BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Illegal Immigration In California

Our government certainly does not protect illegal immigrants' rights over its own citizens but if you have some examples that would be great. Every human being has innate rights, no matter their immigration status.They get rights because they are human. I assume that my opponent is referring to Sanctuary Cities that basically say to illegal immigrants: As long as you're not harming the society, then we're not going to hound for you and try to arrest/deport all of you. Listen, it's not about being Mexican. Mexicans are not the only people coming into the U.S. illegally. Many people come in on visas and then overstay their visa illegally. We get people from India and Nigeria and China. It's not just Mexico. What it's really about is that a majority of illegal immigrants contribute to society. They actually do pay taxes, they get jobs, and create jobs in their communties. Most of them don't come here just to sell drugs. The belief of sanctuary cities is that it's a waste of time/money to try and catch and deport every illegal immigrant. Most of them aren't harming society so using money to get all of them would require a lot of work and the only return is that we have one less illegal immigrant in the country. Which I would say is kind of a waste. I think that illegal immigrants should be treated on a case-by-case basis. We can't lump them all as bad people who we must get rid of RIGHT NOW. Obviously, the ones harming society must go but we have to realize at the end of the day, these are people. Some of them are families, some of them are breadwinners, some of them are children.
Illegal Immigration In California

What in the hell is wrong with our government officials that they are protecting illegal immigrants interests over its own citizens? I'm seriously dumbfounded!?! These people come here illegally and are given rights!?! What makes Mexicans so special that they can come here illegally while all other immigrants coming to the US have to follow the rules? This debate is open to anyone who has intelligent knowledge of the situation. Please no hate. Objective opinions only please.
Atheism

Religion now days is not around to "explaind things we don't understand about the world". Christianity for example is a relationship based on Jesus Christ with God. Buddhism is a way of life, a path to enlightenment in order to better oneself while Islam is dedicated to neverending worship of Allah. These religions are not around soley for the purpose of explaining things about the world but are around for enlightenment, worship and love. Also, evolution and religion don't necessarily clash. You are saying you must be atheist to believe in evolution which is false. Your whole argument is based on the fact that religion is here to explain things to us (false) and that only atheists can be evolutionists (also false). You have given no reason why theists should convert to atheism. Thank you.
Atheism

Religion is something that was created eons ago. It explained things that we didn't understand about the world. However, it is now 2012 and we have explanations for a lot of previously unknown things, along with some new theories. This means that we don't need religion to explain these things anymore. It's time to accept and evolve. But so many religious fanatics try, with no avail, to disprove many scientific theories, including the oh-so-touchy subject of evolution. Religious people shouldn't be disbelieving these things, what with the proof we have.
We should reform the World Bank Election Process.

I'd like to welcome you to debate.org Lildrummerboy, and I wish you good luck as well. The World Bank was founded in July 1994. Since then, every single president has been a U.S. citizen. Arguably, we can see that America has a monopoly on the presidency. What this reform would accomplish is the removal of the monopoly while making the election process more transparent. As stated before, the US currently has a monopoly over the World Bank presidency. This is due to the fact that developed countries have a majority of voting shares, and therefore have more say than developing countries. However, in actuality this could be counterproductive. As a March 18, 2012 Financial Times article reports, developing countries are "close to the turning point where developing countries will represent half of real global output". Furthermore, they drive global growth, and represent 6 billion out of the world population of 7 billion. Arguably, they should have more of a say, just like the developed countries do. This Financial Times article goes to state that this monopoly is "outdated and counterproductive". This makes sense, as developing countries know that the monopoly exists, and might not put forward a candidate that they support, because they know he does not have a good chance in the election process. Thus, this leads to less competition for the US, and a limited selection for the Executive Board of Directors to choose from as their next president. Consequently, we would not know about candidates that could be more qualified for the job. Therefore, this reform would establish a more merit-based and transparent election process by mandating that the President's origin much change continents every 5 years. This will operate in a cycle: N. America, Africa, Europe, S. America, Australia. Ultimately, this leads to more of an international consensus to the World Bank. http://www.ft.com...
We should reform the World Bank Election Process.

Hello debate.org users! I would like to take the affirmation for the argument that we should reform the World Bank election process. A little background: Since its inception, every President of the World Bank has been a U.S. Citizen. The reform would establish a process where each President has a term limit of 5 years, and each President must come from a different continent: The cycle would be N.America, Africa, Europe, S. America, and Australia. First round is for acceptance and any greetings, then we will commence a 2 round debate. This will be one of my beginning debates, so I look forward to enjoying and learning from this debate. Good luck to my fellow debater on the negation side!
We should devote all of earths resources to space exploration

While it does require food for the Astronauts, there is no way you can claim that regular people would be fed by the space program. I would like to remind you of your own resolution, not mine, "We should devote all of earths resources to space exploration". How do you plan to have it "aid in the future exploitation of resources found" if all of our resources have already been spent on exploration? I am going to remind both you and the voters that you have the BoP and also, according to your resolution, ALL of earth's resources should be devoted to space exploration. Even supposing that we should focus some of our resources on space exploration, it is absurd to say that we should devote all of them or there will be no resources left, and earth will be nothing but an empty shell of starving people and collapsing governments. You say "The resources of people,food and water are included in the resources needed for the space program". Yeah, I know. According to your resolution, EVERY resource is going to be devoted to space exploration, apparently even ones that are not needed for space exploration. This is unreasonable.
We should devote all of earths resources to space exploration

"We should devote all of Earths resources to Space Exploration" "We only have limited amount of resources left on earth" Are you serious? We do have a limited amount of resources on earth, but they are going to run out a lot faster if they are all devoted to Space Exploration. Also, there will be no retrieval of said goods, we will only be able to explore them, being that all of our resources are in Space Exploration. ex"plo"ra"tion G6;ekspləG2;rāSH(ə)n/ noun the action of traveling in or through an unfamiliar area in order to learn about it. This will not give us any resources. It will help us learn about resources, but not get them. We will not be able to retrieve them. Also, we cannot retrieve them because we are dead due to the fact that no one can eat or drink, being that all resources have been devoted to space exploration.
Ron Paul has the most societally beneficial domestic policies in the 2012 presidential race.

I hope my opponent is okay.I understand this debate resolution is like the Evolution vs. Creationism of politics, which gives my side an extreme advantage, but this is the second time abandonement/forfeiture has happened. If anyone who judges this debate would like to debate me on the resolution, I'll be glad to oblige.Voting IssuesMy opponent conceded a round. I wish we could have had a debate instead of a single case. Ron Paul derives his positions from keen logic, honest experience, and historical proof; he goes to the constitution before he votes and writes bills; he's a strong believer in that which has made America great, and a strong opponent of that which is degrading America.It is for the preceding reasons that I urge for a Pro ballot in today's debate.Thank you for reading and judging.http://www.youtube.com...
Ron Paul has the most societally beneficial domestic policies in the 2012 presidential race.

Rules: Debater must have typing experience.Debater must have internet access.No excuses or forfeitures.Must structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion.You must choose a 2012 candidate running in the US, not Kim Jogn-Un or Robert Mugabe.If you want to commit debate suicide, you may choose Obama at your leisure.Rounds: (1) Acceptance + Internet High Five(2) Main Argument (3) Rebuttal to opponent's main argument + voting issuesI accept this debate which I have thusly created and challenge those of rhetorical wizardry to a verbal duel.With my hand elevated and ready for forearm pronation, I slap yours in a ritualistic manner.Good luck to whomever accepts, and may the Gods smile upon you during this debate.Let the game begin!
Should "Under God" Be Taken Out of The Pledge of Allegiance

The pledge of allegiance is simply a pledge. Just because the "under god" part offends you does not mean it should be taken out of the pledge. If the part were to be inappropriate, then that would be acceptable, but the pledge is historic, and if it hurts your feelings, then you will have to deal with it because that is how the pledge was made. Now here were the first verisons "made through wikipedia" 1892 (first version) "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." 1892 to 1923 "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." 1923 to 1954 "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." 1954 (current version) "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." https://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States) Let's look at this article: https://www.washingtonpost.com... "Massachusetts court rules ‘under God’ in pledge does not discriminate against atheists""The Supreme Judicial Court said the words “under God” in the pledge reflect patriotic practice, not a religious one. The court acknowledged that the wording has a “religious tinge” but said it is fundamentally patriotic and voluntary."The "under god" is patriotic, not religious".
Human society can never be successfully constructed.

The words 'Perfect' and 'Successful' mean different things to different people. To a fundamentalist relgious person, 'Perfect society' would be a Theocracy. However, that would be considered a terrible society to certain people (pro seculars). The reverse is also true.Similarly, dictatorships are 'perfect' for those in power, whilst it is unacceptable for the vast majority.What I am trying to say is that it is impossible to accomodate all of our needs and desires, that is undebatable, we are 7 billion after all. However, some societies and systems will be considered perfect by a particular group or individual. Even peace can be viewed as being imperfect. Many military combatants miss war after they return home, believe it or not.[1] So we cannot and should not associate peace with perfect (peace=/=perfect, atleast to some people).Ethics and morals are different things to different people. For many (not all) Muslims, the Sharia is the most ethically fair and just law system, whilst others view it as barbaric. if human nature didn't allow greed and corruption wouldn't these constructs make the world a better place-ProBut those in power would not find it a better place since, well, they lose their power. To conclude, 'perfect' societies are possible but they cannot be 'perfect' to everyone. But societies can be considered 'perfect' to a group or individual. We must also bear in mind that a peaceful and corruption free society does not necessarily mean a unilateral acceptance of perfectness.Source:[1]http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com...
Human society can never be successfully constructed.

There will never be a society that could be considered totally successful, human nature simply won't allow us to live peacefully alongside each other. If someone could design human society from scratch, would you keep morality and ethics and social constructs? wouldn't it be better just to take away all that, if you did society couldn't really be bad since it's only our morality that classifies these things as bad. wouldn't science and technology advance more without ethics? and the introduction of political ideologies such as communism, if human nature didn't allow greed and corruption wouldn't these constructs make the world a better place? So, could society be considered successful is ethics and morality didn't exist since success would be based on productivity. Or without ethics would society cease to be a society? However, since human nature exist society can never be successfully constructed. Just general expansion on ideas, i'm curious as to peoples ideas and exploring the theoretical idea of being able to construct the perfect society. this is my first 'debate' so i'm not really sure how this works i just wanted to discuss this with people.
I will receive the fewest votes in this debate

There are many arguments I could put forth to support my claim that I will receive fewer votes in this debate--the paradoxical, self-defeating nature of my challenge; backlash I will receive for creating such a frivolous and pointless topic; anti-jester bias; etc. But I will not go into these points, because my argument is so ill-conceived and unfocused that my loss was assured from the very beginning. It is inconceivable for me to win this debate--or if it is conceivable, I have certainly not bothered to conceive of it. Checkmate, ipso facto, rice-a-roni, Q.E.D.
Napoleon v. Washington

I accept this debate challenge and will be arguing that the French Empire under Napoleon I would have won a hypothetical war with the United States, its armies under the command of George Washington, in 1812. I would like to clarify that because my opponent states that "Napoleon was the invader of 1812 instead," we are to assume that this war starts on 18 June 1812, the date that began the Second Anglo-American War. Because the famous French invasion of Russia began six days later, on 24 June, we are to assume that the Patriotic War of 1812 in Russia never occurred and Napoleon instead diverted his resources to a war with the United States.
parents being in trouble for their childs actions

I think that children who are very young (between the ages of 0-8) are not responsible for their behaviour, as they do not have superior cognitive abilities, nor are they able to properly think for themselves, apart from what their parents have taught them, but children between the age of 9 and 18 most definitely are able to discern what they should and should not do in society. Just as a disclaimer, I actually agree with the Pro arguer. I am merely arguing for the Con side, however, to increase my skills at arguing for things I don't necessarily believe.
Art debate

This is an art comp. Person who accepts has to create a piece art within the time limit. Any materials, any medium, any size. Ok? First round is acceptance. Instructions. Take a photo of your work and create an album with that photo in it and name the album "art debate". Send a link In the second round. Alternatively, you can just paste your work onto the debate round itself. Must be your own art piece. To prove this, take a photo of the work with your ddo name anywhere on the work. Any plagiarism will result in 7 point loss. Good luck.
The Date Of Australia Day Should Be Changed

In conclusion Australia day should remain on the 26th of January as it is an iconic day for all Australians. Altho Australia had many hiccups along the way it is an amazing nation, home to over 24.3 million people and to change such an important date would be a mistake. Australia has apologised and made up to the Indigenous Australians losses, and have made sure that they are as much Australian as everyone else living in Australia.
The Date Of Australia Day Should Be Changed

Although there is National Sorry Day, that doesn't make up for all of the families that have been torn apart. When the British first came to Australia, Indigenous Australians watched their brave ancestors be slaughtered and had their land taken from them. To conclude, the date of Australia Day should be changed because it is a disrespect to Indigenous Australians and strips them of their rights. The 26th of January is not a day to be celebrated, it is a day to be forgotten. The current date of Australia Day is quite inappropriate because it celebrates the day that ruined the lives of Indigenous Australians. If there was a significant day that destroyed your life and happiness would you want people to wave flags and cheer? Obviously not.
The Date Of Australia Day Should Be Changed

Altho Australia has done alot of wrong to the Indigenous, we now celebrate "National Sorry Day" which is a day about telling the aboriginals we are sorry for everything that white Australians have done. National Sorry Day is celebrated on the 13th of February. Throughout the early 1900s, the Australian public was led to believe that Aboriginal children were disadvantaged and at risk in their own communities, and that they would receive a better education, a more loving family, and a more civilised upbringing in adopted white families or in government institutions, this was the stolen generation. The reality was that Aboriginal children were being removed in order to be exposed to "Anglo values" and "work habits" with a view to them being employed by colonial settlers, and to stop their parents, families and communities from passing on their culture, language and identity to them. The children who were targeted for removal by the authorities of the time, in almost all cases, had one parent that was "white" and one that was Aboriginal. This was a very unstable time as families were torn apart and people lost their loved ones forever. But On February 13th, 2008 The Prime Minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd, had finally apologised to the Stolen Generations and said 'sorry." this left Aborigines in tears as after decades and decades someone apologised for the loss of all their children.
The Date Of Australia Day Should Be Changed

Whilst that is a great point, I disagree for the following reason: Australia Day is indeed celebrated by the public and "White Australians" but Indigenous Australians feel differently. Australia Day isn't a celebration day for them, it is a mourning day. January 26th was the day that the First Fleet arrived to Australia in 1788. To the British, the arrival of the First Fleet in Australia was an exciting event but Indigenous Australians, the original owners of the land of Australia, think otherwise. To Indigenous Australians, January 26th is a day of loss and sorrow. It marks the day that the British stole their land and treated their ancestors with great disrespect. "Australian Day?". More like "Invasion Day".
The Date Of Australia Day Should Be Changed

Australia day is on January 26th for many reasons, it's the day that we come together as a nation to celebrate the amazing country we live in. On Australia Day, over half of the nation"'s population of 24.3 million attend either an organised community event, or get together with family and friends with the intention of celebrating our national day. Many more spend the public holiday relaxing with family and friend. We come together as a nation to celebrate what's great about Australia and being Australian. It's the day to reflect on what we have achieved and what we can be proud of in our great nation. It's the day for us to re-commit to making Australia an even better place for the future.
is there anything positive to life

I want to start this off by stating that life does have a meaning, and that is to "bring more people" in to the world from what I will simply call the "other side" (where consciousness resides before or after death) and to die. the reason I believe these to be the meaning off life, is that these are the only things that bind us to to something externally. now, if we assume that the only real meaning of life (unless you manage to convince me to believe otherwise) is to die, and all other distractions are meaningless to the final outcome is life worth living?
phones

My opponent asks a question for the debate topic, and doesn't use his/her side. Therefore I must choose her side, because she didn't choose it for herself, and she asked a question. She also spells "which" like "wich", which is wrong spelling of it. Spelling and Grammar point goes to me. I will be talking that an IPhone is better than a Samsung. I will make my arguments next round, because there isn't even 100 characters. Thank you.
My opponent picks the potential topic.

I apologize for the topic/argument mistake. I meant my opponent provides 10 arguments. I will fix this in the next 'opponent chooses topic' debate.REBUTTAL Goiters, even though they are a result of iodine deficiency and can result in serious problems, are mostly good because they are an obvious warning to anyone that has developed a goiter and an obvious warning to those around them.The warning does not make goiters mostly good. Since goiters are simply providing a warning to themselves. For example, would goiters be classified good if goiters themselves create symptoms which indicate goiters? Of course not, the goiters still cause harm, but just make it obvious.If somebody had a goiter it would be obvious that they need medical attention immediately. Since goiters are very noticeable, they are mostly good because they are an alarming warning that you are iodine deficient. If goiters weren't noticeable, people would be very iodine deficient and probably never know. Therefore goiters are mostly good because they act as an obvious and noticeable warning to those who didn't know they were vitamin deficient.Goiters, while indicate a person as iodine deficient, is a indicator that itself leads to something even worse. Dry skin, while not as harmful as a goiters can easily indicate iodine deficiency.Now, notice I said "mostly good" which means that the goiter by nature is not all good because the vitamin deficiency that causes this swelling is very bad. But mostly it is good because it acts as a warning to those that have one and to those around them that are vitamin deficient.ARGUMENTGoiters can cause breathing difficulty, as they block up airways. This results in lack of oxygen to the brain. Without oxygen, many health related problems such as difficulty concentrating come along. Suffocation occurs without oxygen. Air is crucial to human survival. Goiters stop precious air from entering our lungs, thus risking ourselves.Thank you.