BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Immigration

There should be no such thing as illegal immigration and those individuals already in the country that are labeled as illegal immigrants should be granted amnesty. Immigrants fuel the economy, whether or not they have entered the country legally. By entering the country, immigrants join the low-cost labor pool that increases American money in circulation and government tax revenue (procon.org). Jobs that working-class Americans do not want will be taken by these immigrants, in no way taking jobs from Americans. The main argument of the opposing point of view, that immigrants hurt the American economy, is completely false. Morally, illegal immigration is wrong and without reason. Immigrants generally bring good values to the country, and it is unfair to arrest millions of immigrants due to an opposition that stems from racism (nationalreview.com). As politician Jack Kemp once pointed out, "Americans and immigrants share the same value of work, family, and opportunity. There is no reason to fear the newcomers arriving on our shores today. If anything, they will energize what is best about our country" (nationalreview.com). There is no reason to disallow immigration in this country besides from ideas of Caucasian superiority. Targeting the entire illegal immigrant population in America would fall just short of genocide, targeting and removing a whole body of people from the country. Immigration is the foundation of America and should be made completely legal for all individuals.
Holocaust happened

TheTroof challenged me to this debate.The proposition of this debate: "The Holocaust happened"DefinitionsHolocaust - A genocide in which approximately six million Jews were killed by Adolf Hitler's Nazi regime and its collaborators [1]Rules4 rounds, 72 hours, 10,000 charactersFor the sake of the reader, the format will be:Round 1: Resolution, rules and AcceptanceRound 2: Arguments (No rebuttals)Round 3: Rebuttals and DefenseRound 4: Rebuttals, Defense and Final conclusion 1. No forfeits.2. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be within the debate or in comments.3. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere.4. No trolling.5. Feel free to run a Kritik if you want.6. No deconstructional semantics.7. Burden of Proof (BoP) is shared8. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.9. Failure to adhere to the rules above leads to an immediate loss[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Dr. Pepper is better than Coca-Cola

I dont think that just because it used have cocaine in it 100 years ago, means that it should be worse than dr. pepper. coke has been around longer, and according to numerous polls, tastes better than dr.pepper. plus coke makes every one happy. it is good to just sit back relax and have a coke. same goes with dr. pepper, but coke is just the essence of 'cool' it has been around alot longer than dr.pepper also, which also helps for the coke situation. Well any way thaks rachelle, this was fun ;)
Dr. Pepper is better than Coca-Cola

thanks for debating me. you are correct, it is a matter of opinion, but I still agree that dr pepper is better than coca cola. Dr pepper has twenty three fruity flavors in it. Coke used to have actual cocaine in it, but they took it out over 100 years ago. http://www.healthbolt.net... Dr pepper has never been made with drugs in it! But I guess everyone is different, but I can tell you, here in Texas, dr pepper definitly has the upper hand! Thank you again for debating me!
Dr. Pepper is better than Coca-Cola

i personally dont drink soda, but i used to and think coke is definitely better. here are some facts from Cokefacts.com 1.Coca-Cola produces nearly 400 brands in more than 200 countries. 2.Before it goes to market, each Coca-Cola product undergoes nearly 450 different tests to ensure that ingredient and packaging quality meets the Company's standards. 3.Coca-Cola's India business creates employment for more than 150,000 people. I am not going to argue that coke tastes better because that is purely matter of opinion. but i will show you results showing that other people like it better on http://www.fanpop.com... it was voted that coke=86% dr.pepper=14% this shows that other people love coke more as well. And dr.pepper has a weird after taste. i dont like it, but maybe other people do. but just because coke has more acid in it, doesn't mean it does not taste as good. besides all soda pop is bad for you including dr.pepper. Thankyou rachelle for posting this debate. i look forward to your answer.
Dr. Pepper is better than Coca-Cola

Hello, I would just like to say this is my first debate...anyways, Dr. pepper is better than coca cola in many ways. first of all, it tastes better. no one can explain what dr. pepper taste like. coca cola just tastes like pepsi (which, by the way, i dont like either). dr. pepper also has less acid than coca cola. why would you want to drink something that has more acid? car mechanics use coke to remove corrosion off of battery terminals in cars. ewwww. just imagine what that can do to your stomach! well, i will let the opponent tell their side of the story now, good luck! = )
Civility and Reciprocal Respect

That looks like a copy and paste from somewhere. What does teaching children and adolescents or it being learned by practice, have anything to do with our requirements of others? You've also not commented on anything I have written which is fine but it's makes this a difficult argument to keep from committing red herring. One can take a horse to the water but you can't force it to drink is my answer. We can teach our kids kindness but kindness is something that also comes naturally from within. We can practice kindness in acts also but it's not to say it will make us kind in the end. Anything can be taught and practiced when we young but we have personalities that develop, and other influences that influence how we act and react. One can be soft-heart'd and be kinder than another even if their parents taught them nothing of the sort or very little. "We have not the least right to require others to treat us any better than we treat them." This is basically a statement demanding we treat people how we want to be treated, or we have no right to require others to treat us better than how we treat. In my previous examples I tried to explain my position. We can require people to treat us better even if we treated them badly with disrespect for example, by their own words and authority they place over us. If you in school and you rude to your teacher; would it be okay if your teacher was rude back? or is it required that the teacher have composure regardless of what you do? Can you expect this?
Civility and Reciprocal Respect

If I understand the debate correctly my answer is as follows: We have the right to require whatever we wish from anyone we wish and here's an example: I'd require for instance someone who professes to behave in a certain way to live up to the expectation they presented me with regardless of how I treat them. Like let's say a Christian who professes to be forgiving and loving for example: just because I may not love them or forgive them, I'd still expect them to do so based on their own testimony and that of the bible. Also we need to consider people's backgrounds, hearts and all the rest. If I treat someone lovingly and they aren't perhaps able to love me back how can I expect them to treat me with love. They may not know how, there may be background influence. I get that is not the context of what you mean though. So what you saying is; if we treat people badly can we really expect them to treat us differently? My answer is yes we can. If I was 3 years old and treated an adult badly, I can expect them to treat me kindly. Same of any person professing to be better or greater or more authoritative than I for example like a Christian etc. an authority figure etc.
Dogs are better then cats

That is a very touching story, however, not every dog has that ability. As I said before, cats display their loyalties in different ways than dogs. Dogs and cats have such different personalities from one another and it is impossible to say that cats don't love their owners like dogs do. There is no factual proof, besides real life examples that can interpreted in many different ways. Some dogs can be hostile towards their owners and bite them, especially if they have a dark history or tragic experience in the past. We often hear of pitbulls and large dogs attacking innocent people/owners and holding them down or biting them so badly that the victims are sent to the hospital. You have a very sound argument and it has been a pleasure debating against you.
Dogs are better then cats

It is possible that cats can be loving, but it is not even in the same realm as dogs and how loving they are. In my last argument i would like to show how loyal dogs truly are. There is one example (and im sure many more) of a dog being so loyal to his owner that the dog risk its life. A very famous story is that of a blind man, Omar Eduardo Rivera, and his dog, Dorado. Dorado was a guide dog for Mr. Rivera and when they found themselves on the 71st floor of the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001 Dorado risked his life for his owner. Mr. Rivera once realizing what was going on, when the plane hit the World Trade center, he released his dog and told him to go and to be safe. After a few minutes Dorado returned to his owner and would not leave him, the dog lead his owner down 71 flights of stairs never leaving his side. Even though Dorado had the opportunity to leave, he never did, and he saved his owners life. This just goes to show that dogs are in their very nature loyal as can be. I thank you very much for your debate. sources: http://dogsinthenews.com...
Dogs are better then cats

Dogs may be happy to see you, but their barking is loud and unnecessary. Cats can display their affection towards their owner by simply purring and closing their eyes. You will never get complaints regarding the loudness of cat, however neighbors often complain about noisy dogs. Cats display their love in different ways than dogs, by bringing their owners toys and collectables. They aren't as forward with their love as dogs are, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.
Dogs are better then cats

Cats may be loyal, but cats are not very loving. Cats may not jump on guests and get excited when they walk in, but that just means that they could care less about these guest. This fact leads me to believe that cats do not really love or care for their owners either. This leads me to my next conclusion that dogs are extremely loving and loyal. You could leave your house for twenty minutes and when you return to your house they act like they have not seen you in forever. They show you how much they missed you by whimpering and crying. They show you how excited they are that you returned by wagging their tails and jumping and just all in all acting like happy animals. They treat you as if you are a part of their pack. This is why dogs are especially better than cats.
Dogs are better then cats

Cats are loyal to their owner as well, but in ways that aren't so obvious.It is not in a cat's nature to fight, but they can be intimidating if they are provoked. Cats have sharp teeth and claws and if they are aggravated, they will act on it. Cats are polite and are rarely ever hostile to guests because they tend to mind their own business. If guests arrive at your house, they will not bark and jump on them as a dog would. Maybe if a cat is in the mood, they will peek their head out to say hello but that is the extent of it. They do not beg for attention.
Dogs are better then cats

As any animal who is not taken care of can and will smell bad. If a litter box is not taken care of and cleaned regularly it will smell, just as a dog will smell if the dog is not bathed. Another reason however that dogs are better is that dogs can act as service animals. They are able to be trained to help the blind, in becoming guide dogs. Cats cannot be trained to help people in such a way. Dogs in their nature are loyal animals when trained with a purpose will devote themselves to that purpose, such as becoming a seeing eye dog. Even dogs who are not trained as service dogs are loyal to their family and can be useful in the sense that they can protect a household. If someone is trying to break into a house and a dog is barking and growling at them the chance is that they will not enter. On the other hand if a cat sees an intruder, what do they do? Meow and hiss, i do not think this will scare away an intruder.
Dogs are better then cats

Even though dogs do have to be walked, the walking experience is a bonding experience that helps you and your dog to become closer. Also the walking is not only fun and healthy for your dog, but it is also healthy for the owner too. Dogs may need to be let outside to go to the bathroom, but they do not make house smell with a litter box. Also dogs can be trained to use a doggie door and go to the bathroom by themselves.
The story challenge

Though my story does continue from pros, he slanders me for no reason. He must be a troll. I am willing to bet in the final round he will say something along the lines of: Pro has failed to continue the story the way I wanted it to go. Herr durr. Vote Con. *insert communist veiws here*. Pro is a troll All of this is false. I am unimpressed. You truly have gone against ddo ettiquite. Not only this but con has copied this from another source that was not his own. This is horrible! See here: http://www.nobelprize.org... I await pro to continue the story from round 3. If he does not, it should be considered a forfit. And for anyone who thinks I am racist or something for thinking Con would put forward communist ideas, according to his account, his ideaology is communist. He also supports the marajuana party, so I could say he smokes, as the kool kats would say, pot. Vote pro, despite what lies con gives, no matter how misleading. I liek bacon. I give u bacon. Is good
Greatest Franchise in NFL History

I agree with your points about their stars as well. But the 49ers have always been the bigger market and therefore have been much more popular in general than the Packers. That increases profit, and helps the team by giving them more cap room to succeed. The packers have only had two championships in the last 35 years, while San Francisco has won 4 championships and been to another super bowl. The NFL today only cares about "what have you done for me lately." Lately, the 49ers have been much more successful, and they also got a new stadium, allowing their brand to expand. Green bay has always been fan-owned, which is a disadvantage because there is not as much money coming in whereas a single owner can make much more profit. That's why I believe San Francisco is a more complete franchise.
Greatest Franchise in NFL History

The 49ers joined the NFL in 1950 but didnt win a single NFL championship until 1981. While Green Bay joined the NFL in 1921 and won their first NFL championship in 1929 (They also won in 1930 and 1931). You said that no team was as dominant in a decade as the 49ers were in the 1980s. i highly disagree with that. The 70s steelers and 1960s packers were definitely more dominant. And when talking about greatest players of all time the Packers have Don Hutson, Reggie White, Bart Starr, and Brett Favre. And Hutson>Rice all day. No team has ever had the amount of great QBs like the Packers have, QBs like Arnie Herber, Cecil Isbell, Rodgers, Favre and Starr. The Packers have also had 2 of the greatest QBs of all time, 2 of the greatest receivers of all time (dont forget James Lofton), many of the greatest offensive lineman of all time, one of the greatest d lineman of all time, one of the greatest linebackers of all time, and a few of the greatest secondary players of all time. Star power, longevity, championships, wins, coaches and much more make the Packers the obvious choice for Greatest Franchise of all time.
Greatest Franchise in NFL History

I understand that the championships are skewed but you have to remember that the 49ers were not an NFL team until 1946, whereas the Packers have been in the NFL since 1921. That gives them about a 30 year head start, and their first championship wasn't won until was not until 1967, 46 years into their existence. The 49ers won their first in 1981, and subsequently won 3 more in that decade alone. No team has ever been or will be that dominant in one decade. And when you mention the greatest players of all time, Joe Montana, Jerry Rice and Steve Young are all on the list. Never has there been a better wide receiver than Jerry Rice, and he did it in an era where defensive backs could get away with holding penalties and massive hits. He is the all time leader in receptions, touchdowns, and yards. Joe Montana has four super bowl rings, and Steve Young has 3. This franchise has had 2 of the best quarterbacks of all time, and THE best receiver of all time. Star power is what makes this franchise the best in my opinion
Greatest Franchise in NFL History

The reason its not the 49ers and it is the Packers is simple. The 49ers were irrelevant pre-1980. They did have a couple decent years in early 70s but thats it. They were terrible before that. Green Bay has always been consistently good with a couple bad years here and there. Only bad run they ever had was in the late 70s and 80s. Greeb Bay also has 13 championships compared to the 49ers 5. Green Bay also has the 2nd most wins of all time and the 2nd most hall of famers (they have 10 more than the 49ers). Green Bay is stacked at almost every postion. They also have 2 of the greatest coaches of all time (Lambeau and Lombardi) and 2 others that are/were really good too (Holmgren and McCarthy). There are many other factors that play into why the Packers are the greatest NFL franchise of all time but these reasons can clearly put them over the 49ers.
Atheism Doesn't Necessarily Entail That A Universe With A Finite Past Came From Nothing

There is an idiom in the English vernacular regarding having your cake and eating it, too. The intent is that one gets what they want and is left without the results of that getting. My opponent is attempting such a position in his description of the origins of the universe. His claim is that a finite universe can exist at all times and that there was no before the universe and yet we are not allowed to describe such a situation as nothing before the universe. He attempts to scoff at my understanding. He"s even drawn a couple of really nice pictures to demonstrate. It"s not a very complicated concept to understand what he"s trying to say. It"s just wrong. A universe that exists at all times is eternal, not finite. A universe that exists for a measurable amount of time is finite and does not exist at all times. If something only existed up to a measured point in history, there are only two answers to the question, "What existed before?" Something. Or nothing. Unless you are Pro, clearly. My opponent is attempting to come up with a new concept. This is an admirable trait. However, when defining or describing such a concept, one must use words and respect the definitions of those words. If one desires to make new usage for said words, assumptions need to be made, assumptions my opponent foregoes in his earnest desire just to be right. What he ends up with is a mess of contradictions and a faulty view of logic.
Atheism Doesn't Necessarily Entail That A Universe With A Finite Past Came From Nothing

Pro has now successfully broken both parts of his argument. Not only did he claim that there wasn't anything before the universe, but this does not equate to nothing, he's now claiming that his universe is finite but "always" and "at all times." And more, he claims this does not equate to eternal. Eternal: : having no beginning and no end in time : lasting forever : existing at all times : always true or valid : seeming to last forever[1] Therefore, we have both eternal and always as meaning at all times and yet Pro argues that his universe is finite and always exists. A conundrum of logic, no doubt. Pro dismisses my definition of nothing, but fails to recognize it is not my definition. I understand he wouldn't like the definition as it refutes his claim at logic, but it stands on its own merit, not my opinion. Nevertheless, for the sake of assurance, I am more than willing to provide the definition from Pro's own selected dictionary: Nothing: 1. Something that has no existence. 2. Something that has no quantitative value; zero: 3. One that has no substance or importance; a nonentity:[2] If there was not a prior to the universe, there was nothing prior to the universe. My opponent has pretended at logic while attempting to twist language to attempt a fantastic new state of being where the lack of anything does not result in nothing and eternal and finite have the same meaning. While Pro claims I do not understand his position, the lack of understanding is his and involves simple word usage. He speaks with great confidence, but his reasoning just does not stack up to inspection. Pro has claimed a finite universe that always existed, that began, but not from nothing, even though there existed nothing previous. I even allowed him the assumption that the lack of any universe does not equate to nothing, yet he refused the suggestion and insists that it is self evident, a curious claim in itself. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Atheism Doesn't Necessarily Entail That A Universe With A Finite Past Came From Nothing

Greetings! I would like to thank my opponent for the opportunity to clarify the issue of the universe’s generation to assist in his general philosophy of the nature of the universe. The way I understand his statements, (And he insists I am misunderstanding him.) he claims that the universe is finite, approximately 13.7 billion years old. He claims that the first state of the universe, however, is that it existed. Then (And this is what I take issue with.) he claims that the universe is not eternal, neither does it form spontaneously from nothing. This is all assuming no creator force. My position is that the universe must either be eternal (as in, it always was) or it spontaneously generated from nothing, if we assume no creator. I would like to note that Pro has attempted to pre-empt my argument by stating that to assume such a position is a false dichotomy. It basically boils down to arguing over the definition of nothing. As such, I will prove that this is an accurate dichotomy and a necessary one to the situation, unless one makes an assumption that the absence of any universe does not equate to nothing, an assumption he has not been willing to make. The relevant definition of nothing is as follows:[1]1a: something that does not exist b: the absence of all magnitude or quantity; also : ZERO 1a c : NOTHINGNESS, NONEXISTENCE Nothing is the absence of anything. It is zero, nothingness. Nothing means there is nothing. There is no value to the presence of nothing. In mathematical terms, it is undefined. The major reason I would object to my opponent’s theory is because it lacks the answer to this question: What came before this finite universe? What was there one second before 13.7 billion years ago? There are only two general answers to this question: 1. Something. 2. Nothing. If one assumes the first answer, what is it and what came before that? If one assumes the second answer, then we reach the crux of the issue. There are only two possibilities for a finite universe. Either it came from something else or it came from nothing. This is a necessary dichotomy. Pro speaks as if nothing is a measurable substance and thinks to eliminate its existence through argument. The problem is that nothing is the lack of substance and assuming there is no substance, one is left with nothing. This is unavoidable. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...