BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
3a. Border Fence

A border fence, while it would serve some purposes, is a waste of money and time. With or without a border fence, people will attempt to cross the border. With the fence, it will be more difficult, though crossing into America seems important enough that someone would not abandon their plan because of the problems a fence poses. Rather, they would attempt to cross anyway - a much more dangerous endeavor than if there were no fence. The outcome is only worsened by the presence of a border fence - rather than having illegal immigrants ready to work entering the country, we'll have injured immigrants instead. The only good thing about illegal immigrants is that they're willing to be as productive as other people for less pay, but a border fence could cause injuries that diminish a person's productivity, negating this lone benefit of having immigrants come over. Short, I know, but that is my case. It is very unlikely that would be border-crossers would decide not to just because of a fence. Thus, the fence itself does not do anything. Further, it wastes resources and time [building the fence] and may result in lower efficiency of immigrants [due to getting injured crossing the border]. Rather, to address the problem of immigration, we should simply have more oversight on who companies hire for jobs. This will stop companies from hiring illegals, which will eliminate the entire reason illegals would come here. Or we could do nothing. Either option is more effective and efficient than a border fence.
3a. 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.
Evolution

ev·o·lu·tion   [ev-uh-loo-shuhn or, especially Brit., Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. In this debate, I will be arguing for creationism. Creationism is the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed. RULES:TRY TO USE CORRECT SPELLING AND GRAMMAR IF YOU CANNO PROFANITIES OR INSULTS DIRECTED AT YOUR OPPONENTROUND 2 WILL BE TO STATE YOUR IDEAS, ROUND 3 IS REBUTTALS, AND ROUND 4 IS YOUR CONCLUSIONMUST HAVE ONE BIBLE QUOTE OR A QUOTE FROM A FAMOUS EVOLUTIONIST OR CREATIONISTTHE OPPONENT WINS IF YOU FORFEITSCOURCES1.dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolution2.dictionary.reference.com/browse/creationism
The United States should elect a woman as President in 2016

Debate parameters:1) I have burden of proof2) By 'should' I am arguing that the consequences of electing any reasonable female candidate, Republican or Democrat, will be better than that of electing any real-world male candidate with similar political positions, and as a result that Primary voters in both parties ought to support female candidates if a viable one is available (and that such women who fill these criteria have a certain imperative to offer themselves as candidates). I am not, for example, arguing that electing Paris Hilton would be superior to electing the platonic ideal of a politician who happens to be male.3) I am NOT arguing that American voters should in any sense be forced to vote for female candidates, just that it would be better if they did. 4) Character limit will be 6,000 words, and the reference list must be included within those. Use of external reference lists or lists in comments will be considered cheating.5) The format is as follows: First round for setting out initial cases. Con may, if (s)he wishes, use some of this time for rebuttal, but is also required to present some kind of concrete case for the negation of the resolution. Second round is for rebuttal and extension. New substantive arguments may not be offered in the third round, but new rebuttals, new examples, and comparative analysis are permitted.
is PeTA contradictory or hypocritical to its core.

You state that PETA activists are unethical with regard the their activities such as graphic protests. How do those actions relate to ethics? Ethics is defined as moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior. Because one is offended by the public positions and actions of the group doesn't not make those actions unethical but rather just offensive based on your perceptions. With regard to euthanasia, PETA is a activist organization primarily. Who are most people? You need evidence
is PeTA contradictory or hypocritical to its core.

Peta stands for the ethical treatment of Animals. They are the enemies of meat and fur industries. We've all seen their adds, some of them are downright offensive. I consider Humans animals, and I define humans as animals. Therefore peta must not only be ethical to Non-human Animals but they must also be ethical to their fellow man. When peta makes offensive adds that include public nudity or attacking a religion it is not ethical to other people. Peta also euthanized 90% of dogs and cats taken in to their shelters, which is a unethical practice by most people's standards. Good luck to whoever accepts this debate. No foul language. viel glück
Catalonia and Scotland should not become independent countries

"The entirety of Con's argument relies on a single thing: European citizens disliking the EU enough to vote on dismantling it. "This is not true. The entirety of my argument lies in the democratic choice of any nation to be or to be in the EU. Egland may want out, but Scotland may want in, thus the UK should be disunited so that each can make their own decision without it affecting other UK members of differing opinion. "more want to see it expanded that contracted. The highest rate of anti-Eurpean sentiment is just less the %30 is the UK"The EU has not made major moves and progress is very slow. I would contend that this is proof that citizens of the EU would rather keep it the way it is than expand it. "as soon as the economy gets back on track, everyone will be much happier and anti-EU movements will lose much of their traction. "Anti-EU movements have always had great traction regardless of the state of the economy. The present "temporary setbac" is proof that the EU does not work as intended. After some states leave the EU, others may follow suit. Membership is not a sure thing and the pro should assume that the EU will exist forever and that it can only get stronger. "The European common market means that there is little to no economic difference between being a soveign country and not when already a member of the EU"This is not true as independent governments can raise their own taxes and decide what to do with those taxes. Maybe Catalonia is being taxed unfairly by Spain and they feel their local government could do better on its own and make better tax-spending decisions without the meddling of Madrid.
Catalonia and Scotland should not become independent countries

The entirety of Con's argument relies on a single thing: European citizens disliking the EU enough to vote on dismantling it.Currently, the vast majority of Euopeans like it the way it is, and more want to see it expanded that contracted. The highest rate of anti-Eurpean sentiment is just less the %30 is the UK. The Con arguement that votes against the EU would likely succeed is simply not reasonable.Attatchemtn to the EU only grows the older it gets. Every day that the EU continues to exist, the more legitimacy by habit is has. The more strength the EU gains, the more legitimacy through results it gains. Temporary setbacks such as the current economic problems are unavoidable in any free-market economy, and as soon as the economy gets back on track, everyone will be much happier and anti-EU movements will lose much of their traction.Even if it takes many years for the EU to fully integrate that does not detract from my basic argument.1. European citizens are already politically represented in the EU, regardless of their nationality and the natinoality of the state they live in. Thus self-determination for political reasons is meaningless2. The European common market means that there is little to no economic difference between being a soveign country and not when already a member of the EUVote Pro
Catalonia and Scotland should not become independent countries

Just because a country is in the Union does not mean that it will always be. The Union might fail.In fact, the United Kingdom's citizens are generally opposed towards being in the E.U. and would rather remain British than become European. British anti-continental sentiment and British exceptionalism are the reasons why the UK has refused to adopt the continental Euro and have kept the Pound as their currency. If Scotland becomes independent of the UK, then it is possible to better represent the wishes of the people living on the British Isles. The English oppose the EU but the Scots want in. The Scots and English don't want to be together. If the UK is going to leave the Union, why should it undemocratically and unilaterally decide that Scotlad should follow England? If Scotland becomes independent, the English can be free to decide to leave the Union without impeding on Scottish wishes to remain in the Union.At the current rate, it would take very long for the Union to fully integrate the various European states. Many European countries oppose deeper integration, such as Spain and Italy over concerns that Germany and France will dominate all European affairs, especially in the military. For now, there is no real effort towards building a "European Army". It is only a treaty-in-the-making between Germany and the Netherlands to combine their defense capabilities into one centralized command.
Catalonia and Scotland should not become independent countries

Catalonia and Scotland should not become independant because they are already part of the E.U.The E.U., ever since its creation, has been moving towards further European integration. It is reasonable to assume that one day in the near and forseeable future, All European countries will be fully integrated into one European superstate, and the idea of independent European nations will be abandoned.The fact that Europe has a completely shared market and money system, that there is no "German economy" or "French economy proves this.The fact that borders between European states are only nominal, as travel is free open without checks and restrictions proves this.The fact that all European states have already sacrificed portions of their soveignty over their nation to the E.U. proves this.The fact that negotiations are taking place to merge and meld together national militaries into a single European force proves this.For this reason, it would be very stupid indeed for any European nation to attempt self-determination and soveignty. What is the point of Catalonia becoming its own country? Spain and Catalonia will just find themselves under the same flag eventually anyways. So why antagonize the Union? For shits and giggles? This is just not reasonable.Vote no against independence movements in Europe.
Nearly half of all reported rapes are false

Round 1. Acceptance Round 2-4. Presenting arguments and rebuttals. Round 5. Closing argument with no rebuttals. I believe that there is now mounting evidence which suggest that rape is not only lied about but lied about for the most trivial of reasons. In-depth studies by independent judges and prosecutors conclusively show that reported rapes to the police are fraught with false claims, very much more so than reports of other crimes, and we have cases over and again of women lying about rape and getting away with it either completely scot-free or with little to no consequences. I will also argue that the definition of rape has been diluted to the point where many males are being falsely convicted as a result of a societal push to "protect" women from what is purported to be an epidemic of rape or "rape culture" which from the start was bound and determined to put more men at risk for being at the mercy of vindictive, borderline/bipolar women, or other types of women prone to using the legal system as a leverage against men for all kinds of reasons you will be shocked to hear about over the course of this debate. This is a short prelude of what the debate will be about. I expect my opponent not to use any shaming tactics or ad-hominem attacks against me personally in which case I will urge voters to take this into consideration when casting your vote. We look at facts and we'll try to draw empirical and reasonable conclusions from them. If you for whatever reason take offense and as a result don't believe you can stay 100% real and rational over the course of this debate, don't accept. I'm looking forward to an objective delve into this complex and controversial topic and good luck to my opponent.
God exists.

My opponent says in his very brief response that God could have provided everyone with free will, but still made it so that no one chould be evil. Saying that God COULD made us this way is not an argument when he did not. Reality is that you have free will. It is like saying, well the U.S. could have been a part of the Soviet Union. Ok, it could have been put it is not. I have given quotes from thological sources to support my position. My opponent also said, "There is a lot of evil that is not caused by human free will, like the damage caused by earthquakes and tsunamis. The free will defense does not account for this evil." Also, how can one determine if a hurricain is evil? Is a flood a living person seeking out to kill humanity? One can not name events evil because they kill. Was the 2.1 earthquake evil? Or was it evil only once it got to 8.4? How is free will connnected to the natrual forces of the world? We can not control them and they are not alive like humans. Christians believe that Heaven will be like this." Providing someone the option to chooes only one thing is not free will. This is not a sound argument or logic. If God programed programmed an Eagle to fly at 10 feet off the ground and no higher is that free will? Even with all of the space above? Free will is having the ability to go as high as you like to dangrous or not. There is no free will if you create something to follow your orders. That is what a military is. God is not a general and he does not dictate who should belive this or that. By saying "Christians beleive heaven is like this" is generalizing a very complex doctrine. Not all Christans believe the same thing or in the same way. Some view God as a dictator others a friend. The opposition claims that God is not needed for standerds. He did not adress my points about abortion nor did he even attempt to explain how humanity is struggling under secular laws. All of the western civilizations laws have Judeo- Christian origins or influnces. Communism is based on Athism's world view and laws and that has not worked out for humanity. My oponent did not give any sources or quote any authors to prove his points. Instend he just answered my points with, you are wrong so there. I wish my opponent gave some quotes and refrences to support his claims about my argument insted of I know so, so it is so. As my opponant said himself in the first around. "'I'd like to begin by clarifying that the debate is over reasonableness, not absolute certainty." That was my impresson when making the argument but you dissmiss it with absolute certainty. My opponent has failed to proove that it is unreasonable that God does not exist.
God exists.

My opponent makes two main claims: 1. The free will defense refutes the problem of evil. 2. Morality requires an absolute standard, which is God. Let's consider each of these in turn. The free will defense says that God is not responsible for evil because evil is caused by the free will of human beings. My opponent invokes this argument when he says that "God is all good can not force anyone to be good or to be bad. " There are two problems with this argument. First, God could have provided everyone with free will, but still made it so that no one chose evil. Christians believe that Heaven will be like this. Second, the argument does not account for natural evil. There is a lot of evil that is not caused by human free will, like the damage caused by earthquakes and tsunamis. The free will defense does not account for this evil. Moving on, my opponent claims that morality is based on God. It is true that morality requires a standard, but there is no reason why this standard would need to be God. Atheists have provided many moral standards which do not depend on God, like utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics, and rational self interest. My opponent provides no objections to any of these standards for morality. I conclude that my opponent has failed to meet his burden of proof.
God exists.

My opponent has, so far, provided no arguments for the existence of God. I welcome him to do this in his next speech. For now, since I have nothing to criticize, I will make a couple of clarifying points and an argument against the existence of God. I'd like to begin by clarifying that the debate is over reasonableness, not absolute certainty. My opponent writes that "by claiming to know God does not exist is to claim we know every dimension of space and time." But this is only true if we claim to be absolutely certain that God does not exist. By contrast, if we are only claiming that the reasonable position is to believe that God does not exist, no such standard applies. The problem of evil is a serious problem for anyone who wants to defend the existence of the God defined in round 1, so my opponent must also explain how he overcomes this problem. The problem of evil says that if God is omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good, we would not expect there to be gratuitous evil. But there does appear to be a lot of gratuitous evil in the world. People do terrible things to each other, people get horrible diseases and die of them, people drown in floods, and there are many other forms of apparently gratuitous evil. Therefore, the reasonable conclusion is that God does not exist. In conclusion, I look forward to the case for God's existence that my opponent will presumably present in his next speech.
God exists.

When it comes to proving anything one thing is needed. Physical evidence to support the claim. Unlike the natural world, the subject of the existence of God or any deity is left to every man's interpretation of reality. When asking the question to prove the existence of something, there is nothing one can due to convince another person of something he believes untrue. Throughout history mankind has always had a religion or deity which they worshiped. Some contribute the devout worship of Christianity or religion as being from the minds of unenlightened people. Knowledge has unlocked our understanding of reality in the 21st century and therefore God does not exist. By claiming to know God does not exist is to claim we know every dimension of space and time. No person would argue that we have explored every inch of the sea much less reality. This leads to a frustrating dilemma, that something's existence is heavily tied to perception of reality. There is noway to prove to someone something exists outside their reality which is different for everyone. In the next rounds of arguments, I hope to show that the possibility of God existing is real. Using the definition of God given by the opposition. I will also approach this argument as both a scientific and philosophical debate. I will be respectful of my oppositions beliefs as I am not trying to convert anyone to my conclusions. I will not use the Bible for any of my points unless asked for. This is because many do not believe it is a valid document so it holds no weight in a debate. I hope to have a civilized and educating debate with the opposition and learn from their points as well.
God exists.

The resolution is that God exists. Pro will be arguing that God exists, while Con will be arguing that Pro has not established that God exists and/or that God does not exist. By accepting this debate, Pro agrees that they have the burden of proof to establish that it is objectively more likely than not that God exists. The rules for assessing this are the standard rules of logic, including the rules of deductive and inductive inference. For example, a deductive argument must be deductively valid and have premises that we have sufficient reason to believe are true, and an inductive argument must establish that the conclusion is the best or only explanation for the evidence cited in the premises. God for the purposes of this debate shall be defined, by default, as an omnipotent, omniscient, all good person. I take this definition from the first paragraph of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on "Concepts of God." [1] If Pro wants to use a definition other than this default definition, they should ask for me to approve it in the comments section before accepting the debate. The following types of definition are unacceptable: (a) Definitions that attempt to win the debate by defining God as something that obviously exists, like "God is love" or "God is the universe." (b) Definitions that attempt to define God as something radically different from the traditional Judeo-Christian God as conceived of by Anselm, Aquinas, Richard Swinburne, or other traditional authors. [1] https://plato.stanford.edu...
Water is a toxic/addictive substance

I'm sorry to kerp my conclusion short, I'm running low on time due to school. First off I didn't slander you for your grammar. I was trying to help you out for future reference, bevause you *do* get scored on grammar. I didn't really have a new argument because I made my point clear. HOW CAN WATER BE TOXIC AND MAKE YOU DIE IF YOU *NEED IT TO SURVIVE*? Dosen't make sense at all. Again sorry for kerping this short. Good job pro!