BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Immigration and Amesty

Having immigrants in the United States of America has many benefits such as increasing the community"s tax base because they buy products produced by the local community. In Thokozile Gurganious"s text, "How Immigration Benefits America", he claims, ""By increasing consumer demand, immigrants generate economic growth which benefits the middle-class. Immigration is also a major contributor to the expansion of Hispanic and Asian-American Consumer markets, which in 2003 was estimated to make up 12 percent of the national purchasing power"" (Gurganious). Immigrants are not only introducing new products to America, but they are also contributing to the national purchasing power. The more immigrants the government allows into the country, the higher the national purchasing power percentage will increase due to expansion of the cultural markets. Because of immigrants, America is known for its astounding diversity. Further on in his text, Gurganious acknowledges, "Before the 1960s, the immigration policy of the U.S. favored immigration from Western Europe and Canada, and as a result immigration prior 1960 were mainly from European countries. However, in the 1960s immigration laws were changed as a result of the civil rights movement. Since then, there has been a decline of immigrants from Europe and a rise of immigrant from Asia and Latin America. "These relatively recent changes in the national origin of immigrants have begun to convert the United States into a largely bi-racial society"" (Gurganious). The United States of America has evolved into a country in which racial discrepancy is nothing but a faded topic. We, as Americans, have moved past our racial differences and have become one as a country accepting those of all cultures. The individuals who come from different countries or different cultures help formulate what America is today. Gurganious, Thokozile. "Benefits of Immigration." Life Paths. Helium Inc., 06 December 2009. Web. 18 October 2013.
Immigration and Amesty

The number of illegal immigrants attending public schools in the United States has increased significantly. These children of illegal immigrants are able to attend school for free not at the cost of their parents, but at the cost of legal United States taxpayers. In 2008, the Pew Study found that 13.5 percent of k-12 students were children of illegal immigrants. Lance T. Izumi, author of "Educating Illegal Immigrants Costly", stated that "The U.S. Census Bureau just released in 2008 figures showing the national average total per-pupil funding from all revenue sources was $12,028...Therefore, if one multiplies $12,028 by the roughly 3.7 million students with illegal immigrant parents, then one gets a national total funding cost of $44.5 billion" (Izumi). It is very expensive to educate a pupil in the public school system. Taxpayers' money funds public schools for their children, so any person who is an illegal immigrant and is not paying taxes should not be able to take advantage of the public school system. It is unfair to the citizens of the United States to allow the children of illegal immigrants receive a free education while they are working hard to earn the money that is taken from them by the government to support the school systems. Not only is illegal immigration unfair and costly to taxpayers, it is unfair to those waiting to enter the United States lawfully. Jim DeMint, author of "The Burden of Amnesty", states that "amnesty is unfair to those who came to this country lawfully. More than four million people are waiting to come to the United States legally, but our dysfunctional bureaucracy makes it easier to break the law than to follow it" (DeMint). By providing amnesty to illegal immigrants, the United States government is not only being unfair to the legal citizens of the nation, but to the people who are waiting to lawfully enter the United States and live in the country legally. Amnesty should not be offered to anyone who is not paying taxes and is living in the United States illegally.
Immigration and Amesty

When American citizens are beginning a new business or own a business, they need employees to work for them at a low rate. Thokozile Gurganious, the author of "How Immigration Benefits America" states that "Because immigrants accept lower wages, employers make more profits when they hire immigrants than when they hire native born people. U.S. consumers also benefit in the long run because the goods which cost less to produce when immigrants are used are then sold for less to them" (Thokozile). Immigrants are more lenient than Americans when it comes to being paid to work because to immigrants, any wage is good to them. Americans expect more money than immigrants because American citizens have families that they have to provide for. Even though immigrants have families to provide for too, they will take any wage that is offered to them. Not only do immigrants provide employers with workers, but they also introduce foods and traditions from their culture to America. Thokozile explains "Americans benefit from immigration in that all aspects of American life are enriched by immigrants. Because of immigration, new restaurants mushroom serving new types of foods that Americans previously did not know. Americans are also introduced to new cultures, new types of dress and new languages" (Thokozile). America is a place in which diversity is very important. Immigrants providing Americans with different types of foods could possibly increase sales rates if the foods are liked by the citizens. The language that the immigrants speak could also be useful in America for educational or traveling purposes such as Spanish, Italian and French. Many everyday things in America would not be available to us if it weren"t for immigrants.
America should split itself up into two or more nations.

Ok, the Pro did not respond directly to any of my points except the one on competing ideas, so those carry through. On to the Pro arguments. The Pro claims that splitting up the nation will make people more interested in the government, but this is not true. All the reasoning about shootings that he used as proof did not support an interest in government, it supported an interest in current events. If the shooting happened in your city you would be interested whether or not the nation is split. Splitting the nation will not change that. The splitting up of the nation would actually decrease the amount of interest in the government. If everyone in the nation was of a similar political ideology (which the Pro seems to assume, even though I proved that impossible) then people would be less interested because they would assume everything was going pretty good. The main reason people get interested in government is if they want change, but in the proposed split, there would be no reason for them to want policy change. The Pro's next argument says that the split governments would function more smoothly. This would be true if the new nations could be made out of single political ideologies, but I have already shown how that could not happen. Even if you could split the nation into more pieces to decrease the party mixing, that would increase the dangers I talked about in my second point. So even if the government could run a little smoother, the cost would outweigh the benefit. The Pro's final point says that splitting the nation would make people less confused, but this is illogical. The politics of splitting a nation into two or more smaller nations would be far more confusing than anything the current party squabbles could cause. Even after a split, there wouldn't be a serious reduction in confusion. This presents a logical failure because in his second point the Pro said that there would still be enough political division to balance the government, but enough division to balance the government would result in the same amounts of confusion. Because Pro's second and third points contradict each other, he either has to drop one or explain how they can coexist. In summary, I am winning for three reasons. The first reason is that all of Pro's points seem to rest on the assumption that the new nations could be evenly divided on party lines, which I have shown to be impossible. The second reason is that the Pro has not addressed the dangers that a split would pose for the new countries. The final reason is that I have successfully proved that splitting the nation would not actually result in any of the benefits that the Pro claims it would.
America should split itself up into two or more nations.

While I agree that it would be nice to have a country where everyone had similar political views, this is really impractical and dangerous. The first problem with splitting into two nations is the amount of people that would end up in the wrong nation. In the last presidential election, only 19 states had a difference between Romney and Obama greater than 10%1. If 60% of the states have such an equal concentration of Republicans and Democrats, there would be no way to split the states without bringing over a large percentage of the other party. In addition to the close mix of parties in most states, the distribution of the states would make it hard to divide. The way the Pro proposed to split the states would be nice, except for the fact that he forgot about all the west coast states, most of which are Democratic. These states would want to be part of the northeastern "Nation A" that the Pro talked about, but the large "Nation B" would cut them off, making their membership in Nation A impractical. Another problem with splitting the nation would be the danger it would cause. If Republicans and Democrats can't agree on much now, giving them their separate nations would only make this worse. While a little bickering wouldn't hurt anyone, this division would have a major effect on US military power. Neither country would be an international military power because their military would be cut in half. Because the nations wouldn't work together, neither one could properly defend itself from terrorist or similar threats. This would cause an increase in terrorism because they would see that we would be weak and take the opportunity to attack. The final reason for not splitting the nation is the need for competing ideals. This is the founding principle of capitalism: that competition reduces prices, increases quality, and gives power to the consumer. This is also true for government. A mostly single party government proposed by the Pro would be able to do pretty much whatever they wanted because of the lack of competition, leading to increased corruption and government domination. Also, much of the time neither Republicans nor Democrats are completely right. They need each other to balance out the government. I don't mean to turn this into a debate on gun rights, but this is a perfect example of what I am trying to show. If the Republicans had their way, we would have more maniacs running around with guns, but if it was up to the Democrats, we would have less protection against criminals. There needs to be a balance in government and separate nations would not provide this. 1. . http://www.cnn.com... 2. . http://en.wikipedia.org...
America should split itself up into two or more nations.

If America divides into two or more nations, particularly by political views and moral beliefs, it will run more efficiently. For example, if one assumes that the Northeastern and northern midwest regions join together and forms Nation A, the southeast to Texas forms Nation B, and everything else splits up their own ways both Nations A and B would be more productive. The states of Nation B would be primarly republican and would adopt laws and regulations accordingly. The states of Nation A would be primarily democrat and would adopt laws and regulations accordingly. If this were to happen, everyone, the vast majority anyway, would get what they want with gay rights; gun control, or lack there of; taxes; industry; military; and more. I understand that additional political parties would form in each nation and would have moderate differences and there will still be minor debates and disagreements. I understand that many may believe that a nation ran by only one political party may to extremes. I also understand that America is being torn apart by the bipartisan ship of today. I also understand that the government cannot make a decision. If my opponent, whoever he or she may be, shall disagree, say so and tell me why. He or she may use facts or just sensible opinions on the matter. I know what I believe and want to be challenged.
Voter Identification should be allowed

(Please don't forfeit the debate. It irritates me when my opponent forfeits. Only accept if you'll actually see this debate through). I don't see how voter ID is a problem. You have to realize that regardless of how small voter fraud cases are, it's a problem that can simply be fixed. But somehow, it's considered "discriminatory" or "racist". Please explain how that is. ROUND 1: OPENING ROUND 2: ARGUMENTS ROUND 3: COUNTER AND CLOSING
Voter Identification should be allowed

Just because people live far away from places that give ID's doesn't mean they can't get one. They can mail one to you in some states. Also, the ID's would be free or cheap, so it won't keep people who are poor away from the polls. The point is, there is nothing wrong with requiring voters to present ID to vote. We show ID for everything else, so why not show ID to vote. Implementing voter ID will lessen the rate of voter fraud and help keep our elections secure and honest. It astonishes me that the same people who say that we should protect integrity of a democratic process wants to reject something that helps protect the integrity of that process. That's why voter ID is needed. And again, there's no real argument for how it's discriminatory or racist, as some people claim it is. I thank my opponent for accepting and doing this debate. And thus, I rest my case.
Voter Identification should be allowed

My opponent brings up the argument that presenting ID at the polls can lead to the government mistreating and arresting you for no reason. While that is a concern, it is an invalid one, and there is no evidence to support that presenting ID to vote leads to government harassment. It's about protecting our election integrity. Also, they claim the government can "bring back the draft and have you "accidentally" killed overseas". That has nothing to do with voter identification. Serving your country and voting in elections are two separate things. My opponent's opening argument is vague, at best, and is completely irrelevant to this topic. And plus, since when does the government not know your name?
God is Inanimate (by default)

This is one of the oddest opening rounds I have ever read. I hope it will go someplace interesting. The "meat" of what Pro is saying seems to be that "God is...'Inanimate' and without consciousness of any sort." Holograms and sacrificial confirmation and circular tax deductions and befuddlement at John chapter 1 (?) and maybe some kind of Unitarian argument in there should be clarified by Pro in round 2 in the context of how these things support the main point Pro is trying to make. I counter God is conscious. I would even say God is Uber-conscious. (That's some German lingo for you.) Copy and pasted from dictionary.com, this definition looked pretty non-controversial, unless you are coming from a far-Eastern mystical perspective, which these debates normally aren't: Conscious: 1.aware of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc. 2.fully aware of or sensitive to something (often followed by of): conscious of one's own faults; He wasn't conscious of the gossip about his past. 3.having the mental faculties fully active: He was conscious during the operation. 4.known to oneself; felt: conscious guilt. 5.aware of what one is doing: a conscious liar. 6.aware of oneself; self-conscious. 7.deliberate; intentional: a conscious insult; a conscious effort. 8.acutely aware of or concerned about: money-conscious; a diet-conscious society. "without consciousness of any sort" would mean all I have to do is show that God fulfills ONE of these definitions, and I win. (I should note that Pro always refers to the Christian, Biblical God, and writes of Him as if he DOES exist for the sake of his argument. This closes the door on any kriticing on his part as far as saying "well God doesn't exist, therefore he isn't conscious," because that would shift the debate from the characteristics of God, hypothetical or real, to whether or not God exists.) "Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light." God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day." (Genesis 1) From Genesis 1, God takes conscious action (speaks, creates) is aware of the quality of the result of the action, and judges the action that he just took. Further action is taken upon the results of his prior action, and God continues to act in this manner throughout the rest of the Creation Week. This fulfills at LEAST 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 of the definitions of conscious. I await my opponent's response.
God is Inanimate (by default)

Religious Writings and evolved Dogma spend quite a bit of time on 'God Description'Take the Christian Trinity notion as an example of this.Words of a mysterious 1st Century man are supposed to clearly identify and underpin the Trinity notion. He tells the people(allegedly) that he will send the Holy Spirit after he has returned to his Father. He speaks directly to his Father, both on the Cross and at the River Jordon, before the John Baptism. We now sacrificially endow our young Christians with this 'Holy Spirit' at Confirmation. If there is a better example on this planet of 'circular deduction' then I cannot think of it.This is a complete usurpation of the Yahweh caricature and an evolution in Religious Holograms.This is also a usurpation of the primitive notion of God as depicted in the Genesis Eden narrative.Look at this Eden Description and extract the following truth from it.In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.Also take a look at John 1 and see how the 1st Century man had to be placed back in pre-time. What a fudge of words! The Word Became Flesh In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcomea it.Let us get a grip here and go back to the purport of the Genesis Myth.It clearly describes God as basic 'Life Potential', or more accurately 'a place' for life to begin'God is just that, ie the infrastructure of our existence, ie the place where life began.The 'collective consciousness' of life is, by default, 'God's Spirit', working to create. It is this Spirit that is perceptible to all life forms. Jesus is a Spirit creation as is Nelson Mandela and Dan Aykroyd (God Bless Him).God is by default 'Inanimate' and without consciousness of any sort. God is the House in which we live and to which we have become emotionally attached. It is home to mice and spiders as well( at least mine is)Can you accept my words or can you debate effectively to the contrary?
God is Inanimate (by default)

Let us look at the Genesis/Eden Story that you use as proof of a 'talking conscious' God. Take a real look at it because it is fascinating and insightful.Genesis 1King James Version (KJV) 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. 6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. 9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.............................................(Don't stop here)What you have here is a 'pre-historical' origin myth.It is an attempt by people approx 4000 yrs ago to pen this verbal rendition of the start of the world and it is marvellous.What does it describe?It describes a formless space, formless by our own definition of same and formless in that it is totally dissimilar to what the people are looking at both then and now. This is the place where life is going to slowly emerge from. This is a place where wind and gravity and movement and geothermal activity and cosmic energy is laden with the potential for this magic to happen.. This is God, the inanimate space ready to facilitate this emergence that is life. God's spirit through movement and change and shadow and..........suddenly creates life. This becomes, a consciousness aware of itself and its origins. Collectively this is matter becoming aware.You say you are a scientist,Skynet, you explain this to us. You run with the Trinity as a Born Again Christian. I have shown you God the inanimate space, I have explained the 'Holy Spirit' to you and I can explain the 'Jesus teachings' within this context too if you so desire. Again thanks for bothering with this thing at all. I am going on holidays on Sunday for a week. If you get a reply back to me asap I will reply on Sat. If not I may be forfeiting a few rounds so please delay your submissions in that case. I'll be back writing around the 24th Thanks