro side of the topic Good luck to my opponent. I hope this will be intresting and fun.
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justifiest

That you for accepting this Challenge, and my deepest apology for spelling the word justified wrong. To be honest with you, I get where you're going at. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki maybe is a bit overboard. But first of all, let me clarify a few things. The US was more interested in ending the war faster, so they wouldn't hesitate to use the a-bombs, even if it means to break their own laws (Hague Convention, Article XXII) Also, there are actually 4 reasons why Japan decided to "unconditionally surrender" and Soviet invading Manchuria is just one of them. I'm sure you know Hirohito didn't decide to surrender after 2 A-bombs, it was the bombing after the a-bombs that forced Hirohito to surrender. He was mainly afraid of his civilians dying from another a-bomb. So you see, if the atomic bomb did not have the devastating effect they had, then it would have been utterly pointless.
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justifiest

Japan surrendered because of the Soviets not the atomic bombing.Before Hiroshima a numerous amount of cities were destroyed by the U.S. Army Air Force, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not the most destructive. Hiroshima was 2nd in civilian deaths, ranked 4th in the number of square miles destroyed, and 17th in cities destroyed. Why would Japan surrender after these bombings, but didn't for the others. The retired Japanese Foreign Minister, Shidehara Kijuro, even said that the people will get used to the bombings and not give up because of them. The only explanation for Japan's unconditional surrender, was the Soviet Union declaration of war, followed by invasion of Manchuria on 9 August, 1945. What was the result of the atomic bombings? Thousands dead and Japanese citizens being affected by radiation to this day. I know the cities had milltary bases, but more innocent people died than soilders. This is why I do not believe that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified.
Ice Cream is better than Pudding

Hello Pro! Thank you for opening up this hot button issue for discussion. Though I know ice cream is delicious, it does have a capable rival to challenge it as dessert king. This is why I am here. To set the record straight on the under appreciated gift known simply as...pudding. Let us start with an introduction to the three points I will be making to prove pudding's superiority 1) Pudding Is More Convenient Pudding is nutritionally very similar to ice cream but can be taken and eaten anywhere. It will not melt on you in hot conditions and comes in a "fancy" little cup. Pudding can also very easily be made from the comfort of your own home with minimal supplies and equipment required. 2) The Dark Side of Ice Cream Did you know that in the 80's, Glascow Scottland was home of a bloody mob battle with ice cream as a front for heroine? By the time the war had ended in 1984, the death toll had risen to six people! Though ironic due to ice cream's cold nature these six people all died from being burned alive. I have sited this grizzly story at the bottom of this post. Ice cream is a well known cause of the phenomenon known as brain freeze. Pudding however is not known to cause pain in the people who eat it. 3) Bill Cosby Need I say more? These are my three points that with out a doubt prove the superiority of pudding. I look forward to hearing your next argument Pro. Sources: http://www.theatlanticcities.com...
The fact that homosexual couples can't have babies, should be viewed as a pro for our society.

Thank you for clarifying (the beginning of your argument) and thank you for taking this debate. 1. Overpopulation. < > I disagree. If you look at China, they thought the same thing, however now they even have laws to solve the overpopulation issue there. Over here, it's only coming up as an issue, but it will be more and more serious as time goes on. The overpopulation problem won't fix itself. Homosexuals make a small difference, but it is, however, a positive difference. 2. A. Interesting point on the connection between abortion and crime. However, I'd rather poor women not have those abortions and give their babies to gay couples to adopt than to just abort them. Also, I thought whoever took this debate would be a conservative so maybe abortion won't matter to you as much. B. I don't understand what you are suggesting. Are you just saying that a gay couple should just not adopt a kid once that kid is accustomed to his/her parents? If so, that kid is being put up for adoption by these parents for his/her own good, because the parents can't raise him anymore. So if you just question adoption, that's a different story. 3. When people understand that homosexuals are beneficial and pose no danger to society, and can actually be beneficial to us, then discrimination against homosexuals wouldn't be a problem. Gay couples' adopted kids will also be fine if this discrimination ends. 4. Who is to say this decline is bad. You say not counting immigrants. This is actually good for the West due to its immigrants. <> Not when we need it to shrink and not when the overpopulation issue is rising.
The fact that homosexual couples can't have babies, should be viewed as a pro for our society.

It's simple. They can't have babies, so they adopt a one. That decreases the number of abortions in the country and solves the overpopulation issue as well. For those who don't think there's an overpopulation issue google it. I did and this is one of the links I found. http://www.overpopulation.org...
No more discrimination

The resolution reads: "No more discrimination". Naturally, this resolution is absolute - it implies that all discrimination is wrong, and that it is Pro's job to argue that all forms of discrimination are bad. Unfortunately for my opponent, this means that Pro's side has a massive burden of proof to fulfill, while Con only has to prove only one ce in which discrimination is good in order to negate the resolution.Pro's argumentMy opponent states: "no more discrimination you got cops killing women getting beat etc". Overlooking the bad grammar, it seems as if Pro is saying that cops killing people and women getting beat are forms of wrongful discrimination. This is true, but it does not uphold the burden of proof because this only covers two forms of wrongful discrimination. It does not look at instances where discrimination is arguable good, but only focuses on two isolated examples.Discrimination can be goodEven though Pro's failure to uphold the BoP means I win by default, I wish to further negate the resolution to show how faulty it really is. To start, we must first understand the definition of discrimination.Discriminate: "to make a distinction in favor of or against aperson or thing on the basis of the group, class,or category to which the person or thingbelongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality." [1]In America, the minimum voting age is 18. This means that people who are below that age are disallowed the privilege of voting. In essence, these minors are being discriminated against. Is this bad? No, of course not. The minimal voting age ensures that people who vote have a decent sense of maturity and can make logical decisions, whereas children cannot do this as sufficiently as adults can. Thus, if we were to ban discrimination, little kids would be able to vote, which would hurt the elections results.Pro has failed to uphold the BoP, and I have negated the resolution by showing one instance in which discrimination is not bad. Vote Con. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
God doesn't control every aspect of our lives. (He gives us free will)

My opponent has conceded all of my points. If an argument is dropped, in the world of debate this means that you as a judge have to vote on it. My opponent drops the argument that God does not exist because his properties are omnibenevolence, omniscience, and omnipotence, but these qualities cannot coexist if there is evil and suffering in the world. Therefore, the resolution is negated. To the extent humans have free will, it is not given by God. In addition, my opponent drops the argument that if God has infallible foreknowledge of all human actions, there can be no free will. When given a choice between *Option A* and *Option B*, a human must always choose Option A as long as God has foreseen the human choosing Option A. Therefore, the human never had the power to choose Option B. In any given situation with divine foreknowledge, there is only really one option: the option God has foreseen. Therefore, there is no free will if an omniscient God exists. In act, an omniscient God has already foreseen everyone who will go to Heaven and everyone who will go to Hell at the moment of that person's conception. *Nothing* that person does in his or her life matters. His or her sentence in the afterlife has been preordained. My opponent's Bible quotes are disprove if God does not exist. For this conclusion it follows that the Bible is a work of imagination. In addition, to the extent that free will is logically impossible with an omniscient God and the Bible also says God is omniscient, the Bible cannot be relied upon because it asserts two logically contradictory things: God knows every action humans will take, so humans *must* take those actions, yet humans have free will not to take those actions. Lastly, my opponent drops my quote from Psalm, which is a Biblical source stating that God has preordained every step that a human will take. At best, the Bible quotes are a wash because my quote contradicts his. Vote Con. P.S. 10 mins in between rounds is short.
God doesn't control every aspect of our lives. (He gives us free will)

The resolved is: God gives us free will. There are two ways to disprove this: (1) infallible foreknowledge disproves free will, and (2) God gives us nothing because he does not exist. == (1) Theological Fatalism == "The steps of a man are established by the Lord." -Psalm 37:23 (1) God is said to be omniscient, which means at any point in time, he has *infallible* foreknowledge about all future events. (2) The only way for God"s foreknowledge to be infallible is if the events that He knows will occur must *necessarily* occur. (3) An event that must necessarily occur *has* to occur; it cannot not occur. (4) Humans have free will only if we have a choice in what action to take. (5) All human actions are pre-determined because God knows about them beforehand [with infallible foreknowledge], and so all human actions must *necessarily* occur. When a human is given a "choice" between two possible futures, it is not really a choice because one future must *necessarily* occur, which means the other future is logically impossible [because it is logically *necessary* that it not occur]. So there never were two "possible" futures, only one. The one that God foresaw. (6) If God exists, humans lack free will. When faced with a "choice," humans must always choose the option that God has foreseen, so there was no choice to begin with. Free will requires the ability to choose an option *other* than that which God has foreseen, but doing so would negate God"s omniscience. Either God does not exist or humans lack free will. == (2) God does not exist == The Problem of Evil (1) God is defined as a being who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. (2) An omnibenevolent being must take the most benevolent action possible, cannot help but to do so. (3) If suffering exists, eliminating it is more benevolent than not eliminating it. (4) God is all-knowing, so he knows about all suffering. (5) God is all-powerful, so he has the power to cure all suffering. (6) Suffering exists. (7) An omnibenevolent, omnipotent being does not exist. (8) God does not exist [from the definition of God].
God doesn't control every aspect of our lives. (He gives us free will)

Even though God could control every aspect of our lives He lets us make our own choices, therefore he doesn't control everything. "The Bible does teach that God is Almighty, that his power is not limited by anyone other than himself. (Job 37:23; Isaiah 40:26) However, he does not use his power to control everything. For example, the Bible says that God was "exercising self-control" toward ancient Babylon, an enemy of his people. (Isaiah 42:14) Similarly, for now, he chooses to tolerate those who misuse their free will to harm others. But God will not do so indefinitely."Psalm 37:10, 11. ; God dignifies us with free will, the power to make decisions of our own rather than having God or fate predetermine what we do. Consider what the Bible teaches. God created humans in his image. (Genesis 1:26) Unlike animals, which act mainly on instinct, we resemble our Creator in our capacity to display such qualities as love and justice. And like our Creator, we have free will. To a great extent, we can determine our future. The Bible encourages us to "choose life . . . by listening to [God"s] voice," that is, by choosing to obey his commands. (Deuteronomy 30:19, 20) This offer would be meaningless, even cruel, if we lacked free will. Instead of forcing us to do what he says, God warmly appeals to us: "O if only you would actually pay attention to my commandments! Then your peace would become just like a river.""Isaiah 48:18. Our success or failure is not determined by fate. If we want to succeed at an endeavor, we must work hard. "All that your hand finds to do," says the Bible, "do with your very power."(Ecclesiastes 9:10) It also says: "The plans of the diligent one surely make for advantage.""Proverbs 21:5. Free will is a precious gift from God, for it lets us love him with our "whole heart""because we want to."Matthew 22:37.
Would you do the wrong thing but for the right reasons

I would hope that after I had ended war, crime, corruption that people would have released that it had to happen. Is it so worng to want a prefect world? If you had the power to try, would you? Some thimes you have to do the wrong things but for the right reasons. For example your love has been killed by a gang. Wouldn't you want to average her death? I know I would try, I would try to creat a better would by wiping out the thag gang. If you had the power to change the world, as I have said before would you do it even though millions if not billions would die. Sometimes you have to be the villian to get things moveing in the right direction. Sometimes you have to think about the bigger picture. Yes billions would die but afterwards it would be a world were everyone can live peacefully. If you do not agree with that reasoning then fine here is another example. Your family ia starving and you do not have any more money to buy food. Your only opinion would be to steal food, you would be doing the wrong thing but the reasons out wigh the negatives. Think about sometimes you have to look at the bigger picture to know what to do. Sometimes the doing the wrong thing is fine as long as your reasons are good.