BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Illegal Immigrants should be deported, anchor babies or not.

Full Rebuttal: Illegal immigrants do in fact increase crime. You know all of those drug cartels and murderers in Mexico? Guess what, they're coming here illegally. How in any does having drug cartels and murderers LOWER crime? [1] Having an insecure border with a developing nation is relevant, because it means more illegals can come here, and we don't deport them, which encourages more illegals. The process to get in does take time and effort, but it's better than having to live the rest of your life knowing you're a criminal. Those Spanish people you mentioned? They were forced to come here and assimilate, because no one else spoke Spanish. Now, however, we have so many illegals coming in that they don't even bother learning Spanish, because we've become pretty much a bi-lingual country where you don't even have to speak English. Conclusion Illegal immigrants are a problem that this country needs to face head-on, for these reasons: -They are a drain on our economy by avoiding taxes and getting free welfare.- -They increase crime because they've come from a crime-rich country. -They choose not to assimilate into our culture, choosing not even to learn English. That is my conclusion. Back to you, Con, for your rebuttal and conclusion. [1] http://www.infowars.com... Many of the other things that have not been cited come from Ann Coulter's Adios America! (The Left's plan to turn our country into a Third World hellhole)
Illegal Immigrants should be deported, anchor babies or not.

"Illegal immigrants have not immigrated legally, usually don't acquire citizenship, and live in the shadows. If an illegal immigrant gets in a car crash, they will be driving away and you have to pay for it." I showed a study that showed that immigrants if anything reduced the crime rate, do you have a source that shows what you claim? "Illegal immigrants of some kinds are not used to paying taxes. If they didn't pay taxes in Mexico, will they pay them here? Illegals, as I said, live in the shadows, and pay much less, if any taxes." My point was that much tax is unavoidable so it's meaningless if they choose to pay it or not and much of that money they don't pay goes to fuel the economy anyway and so will end up as tax. "False, if we have open borders (Which we pretty much do right now), they can come across with no consequences and continue their crimes in America." No this debate was over the migrants not the larger consequences of having an insecure border with a developing nation. Therefore this is irrelevant. "Sure, we do have that obligation. And yes, we should accept legal immigrants. However, ILLEGAL immigrants entering the country is unacceptable. They need to go through the process and become legal. Otherwise, you're basically asking for criminals to be in our country." The legal process is exceptionally difficult, I suggest you look at what it actually takes to get a US visa [1] let alone a permanent one. Most people have no choice but to live in mexico in poverty or violate US law in order to seek a better life. "Illegal immigrants generally don't learn English. This means that we have millions of new people who speak Spanish and not English, meaning they cannot communicate with a lot of the population. Illegals (and some legals, but that's beside the point) don't bother learning English. This could lead to American culture being damaged as a whole, since they choose not to assimilate into our culture." Culture is not a static entity to be protected but rather it is a fluid entity that takes in new circumstances and adapts to them. However I would point out that the US integrated large numbers of Spanish speakers before. In the 1840s the US annexed most of northern Mexico (basically what now makes up the south west US) in the Mexican American war. Today the descendants of those who lived in the annexed land are fully integrated with american culture and I would be shocked if any still spoke Spanish fluently. In fact most were integrated by the end of the civil war just 20 years later and I doubt this has had a negative (or even significant) impact on US culture. [1] http://london.usembassy.gov...
Illegal Immigrants should be deported, anchor babies or not.

"I am aware, the studies behind that article refer to both legal and illegal migrants. Also can you show a serous reason to separate the two?" Illegal immigrants have not immigrated legally, usually don't acquire citizenship, and live in the shadows. If an illegal immigrant gets in a car crash, they will be driving away and you have to pay for it. "To claim that illegal immigrants don't pay tax is entirely false, most forms of tax are unavoidable." Illegal immigrants of some kinds are not used to paying taxes. If they didn't pay taxes in Mexico, will they pay them here? Illegals, as I said, live in the shadows, and pay much less, if any taxes. "(Gangs and drug cartels) are irrelevant to the immigrants." False, if we have open borders (Which we pretty much do right now), they can come across with no consequences and continue their crimes in America. "the US has a moral obligation to take in citizens from poorer nations." Sure, we do have that obligation. And yes, we should accept legal immigrants. However, ILLEGAL immigrants entering the country is unacceptable. They need to go through the process and become legal. Otherwise, you're basically asking for criminals to be in our country. Continuing Arguments: Illegal immigrants generally don't learn English. This means that we have millions of new people who speak Spanish and not English, meaning they cannot communicate with a lot of the population. Illegals (and some legals, but that's beside the point) don't bother learning English. This could lead to American culture being damaged as a whole, since they choose not to assimilate into our culture. Most of my info comes from: Adios, America! by Ann Coulter
Illegal Immigrants should be deported, anchor babies or not.

Rebuttal"Illegal immigrants are NOT good for the economy. The 1st source you cited is about LEGAL immigrants. Remember, this debate is about illegal immigrants."I am aware, the studies behind that article refer to both legal and illegal migrants. Also can you show a serous reason to separate the two?"Illegal immigrants get privileges paid for by tax dollars. They get free health care and education that the middle class has to pay for."Under very limited circumstances they do however this is not at all the vast majority of illegal immigrants. The only program you could site for this is education which the US has to provide due to article 26 of the UDHR [1]. The other issue with education is that the money isn't lost, it's put back into the hands of the teachers, those who make the equipment for schools ect and this most certainly does not harm the economy."Illegal immigrants get privileges paid for by tax dollars. They get free health care and education that the middle class has to pay for. And remember, most of these illegals don't pay taxes. Illegals also steal jobs from regular American people. This means that illegals ARE damaging our economy."To claim that illegal immigrants don't pay tax is entirely false, most forms of tax are unavoidable. For the working class (which most illegal immigrants belong to) a much larger percentage of their income is taken by regressive taxes (like sales tax). It is be correct that they don't pay quite as much tax as do other Americans of similar income but they do still pay a significant amount in tax.However this also isn't a serious argument when most poorer people do not save much (if any) of their income [2], this means that they re-inject what money they do make into the local economy rather than removing it from the economy and making it untaxable."Consider the fact that Mexico is a bad country in general. Since we have pretty much open borders, the states bordering Mexico will have to endure gangs and drug cartels that come from Mexico."This is irrelevant to the immigrants and no... hezbollah is not operating in Mexico... "Also, is it really relevant to mention population decline? Is that such a bad thing?"Yes. At the very least population decline is linked to catastrophic economic consequences [3].Continued ArgumentAs one of the richest countries on the planet the US has a moral obligation to take in citizens from poorer nations and this is morally intuitive to third party observers of the situation. Even if you want to dismiss your moral obligation acting in a pathological manor significantly damages the image of the US abroad. This is the case in much of Europe where as a result the people are marginally more likely elect less pro US governments which will damage the US geo-politically. However where this really matters is in the Islamic world where you give groups like Daesh and Al Qaeda invaluable propaganda material. In summary ignore your obligations to humanity at your peril.[1] http://www.un.org...[2] http://money.cnn.com...[3] A Concise History of World Population by Simon Smith Kuznets
Illegal Immigrants should be deported, anchor babies or not.

Illegal immigrants are NOT good for the economy. The 1st source you cited is about LEGAL immigrants. Remember, this debate is about illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants get privileges paid for by tax dollars. They get free health care and education that the middle class has to pay for. And remember, most of these illegals don't pay taxes. Illegals also steal jobs from regular American people. This means that illegals ARE damaging our economy. [1] Consider the fact that Mexico is a bad country in general. Since we have pretty much open borders, the states bordering Mexico will have to endure gangs and drug cartels that come from Mexico. [1] Also, is it really relevant to mention population decline? Is that such a bad thing? [1] http://www.wvwnews.net...
The logical conclusion of the Bible's free will is that man can live sinlessly.

I realize that no man can liver perfectly forever. And even if one were to do this they would still need a savior. The reason for this is because of original sin. Man is born into sin. Christ wasn't because of the virgin birth. Not only that, but it is impossible to live perfectly until becoming a Christian. The reason for this is because the Bible says that no man is good. Until they have Christ. So after you have accepted Christ, it is completely and utterly possible to live perfectly. You know the difference between right and wrong, you have the choice of doing right and wrong, and therefore you have the choice of living perfectly.
The logical conclusion of the Bible's free will is that man can live sinlessly.

you proposed: 1. Man has ultimate free will...or the ability to choose. 2. When being tempted, we choose to sin or not to sin. 3. The Bible says that when we are tempted, we will not be tempted beyond what we can resist. 4. Therefore it is possible to live without sin. The Bible states that the only perfect person to walk this earth is Christ. While free will does give us the choice to do right or wrong, we as humans are not perfect. We as humans mess up everyday. It could be as simple as choosing to argue with someone or get upset when we don't get what we want when we are children. And as children, we are too young to think before we speak most times. As an adult, the possibility of living perfectly is a little more possible because we understand right from wrong. However... getting angry, not so modest clothing, working on Sunday, even the occasional white lie such as: If someone asks you what the weather is like, and it's partially cloudy outside. But instead you say, "it's going to rain." That isn't exactly the truth. As humans, small things like that we really don't think about. The bigger things, such as adultery, murder, etc. we are more prone to think before we act. But as children, and even as adults we don't think about EVERYTHING we do. The only perfect person to live on this earth was Jesus himself. Our agency, the ability and privilege God gives us to choose and to act for ourselves, is essential to Christ's plan of salvation for us. Without it, we would not be able to learn or progress or follow the Savior. It simply is not possible for us to live perfectly...why? Because if there was a possibility of us living perfectly, then Christ would have had no reason to die on the cross for our sins. You are a christian, so you should know this, as I'm sure you very well do.
The logical conclusion of the Bible's free will is that man can live sinlessly.

Thank you very much for this wonderful debate. First, I would like to say that I agree with a lot of what you said. But there are a couple things that I do have to say. Firstly, what you are saying about people sinning is correct. But that's not really what I'm saying. I understand that people do sin, and I understand why people sin. But I'm proposing that it is in fact possible to live perfectly. James 1:4 says that we will be made perfect through our endurance. The verse I gave earlier said that Jesus told us to be perfect. If you look to my four points earlier, then you will see that it logically concludes that someone can live perfectly. You don't argue any of that.
The logical conclusion of the Bible's free will is that man can live sinlessly.

I hope that I can certainly shed some light on this subject. Interesting theory here, to imagine that free will equals no sin is very in depth; however, I have to disagree with you on one key point you made, and that is that man can live sinlessly. As Christians, no matter our denomination, we are taught that sin is anything not pleasing to the our Heavenly Father. That being said, we are all children of God and were sent here to go through trials and temptations so we can one day return to him and inherit the Kingdom of God. You are correct in stating that the Bible states that the Lord tempts us with nothing we cannot resist, nor does he give us anything we cannot handle; however, with those temptations there is a right choice and a wrong choice. This is called agency. Nothing God tempts us with is overwhelming, however this does not mean that there is not a wrong choice. We as Christians know what is acceptable and worthy acts in the eyes of Heavenly Father, when we disobey those commandments he has given us this is a sin. When we disobey those sins deliberately and repeatedly, this is unacceptable and will be placed upon you on judgment day. Say for example, you are tempted physically. And your agency that Heavenly Father has blessed you with has given you the right to choose whether to give in to that temptation or not. Now, Heavenly Father gives us NOTHING that we can't handle, so the choice should not be hard for us to make. .. considering we know right from wrong. However, you decide to give into the temptation even though you know that it is not acceptable to God. This is a sin, because you deliberately disobeyed. It would be the same as you telling your child not to eat the cookies until after dinner, now, that child has the right to choose whether to eat the cookie or not. So he eats one, but because he disobeyed you, he doesn't get any until tomorrow. Why? Because he disobeyed you. The same applies to Heavenly Father and the commandments that he gives us. Free will simply means the right to choose, because what would our purpose be on this earth if we were all perfect and had no free will? There wouldn't be a purpose because we would already be perfect.
The logical conclusion of the Bible's free will is that man can live sinlessly.

I would like to ask first that my opponent would be a Christian who believes in free will. My reason for arguing isn't necessarily because I believe I'm right. But I am a Christian who believes in free will and I believe that there may be something to this argument. So let us begin. If there is in fact free will then it logically follows that man can live sinlessly. I'm not saying that man can be sinless, but they can make the choice to live without sin. In the book of Matthew, Christ says "Be perfect therefore as your heavenly Father is perfect." Why would Christ give a commandment that is impossible to follow. I believe that He doesn't. But that it can in fact be followed. My reasoning behind this is as follows. 1. Man has ultimate free will...or the ability to choose. 2. When being tempted, we choose to sin or not to sin. 3. The Bible says that when we are tempted, we will not be tempted beyond what we can resist. 4. Therefore it is possible to live without sin.
The logical conclusion of the Bible's free will is that man can live sinlessly.

As a christian, I understand where you are coming from;however, no one can live perfectly, whether or not they are a christian. A person knows the difference between right and wrong regardless of religion. The only difference is that they know the rights and wrongs of christianity. Spencer W. Kimball wrote a book entitled "The Miracle of Forgiveness" in which he takes on a "in your face" reality check on christ's compassion to forgive. Among the 368 pages of the book, Kimball mentions a rather lengthy list of sins: "Murder, adultery, theft, cursing, unholiness in masters, disobedience in servants, unfaithfulness, improvidence, hatred of God, disobedience to husbands, lack of natural affection, high-mindedness, flattery, lustfulness, infidelity, indiscretion, backbiting, whispering, lack of truth, striking, brawling, quarrelsomeness, unthankfulness, inhospitality, deceitfulness, irreverence, boasting, arrogance, pride, double-tongued talk, profanity, slander, corruptness, thievery, embezzlement, despoiling, covenant-breaking, incontinence, filthiness, ignobleness, filthy communications, impurity, foolishness, slothfulness, impatience, lack of understanding, unmercifulness, idolatry, blasphemy, denial of the Holy Ghost, Sabbath breaking, envy, jealousy, malice, maligning, vengefulness, implacability, bitterness, clamor, spite, defiling, reviling, evil speaking, provoking, greediness for filthy lucre, disobedience to parents, anger, hate, covetousness, bearing false witness, inventing evil things, fleshliness, heresy, presumptuousness, abomination, insatiable appetite, instability, ignorance, self-will, speaking evil of dignitaries, becoming a stumbling block; and in our modern language, masturbation, petting, fornication, adultery, homosexuality; and every sex perversion, every hidden and secret sin and all unholy and impure practices. " some of these things such as jealousy, pride, lack of understanding, bitterness, anger, hate, self-will, and envy are all normal human traits. One cannot help that they may feel jealousy towards someone. My point in this statement and the long paragraph is that some things we as humans do without thinking about, because it's part of our nature. Like you said, we were born into sin. And if we didn't sin, then Christ would have no purpose. In conclusion, all men sin. And to say that they can live perfectly is almost naive. We as humans do have agency, but we also sin without realizing it sometimes. The point of this world is to come and follow christ by faith. If we live perfect lives, then Christ would serve no purpose. We are humans, and Christ was the only perfect individual.
The New and Old Testaments Should NOT Be Considered Moral Guides

Oh. Whoops.1) Is it ever morally good in any circumstance to own another human being as property? - Yes. We have a brain that God has wisely provided us to do what we want with it, which includes owning other people, which is natural. If they consent to it, it is okay.2) Is genocide, including children, ever morally good? - Yes, because sometimes a little harm is necessary to prevent greater harm.3) Is human sacrifice ever morally good? - Yes, if commanded by someone greater than mere mortal human beings.4) Is it ever morally good to hold a child accountable for the actions of his father? - Yes, because he will most likely be influenced. That's why we have a natural inclination to scorn kids raised by welfare druggies.5) Is the act of rape ever morally good? - No. Who said it was?6) Is it moral to force a woman raped by a man to be forever married to him? - Yes, because otherwise she would be sexually impure. Definition: "morally wrong, esp. in sexual matters." So yes, being impure is more morally wrong.7) Is hell an actual place where certain people are sent to and tortured forever? - Yes. Google Tamera LaRoux.8) Is it ever morally good to impose infinite punishment for finite crimes? - Yes, because punishment is necessary for ethical communities, which anyone will agree with.9) Is it ever morally good to punish someone with the death penalty for striking a parent? - Yes, if it is considered that serious of a crime. Either you support the death penalty or you don't, no "but only in this circumstance" shakiness. As I said earlier, sometimes a little harm is necessary to prevent a greater harm.10) Is it ever morally good to punish someone for crime that you know, even before they are born, they will at some point in their lives commit? - Yes. Punishment is necessary. Knowing someone is responsible for some sort of crime merits punishment, which serves as a deterring future preventative measure.
The New and Old Testaments Should NOT Be Considered Moral Guides

It would have been nice if you'd posted this definition, as I requested, in the comments so that we could agree upon it so we don't waste rounds going back and forth determining what is meant by the terms "good" and "bad". I have the awful feeling this will turn into a debate about what is considered good and bad, rather than if the bible is moral or not, but I digress...Seeing as how we never got to agree on a definition, I want to ask you a few very important questions that I would very much like YES or NO answers to. I'm completely fine with explanations after the fact, but I would like either an affirmation or denounciation rather than some opaque or vague circumvention.1) Is it ever morally good in any circumstance to own another human being as property?2) Is genocide, including children, ever morally good?3) Is human sacrifice ever morally good?4) Is it ever morally good to hold a child accountable for the actions of his father?5) Is the act of rape ever morally good?6) Is it moral to force a woman raped by a man to be forever married to him?7) Is hell an actual place where certain people are sent to and tortured forever?8) Is it ever morally good to impose infinite punishment for finite crimes? 9) Is it ever morally good to punish someone with the death penalty for striking a parent? 10) Is it ever morally good to punish someone for crime that you know, even before they are born, they will at some point in their lives commit?
The New and Old Testaments Should NOT Be Considered Moral Guides

No specific arguments shall be made until the second round. Brief description of case:I will solely be referencing specific scriptures of the new and old testaments of the bible (which I will from now on will be referring to as "the bible" for simplicity) wherein disgusting, abhorrent, and immoral actions are ordered and advocated directly (supposedly) by God, and therefore conclude that nobody should be using these texts as moral guides. In order to accept this debate, CON must:1) Post their definition of morality in the comments PRIOR TO ACCEPTING debate so that we can agree before we move forward. The last thing I want this to turn into is a debate about definitions. I want this to be as fair as possible so we can move forward agreeing on what we are talking about first. (Note: In order to actually have this discussion I cannot/will not accept definitions of morality that already include god, such as "Morality is what God says" or "God is morality". This debate isn't possible using this definition)2) Accept that both books of the bible are the true words of God in their entirety3) Accept that these texts should be considered moral guides and/or a basis for a moral foundationIf you have questions or concerns, please don't accept the debate. Leave a comment and I will address them and we can potentially move forward. Thank you!