BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gender equality should never exist

Gender Equality is the next stage in social evolution for mankind. As we begin to look beyond and dismantle gender roles preventing them from being inhibiting in life we are more and more able to utilize the skills and abilities of people in society and grant them the chances at their own happiness and pursuits. Less than one hundred years ago female humans could not vote in America and had little to no say in political, economic, corporate, or legal matters and were treated as subhuman in every single aspect of these matters. This is objectively wrong; there is no way to justify the treatment of any human in such a manner therefore whether it be gender or ethnicity or caste the value of a human's life and their input should be equivalent to those of their brethren when qualified to be as such. The statement relating to the current focus on one issue over another is not an argument against Gender Equality but an argument against it's management which in turn means that there is no argument in the OP and no justification for the belief itself; the questioning of the methodology is a separate issue altogether and if not treated as such brings about ignorance, bigotry, and a self-defensive stance that grants no one any form of enlightenment on the issue.
Pick your own topic

1) The drug wars are certainly NOT contained to mexico, there are many instances where the drug violence spills over the border and innocent American civilians or policemen are killed in the senseless violence. http://www.msnbc.msn.com... http://www.newsmax.com... http://frontpagemag.com... http://www.latimes.com... http://www.nytimes.com... http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com... http://www.ruthfullyyours.com... http://www.borderlandbeat.com... http://blogs.ft.com... http://www.breitbart.com... A border fence is very helpful, not immune, but helpful in stopping the transportation of illegal narcotics into the US because even though they can be transported by airplanes, boats and tunnels the dealers dont use those tactics because they like them, they use them because they are forced to because of the border crossing. The border crossing has actually seized a great deal of illegal drugs too. http://channel.nationalgeographic.com... http://www.cbp.gov... http://digitaljournal.com... http://latimesblogs.latimes.com... http://murrieta.patch.com... Im not going to get into people and consuming drugs, but the drug violence that is brought with these drugs infiltrating the US is certainly unacceptable. The border fence protects against that and with out it drugs would pour into the US and so would the drug cartel violence associated with it. 2) Ok the invasion argument doesnt hold well, but the border still does protect the US from the ever escalating border violence locate din Mexico and without the wall a far larger number of innocent people would end up dead from the cartel violence then without the border wall. 3) Illegal immigrants may pay income taxes but there are some aspects that could cause harm to the American economy. This includes (but not limited to) 1) Overpopulation 2) Increase strains on water supplies in the desert southwest 3) Use of Social Services 4) Use of Healthcare 5) Competition for low income jobs and Unemployment 6) Crime Rates 7) Education costs to the state (depending on number of children) 8) Impacting the price of labor 9) Poverty Rates 10) Cost of infrastructure to absorb all of these immigrants (close to 6 million illegal immigrants according to the Pro) 4) Here are some ways the Border Fence contributes to the American Economy, 1) Billions is invested in construction and technology companies to build, maintain, and upgrade the fence. 2) Millions in salaries paid to border agents which creates jobs 3) Protects US citizens (cant really put a number on them though) 4) Prevents the migration of dangerous infected agricultural products that could later cause millions in agricultural losses This is why I believe the US needs a border fence
Pick your own topic

First I will highlight my arguments and then address cons arguments afterwards. Overall illegal immigration benefits America and American citizens; as I posted earlier over the lifetime of an illegal she/he will pay 80,000 more in taxes than he/she receives in benefits; not only that but total illegal immigration increases Americas economic by 250-650 (sources are sourced on my first post). A border fence would decrease illegal immigration by around 95% [1]. In 1996 there were only around 5 million illegal immigrations in the nation[2], while today there are over 11 million illegal immigrants[3] meaning that over a 15 year period 6 million illegal immigrants came to the USA. So if we put up a border fence it would result in 5.7million less illegal immigrants over a 15 year period. That means a border fence would result in tax revenue dropping by 380billion and the economy being 120billion-300billion dollars smaller. No on to my opponent's arguments. 1)The drug wars are mostly contained to Mexico; there have been some intrusions on to US soil but for the most part the drug wars aren't killing many Americans on US soil. Also a border fence will not stop drug transportion because drugs can be trafficked and are being transported by the use of airplanes, boats, and underground tunnels. And I disagree with my opponent's assertion that it is a bad thing to have drugs transported into the country. If people want to use drugs that is their decision. 2)There are things called missiles, and bombs, they easily take out fences; meaning a fence really won't do anything if Mexico wants to invade/attack us. 3)It is true building and marinating a fence across the border will not cost much relative to the size of our economy, however the direct effects of that fence will be less illegal immigration which as I posted earlier means less revenue and a smaller economy. My opponent needs to show that a border fence will somehow result in a much stronger economy. Given that I've shown that the effect of the fence on immigration will result in the economy being 120-300billion dollars lower, and that government revenue would be hundreds of billions of dollars less. [1] http://www.npr.org... [2] http://www.dhs.gov... [3] http://www.nytimes.com...
Pick your own topic

I actually agree with the pro about the benefit of immigrants (both illegal and legal) to the American economy but there are many other reasons we need the border fence. 1) Narcotics The recent drug war that has engulfed Northern Mexico is over the clash between drug cartels and Mexican authorities, with thousands of people being affected including several cities in Mexico where people are fleeing for fear of their lives. The border fence serves two purposes in this case because it cuts back on the amount of illegal substances coming into America, and it prevents the large drug violence in Northern Mexico from infiltrating the southern United States. Without a border fence cities very close to the border like El Paso, San Diego, etc. would be very exposed to this drug violence and the economies of these, along with other nearby, cities would suffer. Without a border fence the sheer amount of illegal narcotics that does make it into the United States would grow exponentially because it would be far easier for cartels to move their goods into American cities. 2) Border security You argue that we do not need the border fence because we are not in the threat of an invasion, but that is only true of today. It cannot be guaranteed that there will NEVER be an invasion from Mexico, and if that day were to come or if US-Mexican international relations broke down or somehow the two sides ended up becoming bitter enemies than that border fence would sure come in handy. 3) Costs are not really that big. The numbers provided to us by the Pro about the border fence indicate that upgrading/reinforcing the border fence costs just south of $10 Billion and costs (barely) $5 billion a year, but the income of the US is about $3.15 TRILLION http://www.buildabetterbudget.org... So is reinforcing + funding a border fence currently worth about 0.476% of our TOTAL income really an issue? 4) Does the border fence deter immigration or just ILLEGAL immigration? The border fence exists primarily to keep illegal immigrants out but the Pro implies the border fence may deter legal immigration. Number of legal immigrants who came to America = 25.393 Million (2007) Number of illegal immigrants who came to America = 12.621 Million (2007) Total = 37.9 Million http://www.cis.org... So while the number of immigrants coming into the US (in 2007) equaled the population of California and Wyoming (as of 2010) The border fence may not be deterring immigration to the United States even though it is doing some damage to the number of illegal immigrants trying to make their way into America. Number of illegal immigrants caught along the US-Mexican border this year = 120,000 also implied by the article is that illegal immigration has declined about 80% So the border fence is suppressing illegal immigration but legal immigration continues to be as high as ever. The border fence is good because it suppresses illegal immigration, protects the nation from the ongoing drug violence in Northern Mexico, and one day it could serve as a formidable barrier should US-Mexican relations begin to deteriorate
Pick your own topic

I am not against the border fence because I'm against putting security in place at the border. I support having security and currently we are not having huge problems with security on the southern border that would warrant spending billions of dollars building and maintaining a border fence. It's projected that a border fence would cost 2.6billion-7billion, while maintenance costs would be around .4billion per year. http://www.globalsecurity.org... Now when I say we are not having problems with security at the border I mean we are not having a huge influx of terrorists bombing our cities, or an army invading us. The reason I'm against the border fence is because the major factor for it going up is to deter immigration. I believe that immigration even illegal is beneficial for not only America but for Mexico and the people immigrating. I am against telling the Mexican people that they cannot come to America to work in order to achieve a better standard of living. I believe all people regardless of where they are born should be able to work where they want to and should be entitled to the same chances to improve their lives. I hope that that explanation of why I oppose the border fence is adequate for my opponent. Now I realize that my arguments rely on one thing and one thing only; the idea that immigration legal/illegal is beneficial to America. So I will now post arguments and some data to show that immigration is beneficial. 1)Overall an illegal immigrant in his/her whole lifetime will pay 80,000 more in taxes then he/she receives in government benefits. This is mostly because the IRS allows illegals to pay taxes, because local taxes primarily are taxes that illegals cannot avoid, and the fact that illegals due to being illegal cannot get many government benefits. http://www.reason.org... 2)A study done by the perryman group concluded that illegal immigrants contribute 250-650billion dollars to the economy each year. http://americansforimmigrationreform.com... 3)A study put out by a Los Angeles professor estimates that if we were to deport all illegal immigrants it would shrink our GDP (economy) by 2.6 trillion dollars. http://thinkprogress.org... So basically my argument is that deterring immigration would result in lower standards of living for Americans and a smaller economy.
how wrong you are

One way the NRA has been able to manipulate the public is by labeling people with different names to discredit them in a very simplistic way. I am not a liberal, nor a democrat, nor a republican, nor a marxist, nor nothing. I am my own person, a free thinker that does not belong to any association. I do not like parties, to begin with. The Constitution mentions "a well-regulated militia" and "people" (plural), not individual citizens. Besides, it was written thinking on muskets, not AR-15s or AK-47s. Besides, the Constitution was not a perfect document. That is why it had to be amended several times such as to grant women the right to vote and to allow interracial marriages. It did not abolish slavery either. And every generation has the right to make any change to meet its needs. The Constitution is an evolving document.
how wrong you are

I will help you get your facts straight. The crime rate in Australia decreased tremendously after banning assault rifles while in Japan you can count with your fingers the number of dead people by firearms in a year. That is freedom: the right to walk on any street without being intimidated by people carrying guns, as well as the right to attend school without being concern about a mass massacre. We live in a technological era, not in a wild west era. Wake up and smell the coffee! Your arguments lacks a sense of commitment and responsibility. Assassinations will continue as long as the citizenry has access to weapons. We even have lost presidents to this sick mentality and false sense of freedom that the NRA sells us; for example, President Lincoln, President Kennedy, Martin Luther King, John Lennon, and many other important figures have been ridicously shot by someone with a gun. Even President Reagan was the target of an assassination plot; fortunately he survived. Is that the kind of freedom you are refering to where not even a president is safe in his own country? Allowing the proliferation of assault weapons is equivalent to imposing a war environment on our civilian population, including children at schools. Those weapons belong in the military; civilians only want peace. Peace and weaponry do not mix, or look at Somalia. Do we want to look more like Somalia or like Japan, Germany, or Great Britain? Why don't we listen to our teachers, police officers, community organizers, technical personnel, developers, engineers, and see what they have to say about weapons and safety? But instead, people like you, listen to anti-social and extremist groups like the NRA that lack the minimum sense of sociatal harmony and human enhancement. Your argument is too biased and lacks the necessary balance; besides, all the facts you cite are misconstrued to deceive the audience. Then as you run out of misguised facts, you start offending the audience, typical behavior of the impotent and crippled debater. I am sorry, but you cannot cover the sunlight with a finger.
how wrong you are

If being against the proliferation of assault rifles means being liberal, then the majority of people in England, Japan, Australia, and most of the world are also liberals. But I differ from that because most level-headed conservatives most likely oppose assault rifles, too. Moreover, I do not see the connection between partisan interests and the right approach that every reasonable politician needs to implement. During these days, I have not seen any conservative person talking in defense of assault rifles despite all the opposition that is soaring against the NRA. If they were so certain about the need of assault rifles, they would be standing up for them in this critical moment. But they cannot be found. Ridiculously, a CEO representing the NRA suggested on national TV that every school needs the presence of a police officer to avoid more massacres, while not even mentioned any measure that could prevent the easy access to AR-15s and AK-47s. I do not think that it is too convenient or tactical for conservatives to label people who oppose assault rifles as "liberals."
how wrong you are

Apparently you are extremely liberal as you berate the NRA while trying to claim innocence at not using labels. Now on to your absurd claims. 1st) The Militia Acts of 1792 actually required all able-bodied white males between 18 and 45 to own a "good musket or forelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack" among other goods. The "good musket or forelock" would be the equivalent of modern day weaponry in terms of relative applicability. As the MILITARY used those very same weapons. The error on your part is that you erroneously equate a painted, plastic stock gun to military grade armament. 2nd) The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy. The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders. The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). 3rd) YOUR claim that the constitution and Bill of Rights are flawed. What you refer to as evolving subjective is nonsense" Your use subjective (evolving) interpretations of the Constitution to address issues that could and should be handled by Congress. ie: slavery and women's rights. That is why we pass laws.
Teachers should be randomly drug tested in controlled amounts.

I hope that we can both learn from this. I also would like to thank the audience for reading this. You claim that teachers should be forced into taking random drug test in order to stay employed. You believe that the testing will stop teachers from using drugs, and will cost very little. I fail to concur. First, drug testing is an invasion of privacy. Take article I, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution. It states ‘No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law. ' For this reason random drug testing was banned in Washington. In the case of Treasury Employees v. Von Raabthe, the high court ruled that requiring employees to produce urine samples constituted a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution (which protects citizens against "unreasonable" searches and seizures). The Court also ruled that positive test results could not be used in subsequent criminal prosecutions without the employee's consent. Secondly, drug test are not as cheap as you claim them to be. They can range from $30 a test to $100. There are also about 4 million teachers in the United States. Lets say that every teacher was tested once at $30 per test, that would be 120 million dollars. Also teachers would have to take the test repeatedly, costing tax payers millions. Lastly, testing would not be as effective as you claim it would. There are many ways to beat a drug test, putting salt in urine, eat poppy seed bagels, drinking lots of water, ect… This is just a brief argument; I want to confirm that you will not forfeit your next argument before I go on. Thank you. Sources: (1). . http://www.ehow.com... (2. ) . http://www.leg.wa.gov... (3). . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Teachers should be randomly drug tested in controlled amounts.

Police in Williamsburg, Pennsylvania arrested an elementary school teacher and seized 72 pounds of marijuana from her home. 52 year old Beth Camp was charged with intent to deliver and drug possession. The gross estimate of the total drugs was $350,000. School officials say that Beth has taught in the Williamsport School District for 25 years, and no one has ever realized that she had ever been involved with drugs. This report enlightens those with the false perception that any drug dealer can clearly be identified. Due to a sharp inclination in drug trafficking in Huntington, it is absolutely imperative that we establish a solid foundation of learning for our young students. With the becoming of this bill, we can help aid in the safety of West Virginia's students. First of all, students rely on the staff to protect them from all dangers, foreign and domestic. It is the faculty's duty to protect their children to the very best of their abilities, because anything else is simply unacceptable. We have to maintain a safe environment and ensure there are no dangers for our students. Secondly, everyone should require drug testing. It really isn't fair, nor is it justified to single out students for drug testing. A teacher is just as susceptible to drugs as a teen, has more freedom to do so, and a better ability to hide it, because they practice independent living. So, why should students be the only ones who are required for drug testing? Lastly, there is no disadvantage to require drug testing. It is only $6.00 for one drug test, so money isn't a issue, and what could be better than knowing that your teacher doesn't do drugs? But seriously, whether or not your teacher is found clean or a user, there is no disadvantage, because if they aren't, nothing changes and if they are, then they shouldn't be teaching impressionable children. In conclusion, mandatory drug testing for teachers should be implemented. For the safety of our students, who are at the most impressionable stages in their lives. Leighann Lord once said, "Did you know America ranks the lowest in education, but the highest in drug use? It's nice to be number one, but we can fix that. All we need to do is start the war on education. If it's anywhere near as successful as our war on drugs, in no time we'll all be hooked on phonics. (The introduction is a summary of an article. I did not plagarize, and even if I did, it's a story. It will happen the same way every time.)