BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Illegal Immigration: Should we deport all illegal immigrants we find in the U.S.

Hello Harlan, you continue to say that immigrants are a important part of our society but I keep showing you its not true. I'll go back to what I said in our last debate "13% of our citizens are impoverished" If we can successfully deport all immigrants and establish the impoverished into the jobs the illegals took successfully we could cut our poverty rate in half. You say that when ever someone gets a job they destroy the oppurtunity for someone else to get a job. This is true, but these illegal immigrants take jobs from legal citizens who are at position in life that the mexicans were before they came here. Which isn't fair. I know nothing in life is fair because in everything someone gets screwed but this really isn't fair. The illegals trying to escape there povery but in doing so they put another person in it. that person is a legal citizen who was born here or went through the "tough" legalization progress to get here. That really isn't fair. We would still be getting our goods and our poverty rate would go down. Now you say that the specifics of your perposal to make legaliuzation easier are important. For each thing that changes, there will be a effect on specific society. but you did give me one specific. Reducing prolonged periods of pending. Well, why not just reduce the amount of time we take for making someone a citizen. Well, what could possibly go wrong. Well, im sorrry to say many things. There are specific reasons for the prolong pendng. One I'm aware of is to regulate the amount of immigrants coming in the country at a time. if we make it a specific time for a person to get memberships we would have massive amounts of immigrants coming into country throughout the year. This would be bad. There would be even more poverty and eventually there would be population problems in our big cities. Also, if we reduced the prolonged pending the our workers would be overworked trying to make theses people citizens in the specifiated time. the workers who already work so hard to make sure that these people aren't terrorists or bad people entering our country. They have to run backround checks, give them tests to see if there eligable and grade those tests. In 2005 14.9 million people were naturalized, thats 41, 096 people entering our country a day. Giving the people who do this a deadline will only tire them out, and make them overrun potentually dangerous things. Im sorry Harlan Ive seen to run outof space rest will be in next res.
Illegal Immigration: Should we deport all illegal immigrants we find in the U.S.

Hello, I am sorry that I was too busy to reply previously. Please allow this debate to continue, by accepting my challenge to start it again from where we left off. To the spectators, this is the continuation of a debate that was forfeited due to lack of time. Please vote based on that debate also. For reference it is here: http://www.debate.org... When I said that they "benefit society more than they damage it" I was referring to what would happen if they were not here. Your account of 16 billion a year was ignoring the jobs and services they fill all across this nation. Financially, they probably do more damage, but when discussing "society" it is referring to a lot of things. If all of the illegal immigrants that make up 5% of the American population were gone tomorrow, accordingly about 5% of jobs would be left empty tomorrow. All of these niches would be UNFULFILLED. It is important that we not just send them all away. In fact, you admit this yourself by claiming that there is a problem because they take a lot of jobs from Americans. On the subject: You back up your argument by saying "the illegal immigrants our taking jobs from our impoverished that would love the job". Anytime that anyone EVER takes a job, they are destroying the hypothetical opportunity for another to have that job. These immigrants came here for a reason. They came here to make money because where they came from they were surrounded by poverty. They deserve those jobs, just as much as the next "impoverished" guy. Most illegal immigrants are certainly in poverty. A problem with your solution that I would like to throw out now, is this: A large amount of illegal immigrants come here and then have children. These children are natural citizens. Tell me: Would you only deport the parents, leaving the children to be orphans, or would you deport the children too, who never broke any laws, are natural citizens, and who you would be putting them in a state of poverty? This is only one of many examples of the various complexities of a project of this magnitude and impact. Please see comments forum to read the rest of this argument. I may not post the rest of it until republicanview accepts the challenge, allowing comments to be posted. I will post rest of this argument which has become to large for limit of length in the comments forum chronological order.
The user s0m31john is a pedophile

"There is no 'age of pedophilia', rather, pedophilia is the queer attraction of underage, or to be more precise, prepubescent children." I provided the definition or pedophilia as "The act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children." The problem arises with the controversy of whether or not loli is an equivalent to child pornography. I would argue that it is not, and in fact is it's own fetish is itself. Typical loli is drawn in a "kawaii" style, which in Western terms could roughly be translated as "tiny is cute". (http://en.wikipedia.org...) The drawings are wildly different from real life child pornography. They are typically 2D, impossible for CP. They are usually drawn with bright colors, while real life CP is typically thought to be in the "dark underground" and is surrounded by a bad atmosphere. The characters depicted in loli are usually happy and willing to be depicted in the manner they are, this is not common in real life CP. These things put lolicon in it's own category and should not be defined as CP, but rather a fetish in it's own. The viewers of it should not be called pedophiles, as it's not real, but rather lolicons. This is why lolicon: You state that lolicon is a style of anime, but it can also be used to describe a person who is into the lolicon style of anime you describe. ex. "Look at those images on his computer, he must be a lolicon." It is commonly used that way on message and image boards where the material is prevalent. "In fact, there is already serious question as to whether or not he hides real child pornography on his computer, as he uses a program called "truecrypt" to hide his pornography-- this would not be unusual if he did not say the primary reason for this use of truecrypt was to hide said pornography from "the feds". I used truecrypt not because I have something to hide which is illegal, but because my computer may be used by other people at certain times. In my experience truecrypt is the safest way to know almost certainly no one will find your "stash." It's comparable to what some people do with their pornography folders when they have to share a family computer, when they create a maze of folders in system files to discourage unwanted people from finding their images. My way is just more certain and efficient. I do not know why my opponent takes me seriously when I say I'm hiding something from the feds, perhaps he thinks the internet is serious business. I close with my previous point. People who enjoy loli should not be considered pedophiles, leave that for people who ejoy real child pornography, but rather be in their own category of Lolicons.
The user s0m31john is a pedophile

Lolicon is a style of anime in which child or childlike figures are drawn in a suggestive or sexual manner. Essentially, it's a drawn version of child pornography, with absolutely no victims. You tried to counter my argument with the fact that lolicon characters are in fact ageless, while this might be true in part, pedophilia is also ageless. There is no 'age of pedophilia', rather, pedophilia is the queer attraction of underage, or to be more precise, prepubescent children. While you claim that you are not attracted to actual prepubescent children, you do seem to have a primary sexual attraction to the manifestation of actual children, and I ague that since my opponent has already conceded that he as a sexual attraction to animated child pornography, if he is not already interested in child pornography it is simply because he has not yet discovered actual child pornography yet, or because he is afraid of getting caught. In fact, there is already serious question as to whether or not he hides real child pornography on his computer, as he uses a program called "truecrypt" to hide his pornography-- this would not be unusual if he did not say the primary reason for this use of truecrypt was to hide said pornography from "the feds". The user s0m31john has conceded that he does in fact enjoy lolicon pornography, given that lolicon pornography is simply a legal manifestation of child pornography, and that both involve a strong attraction to prepubescent girls, he is a pedophile.
The user s0m31john is a pedophile

The American Heritage Dictionary defines pedophilia as the following: "The act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children." (http://dictionary.reference.com...) I am in no way attracted to real prepubescent females and would argue that animated/drawn lolicon is much different than child pornography. Many people are aroused by lolicon, but not by actual child porn. It is also impossible to determine the age of a character in lolicon porn because they have no real age, as they are characters. Unless Duconihilum can prove that the creators of the lolicon I view labeled the them as underage, I don't see how he can assume they are.
The user s0m31john is a pedophile

While pedobear is indeed a widely known meme, especially on e/b/aums world and other sites with deep roots in 'internet culture', simply being known does not mean that any regular person (non pedophile) would use pedobear as a form of identity. Users of sites like e/b/aums world tend to relate themselves with a black man with an afro (Habbo hotel raids), or a cutout figure (Scientology raids)- or something of the sort. Only the pedophiles of those websites would identify themselves with a pedophile bear. Pedobear is not the only thing that makes my opponent a pedophile- the most important thing that makes him a pedophile, by his own admission, is his frequent enjoyment of and arousal to lolicon pornography. In private chats he will often send us links to said pornography, and clearly state that he rather enjoys such. Lolicon pornography is drawn pornography of children, essentially a legal manifestation of child pornography- something only a pedophile would have any sexual arousal to. If my opponent admits that he does in fact enjoy lolicon pornography, he admits that he is in fact a pedophile- as pedophilia is an attraction to prepubescent girls, whereas lolicon is drawn manifestations of prepubescent girls.
The user s0m31john is a pedophile

We meet again DucoNihilum, this time outside of Skype. First some background info on Pedobear, for those of you that may not be up to date with all the *chan memes. I will be using Wikichan as my resource, as it pertains best to the topics at hand. "A meme is a thought, idea, or memory that's passed around like mental AIDS, usually based around some sort of joke, comment, or line." (http://wikichan.org...) "Pedobear is the 4chan re-make of the 2chan character known as Kuma-san (Mr. Bear). The "Americanization" of Kuma-san turned him into the sinister Pedobear, known for molesting female children and giving awards for those who do it like he would." (http://wikichan.org...) ------------ Pro assumes I use Pedobear to proclaim my sexual preference. Pedobear is one of the most widely known memes from 4chan, and by using it as an avatar it proclaims I am a member of the community 4chan, also called anonymous. The avatar does not define my sexual preference, but was rather picked because it is a widely known and accepted image that would tie me *chan.
The user s0m31john is a pedophile

My opponent shows clear signs of being a pedophile which I will outline in my further arguments. My first, rather short, line of evidence will be his avatar (At the time of the creation of this opening argument) , a character known a pedo bear on the chans. It is a clear sign of pedophilia, as pedo bear is an example of an active pedophile bear, which regularly rapes 'lolis'.
Animals are worth more

Well, you have to be clear on what you were talking about when you were saying "World Animal Protection". Either way, they seem to just want to put regulations on people that are not doing any harm whatsoever to other people. This effort is futile. because putting laws into place protecting Animals just makes life harder. It is a waste of time for tax money to go into defending animals that have no conscience of what morality is. Morality Defense: Pro claims that animals actually do have morality, and they are sympathetic to there "friends". Too bad. monkeys do not represent every animal species there is. This a huge claim to make. Just because monkeys have an idea of morality, does not mean wolves, lions, snakes, and lizards have that idea. Monkeys and Apes are also the most intelligent of them all. We evolved from them. Pro has not shown clear reasoning why Apes should represent the whole animal kingdom, and should not have waited till round three to introduce new evidence. "We should let them have a normal life in the nature." We do not let them live a normal life, because all the food we eat comes from animals. Chickens, Pigs, Fish, and Cow all are animals that are not left alone. Humans use them to there advantage, because we are the dominant ones. Pro already admits that animals kill humans, because of fear. Humans also kill animals, because of fear. The main significant point is that this is a wasted effort. There is no real way to track down people that torture animals for fun. There is no real way to actually put laws that the government will actually take seriously. We all know the general reality that animal sympathizers do not care about. There is a difference between us and them. We are more intelligent than animals. Animals are manipulated and cared by humans. If there was a single equivalence to humans and animals, than why does Pro keep acting like there special needs children that need to be protected. Animals are not children. They are predators. I have proven that the great majority of animals do not know about the idea of morality. Animals in the end are not worth more. Humans can treat them anyway they want as long as it does not harm the human race.
Animals are worth more

When i mentioned the organization "World Animal Protection" i didn't refer to a zoo. This organization is trying to stop animal cruelty and they made a big difference by saving billions of animals. This can not be compared to a zoo, i do not believe in zoos. The purpose of a zoo is not to save animals, this organization saves animals and if it is not possible to release them in to nature, they release them in a big reservation where they can have a normal life. As defense to your argument that animals do not have a clue about what morality is, I made some research and found that there has been made scientific research showing that they do have moral. Quote form the page "And there are many examples of animals demonstrating ostensibly compassionate or empathetic behaviors toward other animals, including humans. In one experiment, hungry rhesus monkeys refused to electrically shock their fellow monkeys, even when it meant getting food for themselves." http://www.livescience.com... There has been a lot of these situations where animals showed ability of morally behavior. This proves that animals do have the ability to act upon their feelings and not only acting from instinct of survival. Animals kill other animals and sometimes humans as an act of survival. Predators live from killing other animals, that is the way of nature. When they kill a human it is because they feel threatened by the human or sees it as a prey. This is why we should not interfere with animals capable of killing us. We should let them have a normal life in the nature. The animals that we do live together with like pets and farming animals, should be treated the best way possible. I belive that is by giving them a life where they do not suffer, they are treated with respect and they get as many as their natural needs fulfilled.
Animals are worth more

The arguments that Pro has made has done nothing to defend the assertion that Animals are worth more. My opponent already states that dangerous animals should not be kept in the apartment. But, the resolution clearly states that one must include all animals when arguing. Snakes, Lions, Mice, and Lizards all qualify as animals that under Pro's world should be "worth more". Dropped Arguments: Wasted Effort: Pro has not provided any arguments that counter the Wasted effort argument. Pro has not answered what one has to gain for taking an extra step into caring for an animal. Pro has not countered any Darwinian law arguments which means he either concedes with this argument, or was just too pathetic to even answer it. He also did not counter how when people start organizations, they actually end up doing more harm than good. http://lcanimal.org... This is a link obviously written by someone who loves animals. Research "There are simply very few zoos that practice relevant and reliable research. Those that do mainly examine the physiological structure of a captive animal, as well as the illnesses he or she has acquired. These results however, are obviously skewed towards animals living in captivity. They therefore generate little information about how to best conserve species in the wild. In their natural habitat, species develop immunities to naturally occurring illnesses. Zoo animals usually do not form resistance to the most ordinary of ailments and are more prone to catching viruses that they would never encounter in the wild. Moreover, living in captivity causes animals to lose their natural disposition to the extent that they become unrepresentative of their species. Therefore, studies of captive animals are of limited benefit to animals in the wild." This is research of how much of a negative impact organizations that are intended to help animals have. Animal Moral-Pro also did not answer this argument which means he either concedes with this argument, or was just to pathetic not to answer it. In this argument I state: A. Animals have no clue what morality is. B. Statistics on animals killing for their instinct for survival You have not countered the idea that animals have no clue what morality is therefore making it more difficult to prove that animals are worth more. Defense: Pro assumes that I believe that wolves go into cities to kill people for fun. Well, there is a problem with how you comprehend things, because the point I was making was Animals have no clue what morality is, and they have no clue what compassion is. Animals like wolves, snakes, lions, lizards, insects, and others all want to survive. You have done nothing to counter this.
Animals are worth more

As my opponent points out that animals follow their instinct of survival and doesn't care about anything else. He also says that wolf attacks occurred a lot in some countries but that it has decreased. He mentions that they have developed the tendency to stay away from people, this means that they want nothing to do with humans. When the attacks occurs it's in the habitat of the wolf. A wolf doesn't go in to a city and attacks someone for fun. They attack or defend themselves if they feel threatened like every other animal and humans. Obviously they attack when we enter their territory and their home, so would we if someone entered our home and we felt threatened by them. Wolfs are pack animals, meaning that they live in groups of 5 - 11 wolfs. They are social animals, they live with their family and their mate and they hunt together as a group. My opponent mentions that 7,600 fatal attacks happened over a period of 520 years, in the year of 1883 about 1,386 wolfs were killed from hunting or poison in Central Europe. https://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent asks me why would a snake kill his owner? A phyton can grow up to almost seven metres long. Keeping it in a small terrarium is not fair and it doesn't fulfill its natural needs, if it is a long phyton it cant even move properly. Therefore it might attack its owner it it feels trapped. Not all animals are fit to be pets, if you keep a dangerous animal as pet you cant expect that it wont feel threatened.
Animals are worth more

Animals are being mistreated all over the USA and even though the focus on animal rights has increased, I believe there are still some big issues concerning animal rights. The human race might have been created superior to animals. That does not give us the right to treat them like they are worth nothing. Animals do have moral, if there is a lack of moral it lies with the people who are being cruel to animals. Animals are not cruel to other animals the same way we are. Predators obviously live from killing and feeding on other animals because that is how they survive. Humans also to some extent live from meat but the difference is that we breed the animals for food and the animal does not live a normal life when they are bred. We keep them in an environment that is not natural for them. We keep them in overcrowded places where they are hurt because their needs are not fulfilled. Some say that humans are more important than animals. I believe that animals are here for a reason the same way humans are, therefore they are equally worth. Obviously animals cannot have the same rights as humans because they are not as "intelligent" as us. Although they might be less intelligent they should still have the right to be treated fairly and have the right to live a nearly natural life. The organization "World Animal Protection" found that there are benefits from animal rights concerning humans and the environment. -Raising animals humanely can use less feed, fuel and water than intensive farming, reducing costs and pollution -Humane farms can create jobs, boost profits and keep local food supplies healthy -By farming crops and livestock, humane farms can reduce environmental damage recycling nutrients and improving the soil -Greenhouse gas emissions are often reduced when animals are healthy and have good welfare.