BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Birthright citizenship.

That said, I'll proceed with my opening statements and arguments. I am against birthright citizenship in general(there are a few, rare cases where I may consider it as a possibility, but for the vast majority of cases it is completely unacceptable and a disgrace to this country). Birthright citizenship is a magnet for illegal immigrants. They come over to the USA when they're almost ready to have a child, and when the child is born, they've got a citizen to anchor them in the country. Even though the parents are not citizens, the child is, which creates an anchor for the illegal immigrant parents to stay. Birthright citizenship also puts a burden on the taxpayers, forcing them to pay the costs for the children to be born and, in most cases, raised, as the parents of the child are illegal immigrants and are, thus, the government is forced to comply with the needs of and supply for the child. These costs amount to a few billion dollars - all supplied by the taxpayers. Not only do taxpayers have to pay for the needs of the child, though, but they also have to pay for the well-being of the illegal immigrant parents. In total, illegal immigration costs $135 billion dollars - again, all supplied by the taxpayers. Of the total amount of illegal immigrants coming into the US per year, those with "anchor babies" that provide for birthright citizenship constitute about 10% of the entire flow, meaning they cost about 13.5 billion dollars a year. Believe me, this is unacceptable. On top of this, the repeal of birthright citizenship does not violate the constitution in any way. The constitution clearly conveys this, by stating that the government has the power to choose whom is in the jurisdiction of the United States and is, therefore, eligible to become a citizen. With this I conclude my opening statements and arguments. Sources: . http://www.nationalreview.com... . https://fairus.org... . http://www.nationalreview.com... . http://www.breitbart.com...
Faith without evidence is detrimental

Since I can't use the Bible as "proof," then you can't use the Bible as "proof," either. Anyway, your entire view is complete fallacy, rendering your entire claim, void. - Fallacy - A mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument. Your view is fallacy, simply because you say Faith without evidence is harmful. There is no evidence to prove, or disprove God. - Faith - Complete trust or confidence in someone or something You have faith that God doesn't exist. Yet you have no proof, as no one does, of such a claim. I can say that, "Your faith without evidence is harmful." The Bible was wrote by man, not God. It is through man's interpretation of God, and creation, that we come to have religious texts. From the dawn of intelligent thinking, man has felt something greater than ourselves in the universe. Which is why religions, philosophies, and faiths of all kinds have sprung forth all across the globe. Even some scientists, who don't believe in God, will agree in the terms of an intelligent designer. "Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior the to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble." "The scientists' religious feeling takes form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection." - Albert Einstein It is through one's own understanding of the universe, and creation, that we believe or don't believe in God. Man created religion, not God. Who is God? What is God? No one knows this. But to say a belief in such is harmful, is based on opinion, not fact. Christians follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. Jesus spoke of only one thing more than love, and that was God. Many people have done great things in their lives, and in the lives of others, simply because of their Faith. Yes, there are radical Christians who are mean, hateful, and very hypocritical. However, there are radicals in all religions and philosophies. To say that Faith is harmful to one's self, and society, can be simply proven wrong on the understanding that through someone's Faith, they believed that God told them to do such selfless acts. If God isn't real, then their imagination in such a belief, held them to a high moral standard than of their self. Simply, to a belief in God. If this is the case, then the opposite argument can be made. Those people who don't believe in God, who do horrendous acts against society, do so because of their lack of belief in God. This is why your argument is fallacy, and completely void. There is no evidence for either argument. Again, it's all based on one's own perception of literally, everything.
Faith without evidence is detrimental

I am taking the PRO position that faith without evidence is harmful. I believe it promotes habits of inaccurate thought and is detrimental to the individual and to society as a whole. CON is going to try to prove that faith without evidence is a positive thing. The only rule is that religious text can be used as reference to clarification or explanation but cannot be presented as proof that Con's position is correct. The reason for this is that it is circular reasoning (ie P1 The bible says to have faith. P2 The bible says the bible is completely correct. C It is correct to have faith). That would get off on a tangent of the credibility of the source material, which is another debate.
The world would be better off without video games.

yes, it's true people may be addicted to video games. ESRB's Patricia Vance said in a study, they found out 60 % of the games in 1700 ratings were E for Everyone, so a huge selection of games available that are appropriate for all ages. Furthermore, even adults have benefits in playing video games. they can easily solve problems, but non players don't have as high levels in terms of perceptual and cognitive ability. Surgeons can save a person's life-- Dr. Jeffrey Taekman said "serious games and virtual environments are the future of education." Sporty games like Xbox or Wii, even title like Just Dance, have young kids dancing with their parents. So video games help people physically and in situations in life.
The world would be better off without video games.

While I agree there are some benefits they are largely outweighed by the minority and its knock on effect "Games that includes teamwork and independence are also good for teens." This would be great, if Teens were playing Games designed for their age group, however too many Teens and even some children play Games that have mature content, and it's not the game, its the players. Before Modern Warfare hit shelves you rarely heard trash talk over voice chat and especially not with the misguided intent of trying to fit in and "its all a part of the game." there is a fine line between what is "the game" and what is "the reality", too many children forget there not in the game when outside of it, leading to alienation from their peers and anger from parents and teachers when they unleash their mad MLG skills and trash talk which is usually some form of racial slur on a fellow classmate or sibling. The game makes it so kids don't understand the meaning behind their own words and actions.
The world would be better off without video games.

Video games are one of the most important games in history. in 1951, Ralph Baer was to make a TV and got ideas for this. Did you know there are educational video games, too? Kids can play them for an appropriate amount of time to learn more, as well as for entertainment. According to some Dutch researchers they "suggest that not only do the newer video games provide young people with compelling social, cognitive, and emotional experiences, they also can potentially boost mental health and well-being." Moreover, kids can react when they meet conflicts in the real world. A study from Education Development Center and the U.S. Congress-supported Ready To Learn (RTL) Initiative found out video games improve literacy skills, letter recognition (younger kids) and so on. Games that includes teamwork and independence are also good for teens, since they are growing up. This motion must fall.
The world would be better off without video games.

In this world humanity is starting to stagnate, as we move away from trying to make our world work for us, and instead we have switched to a computer generated reality. I love video games, but for the sake of this argument I will be playing devils advocate. Cons: Video games have lowered birth rates and social skills in some countries. Japan is a good example of a nation over-ran by video games to the point a lot of the male populace has given up on the idea of a girlfriend and the future beyond a glass screen. All the "benefits" of video games, from increased intelligence and problem solving to increased reactions holds nearly no real world benefits. The problem with today's society is, it's not what you know, it's who you know and a large percentage of hiring is done without open interviews. Many socially inept people, many who are gamers (not all) rely on open interviews to demonstrate skills, however many gamers lack the social skills necessary to swing the interviewer's opinion.
video games help

Video games improve preschoolers' motor skills Letting a 4-year-old sit in front of a TV with a game controller might not seem like the most productive use of her time. But researchers from Deakin University in Melbourne, Australia, would disagree. Their study examined the development of 53 preschool-aged children, and found that those who played "interactive games" had better "object control motor skills" than those who didn't. It's not clear, though, whether children with better-than-average motor skills tend to gravitate toward video games in the first place.
video games help

Video games are therapeutic for children with chronic illnesses The University of Utah released a study last year that examined the effects of regular gaming on children diagnosed with illnesses like autism, depression, and Parkinson's disease. Kids who played certain games, including one designed just for the study, showed signs of improvement in "resilience, empowerment, and a 'fighting spirit.'" Researchers believe the games' ability to act on "neuronal mechanisms that activate positive emotions and the reward system" helped improve kids' demeanors as they faced the daily challenges of their illnesses.
Homosexuals should be allowed to adopt

In my opinion, there is no such thing as "appropriate" gender roles. The society should be able to accept homosexuals as people and a part of the society, rather than as a minority of different sexual perspectives. Also the many studies showing that it is beneficial to the child to have two parents of different genders, the many studies are hard to prove, because there are a lot more families with two different gender adults, than families with same sex parents. Therefor there will of course be more children in the first group, with a better development. When you choose to point out a study that shows things like this, you need to consider the fact that you can not be sure, that the parents in the families have the same background story or other factors, that could influence on the children's development. I disagree that a family should be described as a mother, a father and maybe children. Family is a word that describes people loving and respecting each other, which is both things that you should do to all people. therefor the government should not encourage just these traditions to much, because it affects the way a thing like family should be seen and respected. It is not all adopted children that experience bullying as a part of their development, and those children who does, is because the children who bully has not been taught from home, to have respect for other people. Likewise, it is not a question whether we should place adopted children in families with homosexual parents or in a family with heterosexuals parents, but instead a question whether people should learn their kids about love and respect or not. I agree that it should be about what is best for the child and its development through its childhood, but i also believe that gay people can raise a child just as fine as heterosexual people can. It is a lot harder for them, especially because they do not have the same support from society and other people, as other families has, and that can eventually cause some problems.
Homosexuals should be allowed to adopt

Children raised by gay couples will find it more difficult to learn appropriate gender roles in the absence of male and female role-models. Although not an exact match single parents provide a similar case where there has not been someone of the other gender as a role model. Although the evidence is not nearly as conclusive as is often claimed there have been many studies that have shown that two parents from different genders is beneficial to the child in its development. Similarly it is often claimed that boys develop negative attitudes to study because there are very few male teachers in primary schools. Numerous studies have shown that children do best when they are raised by two married, biological parents. In the case of adopted children that is impossible, but a man and a woman is the best approximation of that family. Since that is the best environment to raise children, the government has to encourage and promote these traditional unions, not undermine them. Allowing gay couples to legally become parents, would legally and socially redefine what a family is and society as a whole may suffer. Children who are adopted already face bullying and exclusion in school because of their difference, placing them in same-sex households will double their exclusion and make their lives much harder than if placed in an opposite-sex household. The focus of this debate should not be on gay rights, but on what is in the best interest of the adopted child. The adoption process' goal is to find the most suitable parents for that child, not to resolve other social inequalities and injustices. Being raised in a traditional family, by a mother and father, is the best environment for a child. Studies have shown that children who are raised by homosexual couples can have problems with substance abuse, violence and 'at risk' behaviour. Therefore the state has the obligation to try to provide the child with that environment.
Marxism is Worse then Nazism

R1: My opponent has not refuted my contention, but has merlly elaberated on what I said. My argument still stands. Marxism killed way more people then Nazism and therefore, is worse. R2: My opponent says that nazism contributed to poverty around the countries they had counquored this is true to some extent, but still Marxism was worse because unlike nazism, marxism had a third of the world's population under it's flag and everyone of those people were starving. If they spoke out about it they were shot. My opponent says that the nazi death camps were worse because they had gass chambers, this is untrue because marxist death camps didn't need gas chambers they just either starved people to death, tortured people to death, or simply shot people in the head. On top of this the number of people that were executed was 10 times as large as that of nazi victems. In conclusion, Marxism is worse then nazism.
Marxism is Worse then Nazism

R1: My opponent doesn't understand what I was trying to say in the last round. In the second round of this debate my opponents arguement was "Marxism has killed more of its own citizens then Nazism" I was countering it by saying "Nazism didn't just affect the Jews" because most people think that Nazism just affected the Jews and nobody else when in fact, looking at the statistics my opponent put on the debate there where many other people killed. Gypsies, mentally disabled/ disabled people, Germans, Homosexuals are some of the many types of people that were killed along with the Jews and some with more harsh deaths than being shot or put in gas chambers (Guillotine, Starvation, going insane, etc.) so that I can get the point across to change peoples thinking on Nazism.R2: Even though Hilter only sent 11 million people to Concentration/ Death Camps many people in places like Poland, France, England, etc. were sent into a kind of depression because the Nazis were constantly taking other citizens food, money, supplies, and weapons/ ammunition and people couldn't take care of themselves or their families so lots of people began to live in poverty or die. Gulogs, or the death camps, weren't as bad as concentration camps. Gulogs only constisted of inadequate feeding amount, bad clothing, and sometimes the prisoners were abused randomly by the guards. Concentration/ Death Camps were of the these things except they had Gas Chambers which was the leading factor of deaths in the Concentration/ Death Camps.In conclusion, even if my opponent tries to counter my thoughts I e and better. That is why Nazism is worse than Marxism.Vote Con!!
Marxism is Worse then Nazism

R1: My opponent does not understand their were 11 million people in all all killed by the nazis and out of that was 6 million jews. This does not refute my arguement in the least bit, so my arguement still stands till my opponent can successfuly counter it.R2: I disagree with my opponent. Hitler only sent 11 million people to work camps/deathcamps. In marxist countries such as the former Soviet Union, the people as a whole were collectivised up into work farms where the people were forced to work like slaves, and if they did poorly they were sent to the Gulogs (which were death camps). Political rivals and religious people alike were shot. The poor people starved to death by the tens of millions. [1][2] This is just one of hundered of examples I could give concerning how bad marxism really is. This proves that marxism is worse then nazism even they both still are pretty bad philosophies.In conclusion, Marxism is worse then nazism.[1] http://www.gendercide.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Marxism is Worse then Nazism

In this debate I will prove that in fact, Nazism is worse than Marxism. Nazism is worse for these reasons:1). Nazism didn't just affect the Jews.2). Living conditions were worse for the victims of Nazism than the victims of Marxism. (Below I will explain my reasons in more detail.) C1: Nazism didn't just affect the Jews. Even if you weren't a Jew and spoke up against the Nazis, if you went to stores and shops owned by Jews, or just didn't want to join the Nazi Army because you had different ideas then Adolf Hitler you could be killed or thrown into a death/ concentration camp along with the Jews, which resulted in many killings also. C2: Living conditions were worse for the victims of Nazism than the victims of Marxism.Marxism resulted in its victims living poverty, when victims of Nazism had to live in the ghettos, concentration camps, and extermination camps(otherwise known by its lesser term death camps) where they became vulnerable to diseases, such as Cholera and any moment knowing that you might be sent to be killed by being shot, or. As you can see the victims of Nazism did not luxury but even worse than poverty.
Marxism is Worse then Nazism

In this debate I will be proving that marxism is in fact worse then nazism. Although they are both very bad forms of government I will be discussing why nazism is not as bad as marxism in terms of morality, economics, and politics. Marxism is worse then nazism for these reasons:1) Marxism has killed more of its own citizens then nazism.2) Marxism has made its countries more poor. My next contentions will explain more in detail. C1: Marxism has killed more of its own citizens then nazism. The approximate total of innocent people killed under marxism from 1917 to 1987 was 110 million people[1], while in Nazi Germany only 11 million people were killed. It is apparent that marxism is far more bloodier then nazism while they are both incredibly dispicable ideaologies. C2: Marxism has made its people more poor. The marxist countries today and in the past are poor underdeveloped countries. It's people are poor farmers who can only afford the bare essentials, such as North Korea which only has one city. It is having to rely on food aid to keep its people fed. In Nazi Germany however, its people were living in luxuary they all had jobs and they all had food whenever they wanted it. They had giant buildings that towered above anything the marxists ever built. In conclusion,Nazism killed less people. Nazism made its country (Germany) richer and bettered the lies of its civilian population in the time they were in power. Marxism killed many more people nazism. Marxism made its people more impoverished then before their revoltution.
Secession in the United states is constitutional

-We will be talking about Secession in the USA-Sources are needed for statistics or Quotes. .. I urge voters not to change votes due to no sources, as there may be merit in that certain argument, though it is not re-enforced. WE WILL BE DEBATING:The constitutionality of SecessionThe Religious and ethical Morality of secessionThe Legality of SecessionThe Pros and Cons of a Secessionist state, and it's overall influence on the world.
Rap battle

PedoStyle is as soft as a fluffy puffy pillow That didn't even hurt you mumblin bimbo (1) Like garbage, i toss you out the window Was that quote supposed to diss me or is it an attempt to flaunt wisdom? Tryin' to impress the crowd but utterly fault with your temper tantrum Trying to criticize me for my lines? You the one who wrote "heat seekin Hitler" You made a grammatical error, now face my wrath, i'm killin it like Jack the ripper Heard that comment you made about poetry, you care bear, soft as a daisy Tryna act like you a child molester, boy you the most civilized John Wayne Gacy (2) Yes i speak Hebrew, but you don't, plus you speak nothin but gibberish Your an illiterate gibberin bearish n' ridiculous moron thinkin he's Yiddish I see no flow, your stats are much thinner than your fats with fats It's skills that you lack, your cave is full of rats and rats n' bats Pedostyle grew up in a very nice home livin with the Bernstein bears Every night he'd ask that God would make him an emcee in his prayers 1. http://www.bakeryandsnacks.com... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Rap battle

You should've given up but you missed me Tried to diss me in the other rap and resist me Well here's a quote from you so let's see... "I seek truths in all wakes of life." Try to learn to spell before you write rhymes Hit you where it hurts every single line I'm truth_seeker and I know ancient Hebrew That must mean I'm a heat seeking Hitler Here's a little line for you to decipher לזיין אותך, each line I hit a little harder So let's take the battle a little farther You like Passion of the Christ and Frankenstein Well I'm Passion of the Knife on Benzodiazepine Full throttle freestyle flows burning gasoline F**kin all you f**gots as if you were preteens I'm a bull with your flows, I just buck them Lay them down like a baby and f*** them Everybody thinking PedoStyle has punked him For next round I say "God please help him"