BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The solution to illegal immigration requires enforcement of our current laws

You are never going fix the problem of immigration with a fence, simply because the "problem" is that we have willing sellers and willing buyers of certain jobs. Here are some problems with your ideas. 1. Finish the fence across the whole border First, this would be a colossal waste of money. We already have 700 miles worth of fence up in key locations, but the immigrants just knock it down. We could put the great wall of China on our boarder and it still would do nothing. And most immigrants don't cross the boarder through the dessert. They get in with a visa and then don't leave when they are supposed to. 2. Beef up manpower security at the border Same problem with the fence, most get in with a visa and then overstay their welcome. Also the boarder is huge, so patrolling all of that area would take a lot of man power and the cost of such a program wouldn't justify the use of it. 3. Deport those we happen upon through law enforcement and social services To the extent that this doesn't happen now is similar to number 2. Money. And immigration isn't a problem that justifies a huge expansion of government to solve. 4. Enforce sanctions against employers who hire illegal immigrants as vigorously as we enforce all our other labor laws Why should it be the prerogative of the business to peak around into the lives of their employees? Don't they get taxed so that the government keeps illegal immigrants out? But now they have to turn around and act as the police themselves? Why then, shouldn't businesses also be forced to use drug screening to find people using drugs? It is also a cost on employers which is bad for the economy. The reason why "just enforce the laws we have now" won't solve anything is because it is the government. Suppose we did build a high-tech fence. In five years it would be dilapidated and ineffective. Because that is the nature of government. It is as predictable as the laws of physics. The government can't just wave its wand and fix things, because that isn't how reality works. Furthermore, the assumption of your argument is that immigration is a problem, which it is not. Immigration is good for America. My idea would be to let anyone with a NAFTA passport free access into the country. Most illegals just want to do seasonal work. But since they are illegal, they are forced to stay in America and go underground. By letting them come and go, they would work and then go back to their families--at least then they wouldn't be using our social services and infrastructure as much. Either that or some sort of coordination program would have to be implemented to where employers could bring immigrants here for seasonal work and make sure there was some sort of minimal healthcare coverage for them while they were here.
The solution to illegal immigration requires enforcement of our current laws

Some argue that the status quo is de facto amnesty because it is extremely impractical to round up at least 12 million illegal immigrants and deport them. Those who say that are right as far as their reason, but off in saying that the status quo is de facto amnesty. Here's what we could do to solve the problem, and it would require nothing more than modest enforcement of our current laws: 1. Finish the fence across the whole border 2. Beef up manpower security at the border 3. Deport those we happen upon through law enforcement and social services 4. Enforce sanctions against employers who hire illegal immigrants as vigorously as we enforce all our other labor laws
Batman's Moral Code makes him just as harmful as the villains he pursues.

My opponent has failed to adress how life in Gotham is better with Batman around versus his non presence. I pointed out the fact,that the writers, and citizens of Gotham, all agree : Life in Gotham is "better" with Batman around. They are obviously comparing this to, a life in Gotham without Batman around. That alone shows how Batmans moral code can't be harming Gotham City, in the way which my opponent suggest. I won't even burden my opponent with providing evidence of a better life without Batman around, because clearly they cannot. If a city is in need of "help", no matter which form that help arrives as, it is still "help". Little or big the fact remains that it is help. On the lowest level of logic, heroes are here to help. Batman has not failed in doing so. Maybe not to the standards of my opponent, but to the inhabitants of Gotham City, Batman is all the help they need.
Batman's Moral Code makes him just as harmful as the villains he pursues.

It seems my opponent wants to hold Batman responsible for other people's actions. As if Batmans presence is no presence at all. That Batman's moral code has a negative affect on Gotham City. That Batman is responsible because he "knows" the evil he won't destroy. The one factor my opponent MUST have overlooked is, how is life in Gotham City without Batman? Aahh the magic queation. Let's now take Batman out of the picture. Does crime rise? Do even more villians run rampant? Do the super villians even fear, knowing there's no one to stop them? Surely the, harmful moral code, that batman adheres to won't make it any better right? Or would it? Well according to the writer Fabian Nicieza, of the "Batman: Dead?" Comics life in Gotham without the bat is most definately different. While I could go into detail, I'll let you read over the interview yourself. http://www.newsarama.com... After reading the entire interview, I would find it hard for my opponent to argue that Batmans moral code is actually harmful to Gotham City, being that life is better with Batman around.
Batman's Moral Code makes him just as harmful as the villains he pursues.

Now, my arguement. The point most people must remember about Batman is, although a hero, he regards himself as a "crime fighter" first. Hence the reason for not wanting to kill. Batman will not kill, nor allow will he allow anyone to kill in his presence. My opponent questions this moral code and others not mentioned. He even goes further to say this moral code is actually "just as" harmful as the criminals he pursues. I would have to assume he means equally harmful. Well, I beg to differ. First, the fact alone, that he let's his enemies live, shows he is not equally harmful as they are. Using the most simple logic, for every person a villian kills, Batman hasn't. Villians = 1oo+ kills Batman = o kills(its possible that my opponent is aware of the 2 kills Batman has under his belt) So far, according to kill statistics alone, Batman is far less harmful then the villians won't kill. Let's assume the villian Batman doesn't kill, goes on to kill 50 people, wouldn't that make Batman just as harmful? Stated as above, Id be tempted to agree with you, but, your statement was "by disallowing himself to kill, Batman is actually harming Gotham city by allowing Villians to live\escape". The problem with your statement is twofolds. 1. Its more than eveident that those Villians, which Batman do let live are, either detained until the police arrive(taking them off the streets away from public) or they fall victoms to their own devices which they intended to use on Batman or the public. 2. It is also known that if Batman let's a villian escape, its with good reason. Usually he faced with capturing the villian or letting an innocent person die. The point is its always for the "greater good" when this occurs. Again in both those scenarios, Batman is less harmful than the Villians he pursues. "To do nothing against it, is just as harmful as doing it, when one witnesses any wrong doing. " But this is not a characteristic of Batman. He fights. He subdues. Heck he even scares Villians straight! . Not to mention saves lives. But most of all Batman is a morally good, crime fighting vigilante(I know, an oxymoron). "Without the likes of which, Gotham City would most certainly perish" Commisioner Gordon and every Batman Villian agrees to that!
Batman's Moral Code makes him just as harmful as the villains he pursues.

By disallowing himself to kill, Batman is actually harming Gotham city by allowing Villains to live and/or escape. I will be taking the Pro side. Use movies, comics, and television shows as your guidelines. Round 1: Opening Argument Round 2: Rebuttals Round 3: Rebuttals/conclusion Please feel free to compare and contrast to other Heroes in any Universe. Here is my source for this "rule": --He refrains from killing, as he feels this would not make him any better than the criminals he fights-- http://dc.wikia.com...(Bruce_Wayne)#PersonalityEdit Please bear with me, as this is my first actual debate and I am still learning. Thank you to whoever accepts my challenge.
Religion vs Atheism and their moral superiority

Yes but if christians do it for other people and they don't get from God or the Bible then it is the same as atheist morality in that since mind you. But the reality is most of the time christians help they go on mission trips which is a bit off topic I know. But they don't really help I mean occasionally they bring food and water maybe even a well but it will not help in the long run. So I have no idea where christians get their morality if they can't take the bible seriously and don't do it to get brownie points from God then why do they care. If doing the right thing is to spread your word then it basically means you only care about conversion. However I will move on. Lets have a versus Christian - Derives morals from a 2000 year old book that is highly contradictable and cannot be differed from truth or metaphor - Believes that he or she has eternal life after they die eluding the fear of death - God has a plan so if I do anything immoral, thats ok God planned it! Atheist - Derives morals from empathy - Believes they and everyone else have one life and would highly regret anything they did to that person in that life time - Well just admit this one, we have a reason to appreciate life of us and others more. Now I can't really tap anything else on the topic who has "better morals" but listen if you had one life instead of an eternity after. Why would you want to do anything wrong to a person or animal (emphasize animal)? Because we don't have anyone to forgive what we have done and shake it off. We deal with these things and learn from them to better our current state and our future.
Religion vs Atheism and their moral superiority

I agree with you on the idea that perhaps doing good and caring for other people may have certain advantages over doing it strictly for God, but keep in mind that those who are truly good Christians do good things because they feel it is right, not just for God. Those who try to be morally good but think only of their future with God, or even just think of "impressing" God are not the truest form of Christian individuals. Only those who do good for the sake of other people, while still keeping Gods own presence in mind are the truest Christians. Just as I believe the purest form of atheism is those who do good things purely out of compassion and a willingness to help others. But there are many atheists who do good with only the intent of improving their image, or even merely to try and prove atheism better than religion. There are negatives to both sides, but I think when broken down into their truest forms they are one equal grounds. There are just as many atheists ready to condemn those who have a faith as there are religious individuals ready to condemn those who don't follow their beliefs. In my eyes the truest forms of each are on equal ground, but this is about seeing the result of a debate between the two and seeing who is believed to be the more morally superior. I argue for the religious side due to a religious background, but believe both sides are morally equally. I now simply wish to see which side is considered more superior by the majority
Religion vs Atheism and their moral superiority

I do agree that the bible is flawed because of this. There is no distinction between metaphorical and actual morality. There for you cannot make guesses on something if you are uncertain about it. This is just guessing what is real morality and what is just metaphorical. The Bible is claimed to be true so in that since everything about morality should be followed. We don't even need to be doing something nice for a greater purpose we do it so we can help people and future generations. Now I know you were saying forget the bible we do it for God (correct me if i'm wrong) but we can't use that for any base for morality. If you do it for God we don't mind we just hate when you waste your time and resources on him when you could be generous to something or someone else.
Religion vs Atheism and their moral superiority

You do make some very valid points. However I do believe that while many of the Christian morals do stem from the Bible, I think that a majority of the Christian community do not accept the Bible to be absolute truth. I do recognize that there are many who take the Bible as pure fact, but many have translated the Bible in a more symbolic sense. This being said, I think many ideas from the bible have been eliminated from a Christian view of morals. The idea of one being put to death for work on the Sabbath is clearly not accepted as a true Christian belief in this day and age, or else there would be many people (Christians included) whom the Church would have condemned. I do however believe that because of this lack of clear understanding in the Bible's truths the Bible is somewhat flawed, but being Christian is far more than following what the Bible says. It's about having a relationship with God, working hard to be a good person, and being accepting and forgiving of others. A true christian individual is one who has a strong faith in God, obeys the commandments as best they can while also obeying general rules of morality (Your example of slavery and rape), and is also accepting of people of other beliefs even if those beliefs oppose their own. This is what a true christian individual represents, however many people who claim to be Christians fail at this yes, but I believe there are many Atheists who fail to be as morally adequate as they claim they beliefs make them. There are many with atheistic beliefs who condemn all religion and people of religious background, simply because their belief has scientific proof. They use this as an excuse to claim to be superior. While I agree the idea of atheism is more factual and certainly is more likely than the idea of religion, this doesn't give them any form of superiority over religious individuals (at least not the aforementioned "true" individuals). If someone chooses to believe in a greater force watching out for them as a loving creator, they should be allowed to have this belief without being ridiculed. Many Religious people have their faith as a form of hope for themselves. Their religion may act as a reminder of something greater than any hardships they are currently facing, and regardless of whether they're belief is factually correct, I would consider it morally wrong to try and strip them of this hope simply because one feels they are superior due to their belief having more scientific accuracy. And we are also forgetting religion outside of Christianity. Buddhism, Islam, Judaism. All Religions have negative aspects, and radical practitioners who make a bad name for their denomination, but so does atheism. But when broken down into their truest nature (ex the "true" christian) they have a truly morally correct system of beliefs.
Religion vs Atheism and their moral superiority

I am an atheist who thinks we do indeed have superior morals. So lets get started on the first thing I want to go over. Atheists Value of life: As atheists we try to make life the best we can and we believe that once we die it's all over. We could not escape the guilt that would come to doing anything wrong to a person since you could either made their lives miserable or end it all together. To sum it up we basically don't want people to have their one life to be miserable or short as we have empathy. Christians Value of life: However when you are a Christian the only thing you derive your morals from is the bible. Which is one of the worst examples of morals ever displayed. For example the ten commandments leaves out slavery and rape completely with the first half being how to and how to not worship God. Also this Exodus 35:2 "On six days work may be done, but the seventh day shall be sacred to you as the sabbath of complete rest to the LORD. Anyone who does work on that day shall be put to death. " Which is an exact excerpt from the bible and is a poor way to treat people who work to keep our civilization running. Do you really think you should get morals from the bible? After all there are many more immoral things in the bible especially when God does it. This is a big problem I have here next. This would make murder right in the christian since. You see your God said that he had a plan that is his design and ultimately good. So if you murdered a family it would be in gods plan and his plan is ultimately good. Another point is when christians say to be Godly. Well God has murdered a lot of people by either, drowning the whole Earth, turning a woman into a pillar of salt because she liked fireworks, and sodom and Gomorrah.
handball can be played anywhere with lines

Anyways let us get to the argument. In the first round I provided two definitions, for lines and for handball. My opponents premise is that handball can be played anywhere with lines. I will show that this is both illogical and improbable with multiple examples. Example 1As a line is, geometrically, an infinite extension with no thickness it would be improbable to say that one could play handball on one of these devilish creations. Here is a picture of said lines. Now one problem with playing handball on these things is that they are infinite. Therefore the players would never be able to score a goal as they would simply be searching throughout infinity to simply find the net. The other problem is that the lines are two dimensional (2D) and have no thickness. Therefore it would be awfully hard for the players to balance on the surface. Example 2Another definition for lines would be the lines that a particular person must say in a play or movie. Also, lines can be instructions for a musician when playing music. While not always the case, these types of lines are generally found on sheets of paper. While paper is a somewhat solid substance, moreso than geometric lines that is, it would still be hard to play a game of handball on them. Here is an example of play lines. It would be awfully difficult to play handball on this as well. .. Example 3Line is also a surprisingly common first name. In the USA alone about 1,105 people go by the name Line. In fact, Maine has the most number of people named Line in the Union [1]. While handball may be an exilerating sport, I'm not sure these people would appreciate massive handballers like this one playing on them. Back over to you Pro! Sources [1] . http://names.whitepages.com...
Vampires are way more powerful than Werewolf's

But as a vampire who needs blood to live, this would weaken them, like a hungry lion. More desperate, thus more aggressive, yet weaker than they would be if they were fully fed. You know what I mean? Werewolves do have a full moon, but that is mandatory that they shift and have no self control - as we humans would deem self control. As a wolf, they might have great self control. They would prowl the woods just being a wolf until their next shift. And as supernatural creatures, they might also be able to sense supernatural enemies such as the vampire and be able to dispatch of them easily. But if you go by some lore, they can also change at will, and have the same thinking abilities as they would human. So a wolf with a human mind? That would be almost unstoppable. Give a wolf the human technology and intelligence and keep the wolf's natural instincts and fight, and keep both strength of the human and the wolf, you have something crazy strong on your hands.
Vampires are way more powerful than Werewolf's

No, blood lust would make a vampire crave blood more, and ultimately make them have a higher urge to kill. Also, Vampires already can fight "like crazy" out in the wilderness. They have extreme speed, and are very agile. The only difference, is that they do not need to shift again to blend in with humans. They already look like humans! And as far as werewolf go, what about a full moon? Wouldn't that cause a werewolf to change against their will, causing them to have no self control or conscience? Ultimately making the vulnerable?
Vampires are way more powerful than Werewolf's

Rules: -round 1: state position -round 2: strengths of your vampire/werewolf -round 3: weakness of opponents vampire/werewolf No vulgarity. This is a fun debate, but still take it seriously please. I believe that vampires are way more powerful than werewolf's for many reasons. They can run at blinding speeds, they have sharp fangs, and they have an unsustainable craving for blood which makes them even more vicious.
God most likely exists.

I will be arguing that God most likely exists, Using the following definitions: God: The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. Existence: Reality of an entity. Reality: The state of things as they are. Entity: A thing with distinct and independent existence. State: A condition or way of being that exists at a particular time. Thing: An object or entity not precisely designated or capable of being designated. Time: The indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, Present, And future regarded as a whole. If a definition or more are missing, Con can state those and in case of disagreement we can quickly debate them. (maybe in another debate? ) Con can choose to have the floor first or not. Hope this will be productive. (if there are any mistakes in my writing such as grammar or spelling, I apologize beforehand)