BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Border Fence

Each year, several hundred people die attempting to cross the U.S. Mexico border. http://en.wikipedia.org... A border fence would, on top of preventing illegal immigration, prevent these deaths from occurring. We need to control and document those who enter this country. Allowing people to walk across and wander in the desert for a few days before dying of dehydration is not fulfilling the promise of America. Nor is allowing somebody from another country come here and exploit our systems, our government, and our people by allowing breaking the law. We must follow and enforce the laws we have in this country and give everybody a fair shake. How is it fair to allow people to come here in violations of laws and benefit from the blessings we enjoy when there are others who want to come here but follow those laws? We must not only reform our laws to allow those who want to stay here and work hard and make a life do so, but we need to control the problem we have already and force it to the surface. One of these steps is to establish a functional border fence between ourselves and our friends to the south. We must enforce the laws and reform the laws if we wish to properly fulfill any promise of America. In order to keep this country safe, we need to control who can and cannot come here. Goodness forbid a terrorist or others who wish to do America harm come here by walking across a small patch of land. As much as a fence may cost, a disaster and loss of life by another terrorist attack would cost far more. We need security, we need a law abiding population, and we need continue to be the beacon of hope for the world. Although, other steps are certainly needed, one of the required steps is to secure our borders and to do that we need a fence. -- A border fence will prevent unneeded deaths. -- A border fence will protect us from terrorists. -- A border fence will prevent the influx of illegal drugs into this country. -- Preventing illegal drugs will prevent individuals from getting funding for other illegal activities. -- Illegal immigrants are a drain on the system, and we simply can't afford such drains currently. -- Illegal immigrants commit crimes and because they are illegal simply skip town. -- Illegal immigrants bring diseases such as Chagas to our country (blood banks are now starting to screen for this). -- Illegal immigrants are ILLEGAL! They are breaking the law. We need to control the problem while we seek better solutions and that requires a functional ability to stop illegal immigration.
Soccer IS overall the best sport in the world

1. It's PopularA. "If you're talking about the way the sport is set up and how it's viewed in different countries than yes.But the way you're saying it sounds like it's your opinion. Any other person who has a passion for any other sport can argue that fact with you that, that sport is better."Sure, I have a passion for Soccer. That is irrelevant to this argument. "This argument a cannot be falsified. It is a simple fact. More people play soccer around the globe, than any other sport out there.", I said last round. This is not an opinion, but a FACT. It is backed up by data. Soccer is the MOST popular sport in the world. Sources to back this up:http://wiki.answers.com...http://www.fifa.com...My opponent has ignored my next two arguments, therefore I win contentions 1B, and 2.EXTEND ALL PREVIOUSE ARGUMENTS INTO THIS ROUND.RECAP:<>Opponent ignored most arguments.<>He/she's response was a mere 3 sentences.<>I proved my point with valid sources in contention 1A.Conclusion.......VOTEPRO
Soccer IS overall the best sport in the world

I stand affirmative to the resolution that 'Soccer IS overall the best sport in the world'.Below are my contentions.1. It's popularA. This argument a cannot be falsified. It is a simple fact. More people play soccer around the globe, than any other sport out there. In fact, the only sport some countries have, is soccer. According to figures noted, Football (soccer) had about 265 million registered 'players' (265 mil. only including 'pros' as opposed to 'fans'). Cricket, Table Tennis, Volleyball and Basketball also topped the 200 million mark. For those who really want to know, Rugby Union totalled about 2 million, Rugby League less than 1 million.Based on playing numbers (registered players), Soccer is the most played sport in almost every country in the world. That also includes a number of countries that traditionally think of other sports (such as baseball, gridiron and rugby) as their 'national' game. ie. The USA, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand. B. The Fifa world cup If you have not heard of it, the world cup is the single, biggest sporting event in the world. I am sure that total viewing for Olympics is more than World Cup, however that is because for 3 weeks you will see Olympic events non stop for 12 hours a day. In some cases far more than 12 hours. And to show all events you will use more than one channel at a time. Football World Cup will normally show 2 games a day, with a total of 3 hours per day. There is no doubt however that most Olympic events get very low viewing figures (apart from the 100 meters for men) whereas all the soccer games get high figures.So I suppose Football gets much higher figures for the period it is being shown. "....however it's roots is often traced back to several ancient civilizations throughout the world. Since it's modern day creation, soccer, otherwise know as football to the rest of the world, has taken the world by storm. So much so that to some, soccer is a religion! "The fact that a church was formed in the name of Diego Armando Maradona, the Argentinean legendary striker...1" is just more evidence of peoples craze for the sport." - https://wikis.engrade.com...That is how much people love this sport.2. ScoringIn basketball for example, the average game has at least one point gained about every 20 sec. That's a pretty frequent scoring ratio. Basketball is just one example, however my point, is that some people argue that soccer is boring, because people only score on occasion. Needless to say, I think that the infrequent scoring is one of the aspects, that makes the game as fun and entertaining as it is.The reason I believe this, is because in basketball, people score very frequently(as stated above), therefore making the anticipation of a score not very high, because it happens so often. However in Soccer, sense the scoring is rare, it makes the moment all that better when someone finally does score. Because that goal technically is only worth 1 point, however in reality, it gives the scoring team a substantial lead on the opposing team.The resolution stands, and is impenetrable. VOTEPRO
Soccer IS overall the best sport in the world

Round uno is for acceptance. NO ARGUMENTS. I strongly believe that soccer is the best sport in the world. You will be arguing that, 'Soccer is not the best sport in the world'. Ground rules: <>Good spelling <>Don't say 'I like basket ball more', and then start listing reasons why basket ball is your favorite sport. Your job is not to promote another sport besides soccer. Your job in this debate is to give reasons why soccer is not the best sport, not why another sport is. <>Though I suppose a bit here and there is alright, keep the vulgarity at a low. <>Don't give stupid arguments, like 'the balls they use in Soccer look dumb'. <>Don't accept this debate is your not going to finish it. Continued failure abide by these rules after a warning(will post in the comments) will result in a vote bombing in favor of Pro. Good luck, JDoG
The Terminally Ill Should Be Allowed Access to Any Drugs They Want

"Since most would've worked before the illness most would have money saved. Some might not, but I never suggested forcing anybody to pay for it." Again, my opponent has mishandled the argument. Healthcare costs =/= drug costs. They can afford the drugs themselves, but that doesn't mean they can cover all of the added health-related issues involved. "What severe complications is Con worried about? Death? The patient is already dying." That doesn't mean there are no costs. Quite the opposite. "77% of the Medicare decedents' expenditures occurred in the last year of life, 52% of them in the last 2 mo, and 40% in the last month."[1] "That's like banning sex to stop rape." Suppose that 1/3 of the time that doctors had sex with their patients that it was rape. That would be a pretty convincing reason to ban sex. I fail to see how this example proves his point and not mine. "Con's missing the point that pressure to live is more likely than pressure to die for the reasons I've stated. Con is underestimating the strength of familial bonds if Con thinks families are likely to pressure people to die." 1.) I'd like my opponent to find some source, any source, talking about deaths decreasing from some 'duty to live' and then compare it to any simple Google search along the lines of "Euthanasia duty to die."[2] Any scholarly source on Euthanasia that you can find disagrees with this fantastic assertion of people having a 'duty to live.' 2.) Again, this is only a mitigation. ANY deaths caused by a duty to die are more than what happens when Euthanasia is illegal. Regardless how my opponent tries to make the impacts sound small (and do some reading on the subject, such as the Netherlands, you'll find they aren't) the fact of the matter is that there are still negative consequences that ensue that wouldn't happen otherwise. PRO conveniently missed this point again. "According to "Cruzan", passive euthanasia(VPE) i.e. refusing treatment is a constitutional right if you're an adult of sound mind[1]." My opponent's source is correct[3] in that Missouri, in 1990, allowed VPE. This means... nothing? Since then, Euthanasia has been made illegal in Missouri, as well as almost every other state.[4] "For example, in an ice cream shop a mom might tell her kid he can have any ice cream he wants." Then he should get any ice cream he wants; his mother misspoke. What you would actually hear is "Yes, honey, you can have any flavor of ice cream you want," or "Choose whichever type of ice cream is your favorite." I'll drop the point on experimental drugs. [1] http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org... [2] http://www.google.com...= [3] http://www.law.umkc.edu... [4] http://www.nightingalealliance.org...
The Terminally Ill Should Be Allowed Access to Any Drugs They Want

Some regulations that could be put in place to protect terminal patients from exploitation while still allowing them to experiment in an attempt at finding a cure: -Companies can be forbidden from advertising potential cures to terminally ill patients except as part of an approved human study (a proper study with controls that has been followed up after animal studies). -Sending E-mails and other mail promising cures could be considered a form of harassment. However, the patient or friends or family could still do their own research online or in libraries to look through scientific evidence and try to find something that might work, and then decide they want the treatment. If they have the money either saved themselves or from family, friends, or charity that volunteers to donate then they could get the treatment. By allowing the terminally ill any drug they want for any reason the individual's ability to seek out potential cures and potentially save their life is unimpeded. To do otherwise is to condemn the patient to certain death. Even restrictions such as making sure the patient isn't asking for the drugs for recreation or euthanasia would unfairly prevent patients from taking a last chance at saving their lives, because it would require them to go through a lot of time-consuming red tape. Considering they don't have much time left and that an honest patient who only wants to try to save their life might be mistaken as trying to get euthanasia or as a recreational user the only way to make sure terminal patients can try potential cures and potentially save their lives is to allow them to take drugs for euthanasia or recreational purposes as well. In any case as a bonus this can be used to make money for the hospital. Taking drugs that have security risks in addition to health risks could cost even more money for the patient. Just like with all things the price would cover not just the operating costs but would above that. This is true even if the hospital is non-profit since it would want money to expand services. Overall this means that allowing terminal patients to take the drugs they want will improve healthcare services for the other patients. As a last point I'll point out an inconsistency in Con's reasoning. Con is against euthanasia, that is against people dying because they choose to, yet Con is against allowing terminal patients to try experimental drugs as an attempt to save their lives. So Con is approving of people being forced to die for sure rather than take a chance at living but is against people dying out of choice. I think most people would agree that morally it's far worse to force someone to die than it is to simply give them the option.
The Terminally Ill Should Be Allowed Access to Any Drugs They Want

First is the issue of recreational drug use. I see no problem with the terminally ill making the most of the time they have left, so long as they don't hurt others in doing so. Unfortunately, drugs do hurt others. They have incredible social and economic costs, including drug related violence and death, incarceration, productivity losses, and healthcare costs. In total, the economic cost of drug use in America alone is about $200 billion anually.[1] Second is the issue of euthanasia. This has two major problems. The first is that simply offering the possibility of Euthanasia has empirically turned into an implied 'duty to die' on the elderly, often to save their families, or the hospital, money.[2] The second is that doctors have empirically abused euthanasia. About 1/3 of assisted suicides in the Netherlands (the only country to have a majorly pro-euthanasia policy) were performed without the patients' expressed consent,[2] often because the doctor felt that the patient was suffering. A lesser problem is that only 40% of all cases of euthanasia cases are reported to the government, making it hard to monitor.[2] Third is the issue of theft. Those who are terminally ill are not entitled to the drugs of others. Imminent death does not excuse theft. Despite my opponent's debating skill, he still hasn't convinced me that the ill should take any more than a chill pill. Until round 2, Good luck. [1] http://www.ncjrs.gov... [2] http://www.discovery.org...
The Terminally Ill Should Be Allowed Access to Any Drugs They Want

My Position: A person diagnosed with a terminal illness as determined by medical professionals should be allowed to have any drug they want for any reason, including euthanasia or recreation. Since they are at the end of their life additional pain and suffering is unnecessary and if a person knows the rest of their life will be pain there is no point in forcing them continue through it. Other terminally ill people might want to take drugs to alleviate pain and might find available prescriptions inadequate. Still others might want to experience certain substances recreationally before dying. Since they are already about to die death and addiction to the patient are not compelling reasons to stop them. In this case for some drugs regulations could be in place to allow only in a medical setting such as a hospital or hospice to prevent sharing or prevent the patient from harming others. Most importantly some patients deemed terminally ill might want to try experimental treatments in order to have a shot at life. Clarification: -This debate concerns whether the patient should be allowed access, not whether this access should be covered by private insurance or the government up to a certain point.
green is better than red

Thank you for this opportunity to debate with you. Today I will be opposing the motion that "Green is better than red" due to three reasons, which are art, flags, and marketing. Before I unpack my argument, I would first like to rebut the proposition"s argument. The proposition stated that if it weren"t for green, trees wouldn"t exist. This statement is entirely false, and I will now explain why. The cells which make up leaves, contain packets of chlorophyll. This pigment absorbs red and blue light, but reflects green from the Sun, hence a green leaf. But if it weren"t for the red light that the plant absorbs, wouldn"t the plant die from lack of energy? This is because the plant doesn"t need green light, only red and blue. In this scenario, green is not better than red at all, therefore I have already proved your argument to be incorrect. Now I will unpack my argument, art. There are countless famous paintings which are dominated with the colour red. One famous artist known for using red paint is Henri Matisse, who painted an artwork named "The Red Studio". The painting used only a little green, and the majority of the work was painted red. In this case, is green better than red? Obviously to the well-known painter, it isn"t. This is another reason why I have proved your argument to be correct. Due to the reasons above, I beg you to support my motion.
green is better than red

Why is green better than red? It's simple, when looking between the two red symbolizes destruction, death, and violence while green represents life, new beginnings,and happiness. Whether to symbolize a building , a country or a city. Green is the color you want to be surrounded in .After all the people of earth are surrounded by green every day, if it weren't for green the trees wouldn't exist , therefore oxygen would be diminished , nor would they give us shade, and the life in which green symbolizes would be lost gone forever, is that something you want? As would all the creatures, in which sustain people, whether plant or animal they ,all would be gone.
Poetry Battle

This one is called "Demoralization obliterated" "I'm a being, festering beneath a world I've engineered with my own mind The mechanical organism I've created within carnality has birthed a rebirth of corruption The regurgitation of human wickedness forever manifesting itself once more I am a being without a need for food or water but a drive to survive, to thrive, to find my perfection with absolute divinity Have i become a man or the sum of what you feared me to be? Have you become the savior of humanity or just a figment created by me? I stand sinking within a nirvana of insensibility, emotions wearing thin I'm surging inside an inner-struggle..the forces birthed from the origin of the cosmos There seems to be no way to escape the illusion of the contorted self Humanity has become the product of it's own devices as it seeks to be God I am a being who has yet to fall into the flesh-consuming process of the ever-evolving machine Confusion stirs my mind, vanity runs through my veins, my soul has become numb This demoralization has too found it's way within the seat of consciousness An infusion of self-will and that prototype that we all seem to know as man Still decaying into a state of the unknown My body has finally met it's realization of mortality it's hunger for the new artificial and inhuman metamorphosis My soul has at last met found the truth to break away from this reincarnation As this demoralization of good and evil seems to heal I am a being who has been made the predestined pure whole I am a being, i am one..."
Poetry Battle

Title: Contemporary Agelessness Old wagon sits by wildflowers which are tickled by the breeze as they sway The earth holds such growing beauty while humanities carpentry somewhat decays No one knows all the secrets it holds or how it's magnificence remains and stays Behold the great galaxies upon which God created, where stars play! Technology may be modern, it amazes those who first see But it won't be modern in 100 years, by then magic will be their technology Nobody knows the future where my kids and the next generation will be Except God with all his wonderful, unpredictable eccentricity! Humans take self pride, and their hearts are easily conceited They don't realize that God was the One who they abnegated By doing so, us humans likely have seriously backpedalled Who's it to notice that our lives are what the Contemporary Ageless God cinematized!
Poetry Battle

Title: Au Clair De la Loon The waves on the bay crashed to the rocks swiftly yet gently Who was to enter that scene of violence and serenity Only the aviators who flew calmly giving their call so humbly. The scent was pleasant, like clams and fish fillets many Countless grains of sand, nothing to stop them from multiplying Fins darted from the water, the sun reflecting quietly "Au Claire de la Loon" said the beauty, where there's no sign of humanity. The waters so frisk and bold as to demolish any dry land Like a teacup and pot the friendship mixes between wetness and sand Turtles make their way to a destination they had planned Slowly, the colors blend as to make a painting from an artist's paint cans There is no hint or sign of action, or activity, yet nothing too bland A scenic bit of the world where it's hidden, a special land "Au Claire de la Loon" said the seashore, the tides who make their own band. Footprints wahed away long ago from the beach by a powerful tide Nature within the luscious land and water boundaries hold a land slide The hearts of all the unique creatures feel at home, out and inside Sometimes the waters nearby are rough, now the look like glass as ducks glide No humans dare intrude this silent sanctuary, where glory and peace abide Where the pretty sun shines on the blueness and the waves crash and collide "Au Claire de la Loon" said the fish, happily swimming side by side. It's morning time, the creatures are bustling around the lagoon Swordfish fight, bugs find food, the birds will make their calls soon Splendid, candid, special anenomes stand still, the natural clock ticke noon There are rainbow fish, sunnies, croppies, fish that look like balloons Minnesota's state bird swims profoundly and proudly with the same colors as a raccoon In this mysterious land there are no animals like a rainforest baboon The whole land of 10,000 lakes scream with joy: "Au Claire de la Loon!"
Poetry Battle

Is it better to be in heaven or on earth? "Is it better to be in heaven where angels dwell? Is it better to be in the midst of total perfection? To never have sinned..never have known any pain? Where no trust is needed nor wanted, nor friends exist Does it satisfy you knowing that evil is not there? Where no weaknesses can ever be found? Surely the earth cannot compare to being in heaven But i will tell you why it is better to be on the earth If being perfect means eternal happiness and innocence then leave me....leave me to the earth, to die as sin kills me Let me die....let me die so that i may see my God's salvation Who will raise me up again to live a new life in his grace If being perfect means never experiencing pain then let the pain come so that i may endure to death knowing you God are with me to hold my head up Let me break trust..for it is better to struggle with friends than to be alone..separated from all ungodly sinners Let me know what it is to be evil....let me feel destruction So that i can crawl to God's sanctuary and be redeemed..."