BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United States Should Build a Border Fence

I. Necessary Security Pro says that 50 to 60 percent of the people is a lot, which I suppose it is, but it isn't enough when 50 percent more are coming into the USA come different areas of the world. Pro says the Latin American illegal immigrants are taking the long way, but doesn't give a source. Later, Pro wants to know how preventing smuggling of guns and drugs would be costly, and instead I ask Pro, "How could it not be costly?” Pro seemed to answer my call on how long the fence will be, so let’s finish off from there. II. Cost Effective Pro says he wants the fence to cover 700 miles of land, which is about 1/2 of the total border, and he maintains that there will be watchtowers every 10 miles or so, which would mean less people to actually watch the border, however Pro still hasn’t pick a solid number up and hasn’t shown just how much the illegal immigrants from Mexico cost the USA. Pro says the terrain will be an issue for immigrants, but if immigrants are tunneling under the border, chances are a steep mountain climb will be little more than an intense week. Pro said things of smugglers, but smugglers will find a way, and the smart ones won’t take the front door, so to speak. Pro seemed to drop my contention that immigration into America has been dropping Environment Pro says we can simply pipe the water away and add animal crossings, but in doing so this would be a weak spot in our defenses, and this would yet again be a raise in price.
The United States Should Build a Border Fence

Thank you for this debate. I will clarify that I find that the fence Pro suggests is too costly and and ultimately not worth it. In Pro's first paragraph, he outlines the fence and its bells and whistles, and the engineer in me certainly likes what he sees. However, there are a few issues which I will address later. Pro mentions that by July of last year, about 300k illegal immigrants had fled to the border. A lot of these are uneducated and are dependent says Pro. So far, not really much to go on.In his Second paragraph, Pro says illegal cost tax payers about $113 billion dollars a year. About half that goes to education and although it is not mention explicitly, about $8 billion goes to illegal in prison. Pro mentions guns, which is a legitimate issue, Pro doesn't seem to mention about just how he plans on protecting against smuggling, but if he plans to fence them out, it will be costly. Jumping ahead to the cost of the fence, Pro talks about the costs, he throws out the number $10 million per mile, so lets use that. Pro shouldn't have a issue with this because, well, this is a very nice fence, to put it one way. The Border between the USA and Mexico is about 1,900 miles long[1].Times 1,900 by 10 million, and I got $19 billion for the fence. The fence costs $200 million per year, so lets times that for 50 years ("Several decades"). I got 10 Billion. Adding $19 billion, that's $29 Billion for the fence. This is the final price tag. Earlier, Pro said there was about 300k illegal crossing into the USA and half of that is from Mexico, so it seems the question is whether or not a fence would be worth keeping them out.====================A1- Mexico born illegal immigrants are only and 50 to 60 percent of the problem.The number changes from source to source, but this is roughly the number, and it is dropping[2].http://www.pewhispanic.org...The same source says that they are 52% of all the illegal immigrants.The rest come from Latin America, Europe and Asia. Building a fence to stop 95% of a declining number of people isn't what I have in mind.A2- CostPro says Single Fencing hasn't been working because the government always loused the job, so he suggested double-fencing.For this to be feasible, Pro would be forced to add more wall and more border patrol, which Pro seems to leave off. There is one thing also, the impact on the environment.[3]Also, I assume he is aware about the trouble of protecting a 1,900 mile area, so it will be costly running about.The above source states that it will affect wildlife.Other sources back this up[4]. University of Texas says the Rio Grande will also be affected.The cost of these affects must also be added in.Price Tag:1- $29 Billion for several decades.2- Multiple environmental affectsI will stop here, but I have highlighted that a Border fence on Pro's scale will still be too costly compared to the immgrants from Mexico and the immigrants flow is already slowing down.[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.pewhispanic.org...[3]http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org...[4]https://www.utexas.edu...
Tablets VS Textbooks

While my opponent may say that replacing textbooks with tablets would improve schooling, a review of the facts suggests that it would do the opposite. My first round of arguments shall focus on two issues: student performance and cost. But before that, let me rebut my opponent's points. Pro has said that tablets make things easier for students, but has not explained why or how. As such, his case does not stand. Now let me get to my first point. Tablet usage negatively impacts student performance; students may become distracted by games, websites, and videos while using a tablet. While software can be used to "lock down" tablets, there inevitably would be a tech savvy kid who has found a way to bypass said software, and said method could spread all around a school. Tablets are also more costly than textbooks. They need electricity and maintenance. They take away money from the school budget that could be spent on training teachers or evaluating the curriculum's effectiveness.
Adolf Hitler was not a bad man

Guess what! You can't just say that the whole thing happened just because there were not that many cameras! They didn't have as many cameras as nowadays, yet they still have actual, rare, pictures by Margaret White. There are also journals, and much more evidence. How do you not believe that! Are you directly saying that Adolf Hitler NEVER made any extermination camps and killed Jews, that millions of dead people just disappeared from the Jewish population, and that thousands of survivors are lying, that scientific evidence does nothing, the fact that Adolf Hitler did not order Jews to be put in the camps! Just wow. I can't believe this.
Adolf Hitler was not a bad man

My information comes from this documentary, ( )I suggest you watch it. How do you know that he killed thousands of Jews? The only pictures I have seen of dead bodies in the Holocaust have been victims of typhus which was rampant during that time. Also where are all of those mass graves that they talk about? 6 million bodies must take up a lot of space. It is obvious that I shouldn't even bother find my other sources because you wont remove your stigmatism long enough to see that Hitler wasn't a bad guy. Try pretending that you were a National Socialist and look at what the British are doing, your arguments would be the exact same, they destroyed your country and killed tens of thousands of people.
Adolf Hitler was not a bad man

I'm not saying that just because he was willing to die for his country that makes him a good person, even though we regard those kinds of people as heroes. What kind of Germany do you think is perfect? The one where you need enough Reichsmarks (the German currency during WW1) to fill a wheel burrow just to buy a loaf of bread? Or the one where bankers were taking advantage of the people sending even more into unemployment? May I also remind you that before Adolf came to power 1 in 3 people were unemployed. Also where does it say that he would "rather save a guilty German serial killer and kill a Jew who brought world peace". You aren't presenting any argument other than what you think he was like. I recommend you watch a documentary on Hitler called "The greatest story never told" It is all factual and provides more information than History books give.
Adolf Hitler was not a bad man

Just because he may have died for his country does not make him a good man. He is a cold blooded murderer. In fact, he quite literally began World War 2, killing millions, ( http://www.biography.com... ) and he hated all Jews for no justified reason. He already had a perfect Germany, yet he only wanted more, more, and even more. Hitler would rather save a guilty German serial killer and kill a Jew who brought world peace, and never the other way. Face it. Adolf Hitler, the German dictator, was a BAD MAN.
Adolf Hitler was not a bad man

Every time Adolf Hitler is brought up in the history books it seems that his only accomplishment was killing 6 million Jews during the holocaust; I believe that those numbers were largely falsified due to the fact that the 6 million figure was first published in American newspapers before all of the camps were found, the plaque displaying the body count of Auschwitz has changed from 4 million to one and a half million, and finally soviet micro films have surfaced showing the various tables containing the number people, both Jewish and non-Jewish, who entered Auschwitz and those numbers never when above 200,000. Before Adolf was even in a position to be able to commit mass murder he was a soldier in the German Army during WW1. During his time in the army he volunteered for the most dangerous jobs like the runner who would deliver messages to and from the front lines, a job with a life expectancy of around 2 weeks; even when he was injured and sent back to a hospital he was itching to get back to the front lines and continue the fight. By the end of the war Adolf earned the Iron Cross 2nd class and the Iron Cross 1st class which is comparable to the Medal of Honor the American heroes earn. Adolf Hitler was, above all, a patriot who was willing to die for his country, a virtue that very few have. After the war Adolf saw his beloved country to fall to pieces under a broken republic and come close to being taken over by the communists. He joined the National Socialist German Workers' Party and with his gift of public speaking was able to win over Germany and pull it out of a depression much worse than the great depression in America. The most common argument against Adolf Hitler was that he killed 6 million Jewish people even though that can be easily disproved.
Evolution's Mechanism

Many times evolutionists will point to evidence of micro-evolution as evidence for macro-evolution since it seems to make sense, on the surface, that little changes can equate to big changes given enough time. The reality is that the situation is much more complicated than that. Micro changes occur due to known, demonstrable mechanisms such as genetic drift, natural selection, and mutations. While these changes may be chalked up as evolution in the sense that an organism has changed, the reason we call them micro changes is that these changes rarely affect an organisms ability to reproduce with members of its own species. The reason this issue becomes complicated is that we must ask the question, where do we draw the line on micro to macro changes and at what point do we prove that macro changes are possible? Surely speciation is a fact, but can this type of micro change result in macro changes? My goal is not to answer these questions definitively, but to affirm that there is no mechanism which supports the hypothesis of macro-evolution giving rise to all organisms from a single common ancestor. A key point to consider is the limitations of these micro changes. Dogs have gone through a lot of change due to man-made selection. We have everything from large Great Danes to miniature Chihuahuas but they are still dogs. Size, color, fur length etc. are all observed changes, but there are limitations to the changes possible. A dog can never be selected for wings or gills because the genetic information is not there to produce such features. And I guess this is the crux of my argument: where is the coded information going to come from to change a reptile into a bird, a fish into a mammal, etc? When a breeder wants a bigger dog, he must use either the largest specimens of successive generations or he must introduce large dog genes from another breed. In either case, selection is doing just that: selecting from what's already there. The only hope for an evolutionist, and correct me if I'm wrong, is for mutations to add new information which can turn, say, a scale into a feather. I don't find any demonstrable evidence for these types of mutations and I am therefore left to conclude that macro-evolution is not possible. I realize so far I have not gone into any technical detail nor have I rigorously attempted to define my terms. You may attempt to do so if you wish. I am simply presenting a perceived problem for macro-evolution and wanting to see if there is real demonstrable support for this hypothesis. I do not believe there is and I look forward to your opening arguement.
Evolution's Mechanism

Closing Statements So far Con has not provided evidence for macro-evolution via mutations or any other mechanism. What he has done is provide evidence for speciation, adaptation, and micro-evolution. Again, you cannot show these changes within an order or family group and hypothetically extrapolate backwards. Apes are apes, dogs are dogs, etc. To say one species can change into another within a different order or even class over millions of years is an statement based on no demonstrable evidence. Con says I have to show "how no mechanism can lead to the changes required for macro-evolution." This would require a whole new arguement, but the idea of a "barrier" is not based meer claims, it is based on what we actually observe. If you look at the Canidae family, and specifically the dogs, you will find that while they have varied and diversified, they actually have lost information. Consider a Chihuahua for example, it has lost infoormation and under no natural circumstance can it ever evolve into a wolf again without adding wolf genes back into its gene pool. I guess the main question, which if solved, would provide the answer to who is "actually right," would be: can mutations actually provide the type of change necessary for macro-evolution or the idea that all animals have arisen from a common ancestor? The clear answer is no! Maybe we can have a more detailed debate specifically on the power of muations which might address this insue more rigorously. As for this debate, I think its clear that Con has lost. The only people I can see voting for him are those who already accept macro-evolutionary change as a scientific fact. But a careful read-through of this debate will reveal that Con has not addressed the resolution: There is no verifiable mechanism which can demonstrably support the hypothesis of macro-evolutionary changes (I.e. reptile to bird, fish to mammal, etc.) in the framework of any model of biological evolution. Thanks for your time!
social media is a boon

It is easy enough to made broad generalization about media sites as the opposition may did but conversely here not. Coming on the topic did but the fact cannot be denied that media sites have led to more number of online frauds, exposure of children to vulgrastic vultures. It is only a matter of time until it has become quite clear that media sites are only ruining our relations and friendship.Its quite ironical as we chat to millions of people but in reality we are not able to talk to any of them face to face.Its exactly said that "We want more from technology and less from each other".Social media is only a mere tool do not make it your life otherwise it may take your life.Its just a autonomous abusing place where anything can be happened and you are not caught. We people are also egoistic as we like to make 500 unknown friends rather than 50 known one.Why??? Its just to have top rankings on these sites.So why to throw ourselves in a pit of hot boiling water, which is ready to swallow you??? As there are more beautiful to do with our life.So "MEDIA SITES ARE A BANE FOR US"
social media is a boon

"sirf hangama khada karna mera maksad nahi hai, sari koshish hai ki yeih tasveer badlani chaiyae. Mere sine mein nahi to tere sine me hi sahi , ho khai bi aag lekin aag jalni chaiye,"(This is a famous hindi quote.) Social media is just like a virus which is continuously replicating itself. So Iam totally against it. This is my first debate too. Waiting for the person who accept my challenge. I shall first log you in then directly hit the notification . 1)As we generally expect these days that social media helps people stay interconnected but in real life rather than reel one they just made people away from the real world , and away from the their parents . As they like to share their personal problems with their so called media friends rather than their parents thereby a huge loss of our heritage and culture. Moreover they made relations BUT only the FAKE one rather than real one. So we just make fake relations on the cost of real human relations. "IT IS JUST LIKE CONNECTED TO MANY , BUT IN REALITY NOT CONNECTED TO SINGLE ONE". 2)As far as the education is concerned the recent studies had revealed that social media is major factor of distraction among the children. As they are more concerned about pointless comments and likes rather then their studies. 3)Calling social media being a social one is just like same if we call most corrupted persons or wanted criminals as social one. Just recently when I went to a coffee shop I saw two friends sitting together but not having a single word with each other. Can you guess why?????? Let me tell you they were constantly busy on updating latest comments. So it quite clearly showing an antisocial environment. Nowadays people go to parties not just to enjoy there but just to have mere photograph of it , so as to post it on Facebook, twitter etc. Just to have more likes and comments. So are we not aware or do not want to know that know one really cares what you did the last night. 4) These medial sites are just like a drug. They have ATTRACTION like a WELL BRANDED PERFUME as people generally find difficult to log out.
social media is a boon

I believe, that in some ways, social media is a boon. Whilst I see your point that social media does a lot of harm, I also believe that it does a little more good. These are the 4 main points for my argument: 1. Social media helps people stay interconnected with one another and allows them to talk to each other from long distances away. 2. Social media, for educational purposes, can allow students to chat with each other and make forums to help each other with their educational pursuits. 3. Social media is a good way for people to post what is on their mind and just, vent. When people are having a bad day, nowadays, they take to social media to share it with somebody. People were made to talk to others about their feelings, not to hold them in. 4. People are social beings, and social media gives people another way to socialise with one another in an easy and relatively reliable way.
social media is a boon

"sirf hangama khada karna mera maksad nahi hai, sari koshish hai ki yeih tasveer badlani chaiyae. Mere sine mein nahi to tere sine me hi sahi , ho khai bi aag lekin aag jalni chaiye,"(This is a famous hindi quote.) Social media is just like a virus which is continuously replicating itself. So Iam totally against it. This is my first debate too. Waiting for the person who accept my challenge. I shall first log you in then directly hit the notification .
Good luck Charlie is the best show currently on Family channel

To be honest, this channel is very boring. However, after observing all of the programs on this channel, I have concluded that "Good luck Charlie" is the best show currently still making episodes on family. I am excited to see who will accept this debate. There are a few rules following: I. You must find a better show on this channel. II. At no time may my opponent change the show he is defending. He must explain how that show is better than Good luck Charlie. III. My opponent can only consider show that are still going on. (since good luck Charlie didn't officially end on this channel yet, it counts as a show that is still going on.) V. 10, 000 characters, 72 hours to respond My opponent can choose weather or not they would like to begin debating now, or use this round as acceptance. Good luck!
Good luck Charlie is the best show currently on Family channel

-BOP is on both of us, and we have the ability to provide a rebuttal towards the opponent's arguments. -I hope this can remain a respectful debate -I hope we both have fun with this debate! Also, I was about to choose the Proud Family for my TV show because in all seriousness, that was a D@mn good show. However, since it is not going on anymore (unfortunately), I will play Devil's advocate and represent, "Dog with a Blog" (which I hope gets cancelled soon). Anyways Jabuticaba! Lead on and present your first argument! Also, good luck :D
US Military Intervention in Mexico & Other Countries of Latin America

The reason for using the US military to integrate and intervene in many parts of Latin America is simple. There countries are causing numerous American deaths and therefore an intervention is practical if we use the same protocol used in the attacks on the twin towers and Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Only 3, 000 US civilians were killed on the attack, And that was more than enough to grant an advanced and coordinated invasion into Iraq. The Cartels and other Latin American gangs are causing far more than 3, 000 US civillian deaths every year. It is estimated that since 2006, There have been 150, 000 coordinated homicides by the cartels of Latin America. America maintains its conflict in the middle East even though since the years following 9/11 only 95 US civilians have been killed by islamic extremist groups. Using basic math and history, We can easily conclude that a coordinated intervention into Latin America would be justified, Practical, And ethical.
Reality TV does more good than harm

First I will refute your arguments Your first argument is how this is corrupting tv My response is that there are so many other show, not only reality Tv. You have provided no number of how many people watch reality TV. We already stated that this helps economy! Your second argument is that it becomes worse You have to understand that this gives opportunities. Remember Career Makeover! Again, no numbers of those watching it Your third Argument is that it creates instant celebrities We are saying just that! People with absolutely no life, with no job, they are unemployed, can get money by being in these reality tv shows! I gave you examples of Career Makeover and how much money this will also help benefit the economy Your 4th Argument is that it is dishonest So, you want the truth, I don't think people would want to watch someone sleeping, or eating, or watching Tv. Of course they would show the interesting parts, that is how they make money to benefit economy
School is there to brainwash people.

Countries like Finland give their students freedom and no homeworks they value creativity and working with each other.And you know whats they their system outperforms all other in the world.School has stayed the same for over 300+ years while the world arround is changed school didnt.The system we have in school now was created 300 years ago to prepare students for mindless working in factories.Thats why they tell you when you can eat to raise you hand if you want to speak up.World has changed to wanting not people who work in factories and people who are told what they have to do but to people who are creative and think outside of the box.You stated that students wont go to class you give them too much freedom but why do you thinks is that students arent going to class because they find it prepetiive and borring if they make it interesting with information that students will have use when they get in the real world like how to vite pay taxes and stuff like that they wont run away from class.Countries likeFinland show that when you give students freedom and make them learn interesting things that will have some use outside of school students preform better than the whole world.