BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United States government should substantially strengthen regulation of immigration to the United

P1: strengthening the regulation of immigration means strengthening the system which permits and regulates United States citizenship. Unauthorized practice is one aspect which I would like to introduce in terms of regulation. "Notario Fraud" is a serious issue to the regulation simply because it sets a precedent for the way in which immigrants will interpret the United States laws and in which they first come in contact with United states legal system. P2: Some immigrants that come to the U.S willingly come to the U.S and leave their families to start a better life, as stated. Notario fraud will prevent an individual who wishes to do so if they are misguided by actors and gate keepers of the law. If we accept that immigrant come to the U.S to start a better life, we most also enforce better practices of people who interpret the law, if the United States allows them to engage in such practice. P3: Some immigrants are granted the opportunity to create their own business as well as many American entrepreneurs. There are social programs, and community opportunities that also offer many job opportunities. The important aspect is that we allow the same platform for immigrants that we have for American citizens. If immigrants are misled, misinformed, and become intimidated by the legal system, this can have consequences and effects in which citizens and potential citizens relate to laws and the legal system. Regulation comes in many forms the most important is education; informing immigrants of all of their rights and accesses. we can possibly consider creating more confidential organizations for immigrants in which they can access information. C: The U.S. government should substantially strengthen regulation of immigration into the U.S.
The United States government should substantially strengthen regulation of immigration to the United

P1: Strengthening the regulation of immigration simply means strengthening the rules that help control and manage it. Unauthorized practice of immigration law being rampant in the U.S. has nothing to do with the conclusion. It simply states that "notario fraud" is something that deceives immigrants. The topic is not about whether or not the government should strengthen laws to help immigrants. It is whether or not we should significantly strengthen laws on immigration or the basically amount of immigrants allowed into the U.S. P2: (This premise is not clear, so I'm only going to focus on sentences 2 & 4) Immigrants that come to the U.S. willingly come to the U.S and temporarily leave their families to start a better life for them here. (http://www.usa-job.org... ) (http://www.pbs.org...) It is true that if not allowed in or deported, immigrants and their families lose their livelihoods, and U.S. employers lose valuable workers, that is why the regulation of immigrants to the US should stay as is. (http://www.theguardian.com...) P3: Immigration creates jobs, because a lot of immigrants create their own businesses which allows for some employment opportunities (http://www.americanprogress.org...). If the regulation of immigration is increased, this may cause for fewer immigrants to be let in, and for more immigrants to be deported. C: The U.S. government should not substantially strengthen regulation of immigration into the U.S. Fallacies: because Pro's premises had no connection to the conclusion (possibly because the topic was misinterpreted), it was difficult to determine what fallacies were committed. However, I've decided that Pro has committed the red herring fallacy. The premises offer no support for the conclusion, and are irrelevant.
The United States government should substantially strengthen regulation of immigration to the United

The United States government should substantially strengthen regulation of immigration to the United States. P: (1) Unauthorized practice of immigration law (UPIL),' often called "notario fraud,"^ continues to be rampant in the United States.^ Practitioners of UPIL are individuals organizations that (a) "hold themselves out as immigration law experts, even though they are not attorneys" or (b) "act as gatekeepers for 'appearance attorneys' with limited or no knowledge of their client's immigration case.""* Individuals properly accredited through a federally recognized organization charging only nominal fees are excluded from this definition.^ P:(2) Although notarios sometimes provide useful services,' they can irreparably damage the lives of immigrants^ and their citizen family members.^ Families are separated, and individuals are deported to countries they scarcely remember and where they often have no relatives or friends. Immigrants may lose thousands of hard-earned dollars to scammers who falsely promise "papers" that would allow them and their families to live lawfully in the United States. Immigrant workers and their families can lose their livelihoods, and U.S. employers lose valuable workers. UPIL also compromises the rule of law and faith in the U.S. legal system. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P: (3) The United States government should substantially strengthen regulation of immigration to the United States. - SCHURTMAN, M., & LILLARD, M. C. (2014). REMEDIAL AND PREVENTIVE RESPONSES TO THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF IMMIGRATION LAW. Texas Hispanic Journal Of Law & Policy, 2047-119.
Effective gun control is a good thing.

Here I will further define the mechanism in which an opponent in this debate has to work. This house believes that a system of effective gun control, is a good thing. Further clauses: Gun control would be the illegalization of every form of firearms, bought by civilians or obtained otherwise. Effective would mean that it is no longer legally possible to obtain guns and much more pressure is put on the illegal sale/owning of a firearm. Exceptions would be the police force in the area (The United states) and individuals licensed or them for sporting purposes. In which case the guns would be kept in a secure location. Any opponent must work under these clauses as I find it very difficult to have a debate on this site without having exactly what I meant scrutinized and questioned. Thank you and I hope my opponent will not be a violent gun nut.
should there be term limits in supreme court

I would like to pint out that pro did not make an argument so I have nothing to refute. I will go ahead and state why term limits in Supreme Court should not be accepted and/or made. I would also like to point out that upon making a claim, PRO has the BOP, which he has obviously failed to meet. Since I therefore only need one argument to win, I will only state one argument. For my only argument, I will state that term limits are not allowed by the Constitution [1]. That's all I have to say. The very foundations of America are based on the Constitution, so we should not legalize this if it crosses the rules of the Constitution. I would like to thank pro for his time. [1] . http://usgovinfo.about.com...
If a country were to take over America coffee supplies would be the first target

That being said, I will have an entirely different approach. Very simply, to address all of my opponent's points, we have thousands of alternatives to coffee in terms of energy and caffeine. To list a few; red bull, monster energy drinks, tea (so many subsets of tea), hot chocolate (my personal favorite), gatorade, powerade, vitamin water, and sobe' energy, among many others. Addiction to coffee stems primarily from the energy it provides the consumer; all of the alternatives I provided could do the job individually; if not, then in groups. For the NEW Con case, I have a very simple argument to make. I believe that an invading countries first target would be our trees. They would launch napalm strikes on all of our front yards and parks and forests, burning down the greenery. Us being the largest consumer of gasoline and oil in the world, the green house gases would take effect, burning up the ozone and exposing us to the ultraviolet light. The result: 1) We would have dark tans that will ultimately become horrendously outbalanced by our white skin underneath our clothes, murdering our self-esteem. 2) Sunburns would leave us begging for mercy at the ruthless hands of our clothes, that rubs against our sensitive skin when we lack beauty products (which would be our invading country's next target). 3) It would be REALLY hot, so we'd sweat to the point where the combined heat of solar radiation and napalm convection equals the Heat of the Miami Heat, which is too intense to handle- hence the 10-game road winning streak. Clearly, vegetation would be the first target of any invading country. Not much more needs to be said. Happy Holidays everyone!
If a country were to take over America coffee supplies would be the first target

Thank you Con, for your nice points. I will now refute them all in this round. "CASE ONE: COFFEE ISN'T THE MOST DESIRABLE AMERICAN PRODUCT" o The key word here is "Desirable". Coffee may not be the most DESIRABLE American product but it sure is one of the most useful. Could we do without Xbox live? Sure, why not? Would we suddenly have millions of bored teenage gamers? Yes, but the negative consequences of that are far less than if we take away coffee. The only negative consequence of destroying Xbox Live somehow, for example, would be that we would have a lot of bored teens with nothing to do but sit around and try to play the single players versions of their games which would still keep them occupied. They could also invite their friends over and play together. And no, they would not suffer withdrawal symptoms because video game addiction is not classified as a mental disorder/disease yet. Coffee/caffeine addiction however, is very real. As for beauty and aesthetics products--so what? All that would stop is people from looking good. I don't think that the other country would really benefit from targeting beauty supplies. It is completely non-essential because unlike coffee, you do not ingest eyeliner and suffer from withdrawal when you stop it's use. The reverse is true for coffee however. The aforementioned things mentioned by Con are completely non-essential and are things we can do without. Coffee however is something that is almost second nature to many Americans--something that we could simply not do without. "CASE TWO: WHAT COFFEE?" o I believe that my opponent is being a bit ignorant when he/she is saying that we do not have any coffee. Where do you think all the coffee we drink comes from? Obviously most of it is imported. So where would the invading country start? By stopping those imports, of course. They would target the ships/airplanes containing coffee coming into the country and stop them before they could reach American soil. We would then be left to use whatever coffee we have left in America in an effort to try to keep functioning normally. Eventually this supply would run out and we would be an easier (not entirely easy, but easier) target for the invading country. I never said that the invading country would invade us with the primary goal of taking over our coffee supplies. The sole reason for invading America would not be to obtain more coffee, because that is just silly. I stated that IF a country wanted to invade America (for reasons such as economic, geographical and political gains) coffee would be the first target it would need to take down in order to weaken us as a nation. This would make it easier for the advancing army to take control. Thank you Con for your cases. However you have not entirely rebutted my points that I provided in round 1 and I hope that you will do so soon. I would also like to wish everyone Happy Holidays and a Happy New Year!
If a country were to take over America coffee supplies would be the first target

I will be approaching the topic with 2 cases, if the character count (5,000) permits me. ==> CASE ONE: COFFEE ISN'T THE MOST DESIRABLE AMERICAN PRODUCT <== It is not a surprise to us that the US has more than just coffee available to foreign invaders to take. As a matter of fact, thousands of objects are available in the land of abundance and joyousness. For example, health and beauty products. Countries around the world shy away from the US when it comes to actors and actresses, musicians, artists and otherwise in terms of their looks. I believe that they would go for all of the products we have for beauty before they look for tooth-yellowing coffee. Look for health and beauty products here: . http://www.americansworking.com... Further, what other country on earth could claim to be so well entertained? Just look at a map of Xbox live participants . http://upload.wikimedia.org...(January_2007).PNG Although we have no numbers available, we will readily infer that the US leads the world, which they do. So, why wouldn't invading countries take our games? . http://en.wikipedia.org... Coffee would not be anyone's first priority in the US. ==> CASE TWO: WHAT COFFEE? <== . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.ico.org... . http://www.coffeeresearch.org... According to all the sources I've found, we don't even HAVE coffee- that's how insignificant we are. If we were to be invaded, the invading country would NOT get their coffee from us. They would get it from somewhere where they have their own coffee, so that they can: 1) Have coffee, 2) Control the coffee market, 3) Have more coffee, and 4) Get coffee. The US is not worth spending billions of dollars against militarily to make a few thousand dollars worth of coffee. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ My opponent has made the ridiculous choice of choosing coffee, which is clearly an interesting decision because I personally can't fathom of a pragmatic defense for the case. I wish my opponent luck, and a happy holiday season! Happy holidays to everyone else as well!
If a country were to take over America coffee supplies would be the first target

This is intended to be a humorous debate so without further ado, let us begin. If another country was preparing to invade America, its first target would be coffee supplies and let me explain why. "America runs on Dunkin' Donuts"--not sleep. Several studies suggest that the average employed American is being overworked and not getting enough sleep. This in turn makes them rely on coffee as a substitute for sleep--over half of all Americans drink coffee on a regular basis according to some studies. Coffee, as we know, contains the drug caffeine which is responsible for many of coffee's wonderful (and potentially harmful) effects. As with any drug taken on a regular basis a tolerance for that drug is built. Once the drug is removed withdrawal occurs, rendering the person unable to work or function at their best. Some of the effects of coffee withdrawal include anxiety, sleeplessness as well as fluctuating blood pressure. Let's not forget that it's not only the average Joe that drinks a few cups of coffee a day--CEOs and Wall Street bigshots also use this wonderful drink to keep on chuggin'. Without their daily dose of coffee, they would not be able to manage their companies to the best of their abilities. This in turn would be very harmful to the US economy. Coffee is also a very large import in the US and without that cash flow, the already crippled economy would be in an even worse state. Therefore taking away coffee would have a very noticeable effect on the US. This makes coffee a prime target for the country who wishes to invade America. Once over half of all American adults are unable to function properly because of withdrawal, the invading country would have a great advantage over America. The next target would be oil--but that is for another debate. I will end my argument here for now.
This House would lower the voting age to 16 in Romania.

Citizens - have the right to vote at 18 years of age by election day. No voting mentally deficient or alienated, laid under interdiction, and no person convicted by final judgment, the election disqualifications Romania - is a national, sovereign and independent, unitary and indivisible.Form of government of the Romanian State is a Republic. Romania is the rule of law, democratic and social, in which human dignity, rights and freedoms, free development of human personality, justice and political pluralism represent supreme values​​, in the spirit of the Romanian people's democratic traditions and ideals of the Revolution of 1989 , and are guaranteed. The State is organized according to the separation and balance of powers - legislative, executive and judicial - in the framework of constitutional democracy.In Romania, the Constitution, its supremacy and the laws is mandatory. Citizenship - Romanian citizenship can be acquired, retained or lost as provided by the organic law.Romanian citizenship can be withdrawn if acquired by birth. At the present in Romania for General, local and European elections, as well as referenda, you must be 18 to vote. I`m prepare myself for an debate competition where I have this is one of the motions so iwant to see how well prepared I am. Good luck for my oponent RulesRound 1 is for acceptance and clarifications and/or statements of purpose. If there are any more issues that need to be worked out please post them in the comments.Rounds 2-4 are for argumentation.
God Exists

I accept your challenge Kohai! I want to thank Kohai personally for challenging me to this debate. This topic of "God Exists" is exactly why I joined DDO in the first place. If Kohai wants me to specifically challenge and refute his arguments for why God does not exist I will, or if he wants an exchange of arguments and counters I'm happy to do that as well. If Con specifically wants to take the side of an Atheist I welcome it, but I want to make something clear. Atheist by definition is to be without a belief in Theism (God). Many other worldviews could fall into this line of ideology, but Atheism itself is also a belief. To withhold belief in God, is to believe in God not existing. If you are simply saying "I withhold belief and do not assert in either way to the existence of God", then you are more of an Agnostic. You could argue that you are just apathetic to religion, but that doesn't fit either due to debating the topic and taking the stance that God does not exist. If I am wrong here in my assessment of your view please correct me, but my assumption here is that you are asserting the positive truth of Atheism. If this is the case then I will be contending two themes. To steal some what from Dr. William Lane Craig, I'll be arguing that there is no good evidence that Atheism is true. Secondly I will be arguing that there is good evidence that Theism is true. I have my own version of the arguments and how they flow into one another so hopefully I can provide some new insight into certain arguments. I hope to have an engaging debate with you Kohai and I await your opening argument.
The media influences citzen support on behalf of Washington agendas.

Ok, lets get some definitions down first. Media: Any news outlet owned by a corporation Corporate interest: Making money (going along with what you said in your last argument, "A corporations interest is making money.") "When the government allows you to use public airwaves for free, resulting in billions of surplus revenue, they hold considerable sway over what they DONT want broadcasted" First off, I would like some evidence or anecdote in which a corporation actively interfered with news broadcasting that would infringe on their profit as a company, otherwise your argument has no foundation. We are basically debating on the intention of corporations on the media. While you are saying corporations use the media as a way to hide corporate irresponsibility, I am saying the media's main concern is providing high ratings and therefore revenue. I will provide ONE example in which the media used a story that provided high ratings and revenue, while at the same time exposed corporate and political irresponsibility, which would OBLITERATE your thesis: JAMIE LYNN SPEARS Jamie Lynn Spears, most famous for playing on Zoey 101, got pregnant. This news was sold to every news outlet available. If Spears is exposed, she would have to resign from her posting on the show, and therefore Nickelodeon, the network that owns the show, will lose revenue. Nickelodeon is owned by parent company Viacom, who also owns CBS News. Now, based on your thesis, if Viacom did not want to lose revenue and keep Jamie Lynn Spear's pregnancy a secret, they would have pressured CBS News not to publish the story. But alas, CBS News published the story despite the loss revenue parent company Viacom would face in the situation that Jamie Lynn Spears would resign. BUT, CBS News did earn a profit from reporting on Jamie Lynn Spears (not enough to make up for the lost revenue from Zoey 101 of course!). Therefore, revenue from a news organization is the main concern for a corporations, NOT protecting corporate interests. (prepares to receive some hate comments) "What happens is the greater government influences corporations through their billion dollar blackmail to stay in line with the rest of the news, prompting Media outlets to disregard what they may view as considerable news that would make Washington angry, in fear of reprecussion." Again, I would need evidence and anecdotes for you to support your claim. In terms of making "Washington angry," here is a list of words: Edward R. Murrow, Gulf of Tonkin, Walter Cronkite in Vietnam, Nixon impeachment, Iran-Contra, etc. In these instances, the media did not receive repercussions, but surely did make Washington angry. PS- I'll come up with a better example next time.
The media influences citzen support on behalf of Washington agendas.

"Though the media has failed to fully analyze the historical aspects of our involvement in the Middle East, the reason is not because of corporate interests, because corporate interests are not the media's main concern and role." A corporations interest is making money. When the government allows you to use public airwaves for free, resulting in billions of surplus revenue, they hold considerable sway over what they DONT want broadcasted. It is true what you say about historical events and ratings. In my opinion, C-span is news. all they show is political events, not someone talking about political events. What happens is the greater government influences corporations through their billion dollar blackmail to stay in line with the rest of the news, prompting Media outlets to disregard what they may view as considerable news that would make Washington angry, in fear of reprecussion. It is the United States version of censorship.