BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Border Wall

#1-Its a issue-Data on drug seizures at the U. S. Border indicate an alarming volume of trafficking taking place in recent years. Since 2009, Heroin seizures at the southwestern border have almost tripled, While meth seizures quintupled through 2014. Worse yet, Cocaine and marijuana remain two of the most commonly seized drugs along our southern borders, Equating to millions of pounds seized by U. S. Border Patrol. Since 2012, The number of traffickers apprehended at U. S. Borders has steadily increased from 364, 768 to nearly 500, 000 in 2014. From 2012 to 2015 the U. S. Border Patrol has seized more than: 8. 2 million lbs. Of marijuana 32, 600 lbs. Of cocaine 34, 000 ounces of heroin 17, 600 lbs. Of methamphetamine Recently, U. S border agents seized the largest supply of fetanyol over the border. The substance was enough to kill 100 MILLION people. More people die from drugs than guns. More people are going to die to drugs in the next decade than all Americans who died in Vietnam. Whats causing this crisis. Our Southern Border. In 2010, The FBI released a statement detailing the southwestern border and Mexico"s involvement in the illicit drug trade within the United States. At the time, Mexico was the No. 1 foreign supplier of marijuana. While Mexico produces no cocaine, The cartels do move Colombian cocaine through South and Central America into the U. S. Through Mexico. Mexico is also the largest supplier of methamphetamine. The country has labs established on both sides of the border that are controlled by Mexican drug cartels. Although Asia and the Middle East were the largest producers of heroin, 39% of heroin identified by DEA signature programs originated from Mexico, Making the southwest border the source for many heroin overdoses west of the Mississippi River. 90% of heroin coming from our southern border Many people has been effected by killings by illegal aliens. #2- Walls Work-If Walls don't work, Then why does it work in Israel, Vatican, Bulgaria, East Germany, Etc https://www. Amren. Com/features/2018/02/border-walls-work/ #3-Nancy Pelosi is ridiculous She says that a border wall don't work, Is immoral, And is medieval. Many things are medieval and works Donald Trump says that he dosent dislike the people on the other side. Its about protecting American citizens. The shutdown cost more than the wall. She isn't negotiating and takes eight day trips to other countries during a government shutdown. I look forward to your response.
Kalam Cosmological Argument for God's Existence

Not only am I fed up with your ignorance and persistence to support unsubstantiated claims, I am also now just angry. THERE WERE NON STRAW MAN FLAWS. When you say "Something did" or " No it doesn't", that's not it. YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN WHY, WHICH YOU FAILED TO DO. SURE I BORROWED SOMEONE ELSES ARGUMENTS, BUT AT LEAST K CITED A SOURCE, SOMETHING YOU DID NOT DO. Purushadasa Pro KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT: Anything that begins to exist has a cause The universe began to exist Therefore the universe has a cause The scriptures reveal that cause as God. HOW do the scriptures reveal this to be God? Also, you claim you never said the universe had a cause of existence, when you clearly did in round one. These are not straw man fallacies and since you failed to logically and empirically debate me, I should win. You lost the debate. Arrogant, isn't it?
Kalam Cosmological Argument for God's Existence

Someone wrote: "Besides, what is to say the universe began to exist?" According to the conclusions of modern science, the universe began to exist a limited amount of time in the past: Specifically, about 14 billion years ago. "Before the Big Bang (no mini debates please), there was no time and space so there was no need for a cause." Yes, there was need for a cause. "Equivocation Fallacy Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the Universe had a cause. To quote Rationality Rules on YouTube, during premise 2 your argument uses the scientific definition of the universe." So what? That's not equivocation. LOL SMH Scientific universe: All matter, space and time. "During premise 3, the argument uses a colloquial/ theological definition." No it doesn't. "Colloquial/ theological universe: Everything that exists, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist. The two defintions are contradictory when discussing the subtopic of how something can come from nothing." My argument doesn't use either of the definitions that you typed above -- you are arguing against your own argument, and disregarding what I actually said in my argument, which is a straw man logical fallacy on your part. "Essentially, the theological argument uses creatio ex nihilio, the concept of creation out of nothing. However, this has never been demonstrated to occur. You assert that the cause of the universe didn"t begin to exist and therefore it didn"t have a cause, without adequately justifying why this cause is an exception." Again, straw man because none of the above is included in my actual argument. Most of your comment was irrelevant to my actual argument, so I didn't include that nonsense in my response. You lost the debate.
Kalam Cosmological Argument for God's Existence

As a advance defense for the following claims, let me prove that God is material and would thus abide by the laws of nature and physics, already a contradiction.Syllogistic: According to 'scriptures', God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. If you say God is immaterial and/ or doesn't abide by natural law as a defense, allow me to disprove that: If something is immaterial, it contains no space and no time. God is immaterial, according to your scriptures. Therefore, God is not the God in your scriptures, so the God as you know it does not exist. So if God does take up space and time, why has he not revealed Himself to us? Now, let me proceed with the debunking.There is no reason to assume all things in your Bible are correct. Just because one thing in it exists/ happened, doesn't mean the rest did. By that logic, everything in Narnia is real, because it contains the UK and WWII.So, your argument doesn't support theism, as all scriptures support their own dieties to at least the extent to which yours does. Also, even if this argument was sound and proved the universe had a cause, it wouldn't say that was the first cause. Besides, what is to say the universe began to exist? Before the Big Bang (no mini debates please), there was no time and space so there was no need for a cause.Equivocation Fallacy Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the Universe had a cause. To quote Rationality Rules on YouTube, during premise 2 your argument uses the scientific definition of the universe.Scientific universe: All matter, space and time. During premise 3, the argument uses a colloquial/ theological definition.Colloquial/ theological universe: Everything that exists, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist. The two defintions are contradictory when discussing the subtopic of how something can come from nothing.Essentially, the theological argument uses creatio ex nihilio, the concept of creation out of nothing. However, this has never been demonstrated to occur. You assert that the cause of the universe didn’t begin to exist and therefore it didn’t have a cause, without adequately justifying why this cause is an exception.
Minimum wage should be a municipal issue.

You ignore your own logic. If we need to municipalize this issue because of differences in costs of living, then why shouldn't it be reduced to a neighborhood issue? Why not a single street? A single household? An individual? Everyone has a different "cost of living," if you make the argument that a provincial/state government cannot make these decisions because cost of living varies, then you should carry that through to municipalities. If I am arguing on behalf of provincial/state/federal government's right to jurisdiction over the minimum wage, then I'll concede now. I was under the impression that I was only arguing against minimum wage being a municipality issue.
Minimum wage should be a municipal issue.

First of all you can put aside whether or not you support minimum wage- this is not what this this debate is about. But rather, if you read the topic you will note that this debate is regarding the jurisdiction of where minimum wage amending/making/deleting should be under. I am arguing that it should be local county or city gov'ts and you are arguing on behalf of the jurisdiction of larger provincial or federal governments. This makes much of you long argument moot, but I will still address the relevant points you made. You however seem to think individuals should address minimum wage- but this is real just the absence of minimum wgae, a directive decided by som esort of government. Second of all, your allegation that more local powers in confusing. To a degree this is true, but it also entails more local appropriate discretion. The Provinces and Ottawa both put a sales tax on us for example, but this is because this tax issue directly affects their ability to perform the tasks the citizenry has granted them. However minimum wage is a labour issue that pertains to addressing worker exploitation but increases unemployment, it is also a very local issue because it relates to living expenses. Just because the average Vancouverite's wage is higher than the average Chilliwackian's wage doesn't mean Chillwiackians don't live more luxuriously than their urban neighbours. You wouldn't make parking fees the same in Manhattan as you would in Providence, would you?
Minimum wage should be a municipal issue.

A very interesting topic, thank you for bringing it up. First and foremost, I do not believe the minimum wage should be an issue at any level. Minimum wage laws are unemployment laws that attack the worst off in society by setting the bar for employment too high for them to reach. Wages are determined by the marginal revenue product of the worker (that is, how much he contributes) and so those with a product less than the minimum wage will not be employed. Without minimum wage laws, anyone could be employed that wanted to be, it would simply be an issue of how much they are willing to work for. Second, putting minimum wage laws in the hands of local governments would cause a great deal of confusion. Just think if sales taxes were dependent on local laws, it would be extremely hard for anyone to tell how much of their price was in taxes. Likewise, with local minimum wage laws, people would not know what to expect regarding their wages. Third, those this applies to state and federal government as well, from where does the local government have the authority to set minimum wages? What gives them the right to infringe on freedom of contract and tell me what I can and can't trade my labor for? Is the local government claiming ownership over my labor? They must be, because they are making restrictions on how it can be sold. Fourth, there is no advantage to giving this power to local governments. My opponent states that they can individualized based on local living standards. But even within municipalities differences exist. Really, if we are to use that argument, we should reduce minimum wage laws to neighborhoods. But even then, to each household. And finally down to the individuals themselves, thus destroying the minimum wage law. Every single individual has a different cost of living, dependent on their individual preferences, habits, expectations, etc. The logical conclusion of the idea that smaller authorities can better decide the correct minimum wage is that each individual decides and there is no minimum wage imposed on anyone.
Minimum wage should be a municipal issue.

Currently, in my country at least, the level of minimum wage is determined by provincial legislatures, and I belive it is similiar in the United States as well. Yet does this really make sense? Provinces, states, and nations can be very large entities, and no one can really argue that West Vancouver or Manhaatten have the the same sort of living expenses as those in the BC interior or Upstate New York? Rather it should be looked at on a more local scale, with living expense of the exact region taking precendence over a broad average. There is no need for criminality in labour oridnaces- municipal fines should be adequante in enforcing the rules set by the City or County.
I can fly in sky

"I can fly in sky with airplane and in my dream." Pro argues that he can fly by flying in an airplane. This though doesnt meet his burden of proof because it is the airplane that is doing the flying, Pro isnt doing anything. If you take away the airplane and any other flying machine, Pro will not be able to fly because he cannot by himself fly. As for the dream argument, dreams are not reality. I had a dream recently where I kicked Mitt Romney's wife in her balls, but that doesnt mean that Mitt Romney's wife has balls, and if I claimed that she does based on a dream I had, that is not sufficient evidence because it is not based on reality. Therefore if Pro's claim that he can fly in his dreams counts as a valid argument, then people would also have to accept that Mitt Romney's wife is actually a man who has balls based on a dream I had. Both are based on dreams and not reality, and also if you compare this to the airplane argument where you ask Pro to fly in real life and not in his dreams, he will be unable to because he by himself cannot fly. "Yay! Whoever forfeit first lose"Very well, if the Pro forfeits the next round then he will lose the debate because of his own rules.
should boys only fight boys or should thay fight girls

Girls should be treated just the same as guys. If girls really want to play then they should be able too. If they are willing to take the hit then whats the difference between girls and boys playing. I think that every one should be treated equally. Girls should be on same team as boys. A female can play as rough and as strong as males. Girls can play football and base ball yet the male population believe that us females are to fragile and can not do it. I have 5 brothers and each of them have played every field sport almost. I play football better than any of them and help them practice. Women fought for equality yet we are still getting lesser treatment. Girls may be built different, but we have the same muscles as the guys. I actually know 20 or more girls that are better than the boys team and the boys actually want the girls on their team. It should be allowed because everyone is supposed to be equal. Girls deserve the same equality as boys. They say that there stronger than us, but there really wrong. There really not STRONGER than us, but there just picky. Boys think that they can justify us about this topic, but there wrong. And all of you that have different opinions are BOYS. It's not that the boys can't be on girls sports teams, it's that they don't want to. Besides, I'd like to hear a different opinion.
This House believes that listed buildings should be maintained

They should be maintained because of historical values. It is part of the country's culture. (I am currently working on this topic and wanted some ideas from the public, thanks for helping) Thanks for responding, actually I am not a debater so I am not too familiar with the game. I just want to have some ideas and thought from the public about this issue. Listed buildings are building which have high historical and architectural value, such as the Palace of Westminster in London which is a famous tourist point. It also is an important building for the two houses for UK government. They should be maintained well and be protected to ensure that they can act as a symbol of English heritage.
Science cannot explain everything

I got your explanation about CAN and WILL. You said that science is capable of explaining everything. In the bible (Mat 24:6-7) states that "You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come". Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. Another prophesy from the bible that came true. Mat 24:24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. There are lot of prophesies in the bible that already happen in our times. If you believe only in science you will lost everything that you have when Christ will judge you. but you still have time to change your mind... Those prophesies science cannot explain why there are many religions today and also anti-Christ like you! Brother think it many times... My question that you must to answer base from science so that I will know. What is the reason why there are many Christian denominations in the world today compare to the 1st century until 10th century? Why there are more records of earthquakes from 19th century up to this time compare to 1st century until 10th century? Please answer me with data records if you have so that I will know.
Science cannot explain everything

First off, I would like to answer your question and say that I believe science can explain everything. However, there is a difference between can and will. For example, imagine a car driving from Point A to Point B. The car has enough gas and is in good enough condition to make the journey. This means that the car can get from Point A to Point B. However, that doesn’t mean the car will make it from Point A to Point B. Perhaps another driver hits the car, demolishing it, and prevents it from carrying on. Thus is the difference between can and will. Like the car, science is fully capable of explaining everything in principle, and is only inhibited by our lack of appropriate technology (Which is also advancing rather rapidly). The question is, will science ever explain everything? A wreck for the car could easily be something like an extinction-level event that stops science (Human science at least, there is always the potential for extra-terrestrials to continue science) from achieving its ultimate goal. So, can science explain everything? Yes. Will science explain everything? Probably not.
Science cannot explain everything

I'll accept this challenge. I would like to make a few things clear:1. While yes, I am an athiest, I have no issues with thiests or religion.2. In regards to the Bible, I acknowledge its importance, but look at it in more allegorical terms where the depictions within are fictional accounts meant to represent varying moral guidelines (Many of which I actually agree with, some of which I do not).I'm also a little unsure on what exactly you want for debate guidlines and format, so I'll wait before posting an arguement (Plus, having the first and last arguement posted isn't exactly fair to you)
Science cannot explain everything

“In the book of revelation state that Christ would be the King for thousand years. That is why there are no other religions so that the people will distinguish the first religion establish by Christ.” == No other religions in the first ten centuries, eh? http://en.wikipedia.org...... would like to disagree. Turns out, it was neither the first nor the only religion of the time period, far from it actually. """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" I mention above that there are no there religions. I know you don't get what I mean. I really mean that in the 1st century until 1400 A.D. there is no Christian religion except the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church which came from Catholic Church. Most of the Christian religions today are using the bible. Not just like the Islam, Buddhist, Judaism and others which their origin did not split to many denominations. http://en.wikipedia.org.... Only Christian religion is the source of good morality and true Love to others. And this Christian religion is no other than the Catholic Church. Catholic churh teaches not to speak blasphemy or bad words because it's a sin. The RCC teaches to Love even to the enemy. Science did not teach those good moral especially to Love the enemy. Only in the Roman Catholic Church that even rich people rejected being rich but live as a poor to follow Jesus Christ. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... And there are many rich people who give up all their weath and live as a poor to follow Jesus. Science did not teach to live as a simple human but to a luxurious living.
Science cannot explain everything

“The link that you have given me doesn't show the prediction of science about the prophesy that I have given to you from the bible. The data in the links are all that already happen not a prediction of science.” == The links show how science can predict the things listed in the prophecies. It demonstrates how science can explain the predictions given. Not that it really matters, because any Joe Schmoe can make an educated guess that, within the next couple of centuries, earthquakes will occur and people will experience wars and famine. It would be far more outstanding and unexplainable if he had predicted exact dates or locations for said wars, famines, and earthquakes. But he didn’t. == “What is the relationship of their stories to religion? of course nothing! Don't say that science is explaining the religion.” == The relationship of the stories to religion? For the most part, the stories are a major component of religion. Explanations for things the people of the era could not fully understand. Stories from a book that demonstrate moral guidelines. And why can’t science explain religion, whether you are religious or not? == “In the book of revelation state that Christ would be the King for thousand years. That is why there are no other religions so that the people will distinguish the first religion establish by Christ.” == No other religions in the first ten centuries, eh? http://en.wikipedia.org... would like to disagree. Turns out, it was neither the first nor the only religion of the time period, far from it actually. == “I know that science can detect something before our time. You cannot say that science cannot noticed earthquakes.” == I’m not saying that it can’t, it is just that earthquakes that happened since we have attained the technology to properly record them were significantly easier to detect/keep track of. Ones that happened hundreds of years ago are not just as easily discovered, which is why we have fewer records of them. == Again, I hope the questions have been sufficiently answered.
Doge is not kill

Disregarding the forfeit, here's what my opponent did wrong:Firstly, she attempted to refute the solid evidence of Doge's thriving existence by saying that his period of time is slowly going away. Even if this were true, Doge would still be alive and not "kill," so by doing this she only contradicted her own stance and instead supported my case. Secondly, her middle contention was weak. The contention consisted of a single sentence that only stated to rethink one's stance about her first contention. This was a waste of time and in no way weakened the Pro case. Finally, her case had no evidence. As I presented evidence that evidence is better than analytics, this automatically puts every single one of my arguments to a higher value than hers, and consequently makes me win this debate.