BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Sanctuary City

What comes to mind when one hears the term sanctuary city? Is it a sanctuary for refugees and criminals? Perhaps a place where illegal emigrants don't have to face consequences? Enough misconceptions, a "sanctuary city" is nothing more than a county that chooses not to get involved in doing the jobs of federal agents and instead focuses on the safety of all citizens. "In 1979, the Los Angeles Police Department issued Special Order 40, which prohibits police officers from inquiring about the immigration status of people not suspected of crimes." (Tramonte, Lynn) Many more counties across America have adopted similar policies that benefit them from lower crime rates and a stronger economy. For instance, counties that have similar policies to LA are safer and have a lower crime rate than counties that choose to enforce federal immigration law. Illegal immigrants are part of most communities in the U.S. and it"s beneficial for the police to cooperate with immigrants to make their city sanctuary and safe. Los Angeles Police Department's work hard to gain the trust and participation of all citizens. In return they have been able to keep crime rates low at an average of 35.5 fewer crimes committed per 10,000 people. The crime rate drops when larger central metro counties are compared, 65.4 fewer crimes per 10,000 people. The approach and focus of the people from these counties have created an environment where illegal immigrants feel safe to assist the police in protecting the whole community. In addition, citizens from sanctuary cities are better off economically and have lower unemployment. A middles class citizen from a sanctuary city makes on average, $4,352.70 more than a non-sanctuary middle class citizen. Considering the whole population or only Caucasians, sanctuary cities have shown to have less unemployment. Poverty is also lower in sanctuary counties on average 2.3 percent lower. These are all signs of a strong economy. Tom K Wong, finds in his analysis that "When local law enforcement focuses on keeping communities safe, rather becoming entangled in federal immigration enforcement efforts, communities are safer and community members stay more engaged in the local economy." Police departments from sanctuary counties protect the whole community and have trust in the entire community which includes illegal immigrants.
goku vs superman goku stomps mad carzy 5

death battle is a you tube show and is hardy professional after I could have a you tube video (I have seen the video) The people making these calculations had no biases. interview with Chad said he had no idea about goku. he was almost put on a ninja top ten list because thay have so little knowledge for goku IT's also pretty compelling and concrete evidence. it is also ripe with errors that any one who has read superman comics or watched dragon ball would know if they were not bias Their evidence shows that Superman would be the victor if they were to i have also posted in my frist post facts and evidence in my frist post that goku would be the winner in a fight death battle errorshttp://www.screwattack.com...Strength Speed DurabilityGoku 160,000 tons 2.5 billion km/hr 34.7 sextillion megatonsSuperman 6.6 quintillion tons 9.4 billion km/hr 10 octillion megatons i ask you to please explain this math and where does this come from (as i am sure you can not becouse i have had this debate before) and so please explain the death batte math in your next post i ask you to check this math check if you are not bias you selfmath check
goku vs superman goku stomps mad carzy 5

Death Battle, which is a YouTube show that examines all provided and most acceptable data on fictional characters has worked diligently and tirelessly to examine all the data between Goku and Superman. Their evidence shows that Superman would be the victor if they were to fight. It's also pretty compelling and concrete evidence. I'm a big fan of Goku but I'm a bigger fan of science, facts, and reason. Here's the clip: In the clip (after the battle) you see the exact calculations for their strength, speed, and durability and it reads as follows: Strength Speed Durability Goku 160,000 tons 2.5 billion km/hr 34.7 sextillion megatons Superman 6.6 quintillion tons 9.4 billion km/hr 10 octillion megatons If this carefully concluded evidence does not convince you then I can't convince you because you're not convinced by logic. The people making these calculations had no biases. These are as exact as possible for these two warriors. Sorry. I thought Goku might win too.
2,000 Days of DDO: When in Recession, Taxes Should be Lowered

For my debate to celebrate the 2,000 day anniversary of Debate.org, I have decided to do taxes.ArgumentsI am arguing that when the US is in a recession, taxes should be cut and not raised. My opponent must argue why it is better to not cut taxes and either keep the tax rates where they are or raise them.RulesRound 1 is for acceptance. No trolling or semantics. Shared burden of proof.
2,000 Days of DDO: When in Recession, Taxes Should be Lowered

Okay. Some final refutations and then a weigh. The Great DepressionHe is confused about the graph I used from him. Here it is. Observe closely. Taxes were raised sharply to combat the Great Depression and it worked. RegeanThe quote he shows says nothing about Reagan's views on raising taxes. This quote basically says nothing about his opinions. A proper quote would read: "I disapprove of raising taxes and much prefer lowering them"ClintonI apologize about my innacuracy and concede on the Clinton point, understanding that his presidency did not overlap with a recession. ObamaMy opponent wants to compare growth under Reagan and Obama, however the recession ended one month after Obama took office, so this is irrelevant. Weigh1920-1921-My opponent is pretending there is a link between the tax cuts and end of recession. I have proven that ending that recession actually required tax funds. I win this point1980-1981-Reagan quote is inconclusive. Reagan had more tax hikes than tax cuts. Reagan favored tax hikes. I win this point. Great Depression-My opponent did not refute this because he was confused about which graph I was pointing towards. I clariifed. He does not have a chance to refute. I win this point. Confidence and funding-WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA FOR ENDING A RECESSION. My opponent never clarifies. Here it is: ECONOMIC GROWTH. Meaning, "growing the economy", by improving and bolstering our nation's infrastructure. I win this point. Clinton-This argument is irrelevant to the debate because no recession occured in Clinton's presidency. Sorry for the confusion. Do not include in "convincing arguments" vote. Obama-This argument is also irrelevant to the debate because no recession occured in Obama's presidency. I have won this debate.
2,000 Days of DDO: When in Recession, Taxes Should be Lowered

Counter Counter Refutations1. 1920-1921My opponent barely responds to my refutation. I say we used welfare programs, he points out it is just relief. Potato potaato. I admit that it was relief. I misread and I apologize. Either way, relief requires tax funding. Also, my opponent said that tax cuts take a while to go into action, so why wouldn't this apply here? He has not shown a source that correlates the tax cuts to the end of the recession. My opponent also says that the great depression is irrelevant to my refutation. Okay. Fine then.Arguments 1 The Great DepressionAccording to my opponent's graphs, tax raising got us out of the great depression, certainly the worst depression our country has ever been in. Is that okay for you?Back to counter counter refutations2. 1981-1982My opponent again barely responds to my refutation. He uses Reagan as an example. So let's look at Reagan. According to my opponent, only one tax cut of his is worth mentioning. So, Reagan has one important tax cut. Then, he says that Reagan had one major tax hike. So, my opponent is saying that Reagan did equal tax cuts and hikes of importance. Now, looking at hikes and cuts that were not important, Reagan had one cut and ten hikes. Obviously, by the theories of logic, unless my opponent can find a direct Reagan quote, Reagan favored tax hikes, otherwise known as my argument. Reading this over and it sounds confusing. Here is a visual:Reagan Tax CutsReagan Tax HikesOne of importanceOne of importanceOne of unimportanceTen of unimportanceTax Hikes>Tax CutsCounter RefutationsMy opponent's main concern with my arguments is that I talk too much about education. I'm sorry if I didn't clarify this, but having a smart country is good for the economy. It means people who make smart choices and have a knowledge of economics and how to support our country. Smarter country, better country.My opponent asks me to be specific about public services that would help us get out of a recession. Welfare Unemployment Food stamps Sorry if I wasn't specific enough before.My opponent now refutes little tiny irrelevant parts of my alien argument without looking at the big picture. He has not refuted that when the government has more money, it creates a better nation with better infrastructure and public services. My opponent says that we were never in a recession with Bill Clinton.Read this list of official US recessions.http://en.wikipedia.org...There was a pretty deep one in the beginning of Clinton's presidency.My opponent also says that Clinton issued tax cuts, however he has no source for this. To the best of my knowledge, he never issued a tax cut, much less one of importance. If my opponent wants to win the Clinton argument, he will have to weight important and unimportant tax cuts and hikes and see if the cuts outweigh the hikes that Clinton issued.ConclusionSo, in conclusion, I have well defended all of my arguments while my opponent has chipped away at the branches of my argument, whereas the trunk still stands.
2,000 Days of DDO: When in Recession, Taxes Should be Lowered

Cool, were debating for the third time! This is awesome.My ArgumentsThe argument that it is better to lower taxes in an economic recession is an easy one to make if you have a vast knowledge of history like myself. There are two key examples of how tax cuts that were passed in response to a recession. These were in response to the recessions of 1920-1921 and 1981-1982: Let's look at both.I. 1920-1921The radical economic policies and the end of World War 1 under Woodrow Wilson brought the economy into a recession. Real GDP growth had been declining. Federal revenue was dropping and unemployment was rising. The new Republican president, Warren G. Harding, passed a tax cut. Wilson had taxes as high as 77% and Harding lowered this to well under 60%. Unemployment declined from 6.5% to 3.1%. Real GDP grew from 2% to 3.4% and federal revenue grew from -9.2% to 0.1%. When Harding died, these policies were continued under President Calvin Coolidge. The top tax rate was by then as low as 25%. This allowed consumer spending to grow and many Americans could now afford goods that the rich could only purchase. The works of Harding and Coolidge brought a massive economy recovery and ended the recession. In fact, Coolidge holds the record for most stock market growth in US history. [1,2] II. 1981-1982Republican Ronald Reagan entered the presidency and faced the 1981 recession. To combat this recession, Reagan cut taxes deeply to bring economy growth. This was a massive success. Real GDP went from 0.9% to 4.8%. This clearly proves that there was massive growth in the recovery. Unemployment peaked at 10.8% in November 1982, but declined to 7% by December.For real income tax revenue growth, it grew from -2.8% to 2.7%. This clearly points that tax cuts work to fixing a recession. Finally, the stock market grew incredibly under Ronald Reagan. [1] Sources1. Laffer, Arthur. "The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future." The Heritage Foundation. N.p., 1 June 2004. Web.2. Blaine, Charley. "Stocks Have Had a Great Run in Obama's Term." MSNMoney. N.p., 5 Nov. 2012. Web.
Morality is determined by the individual

I thank you for your prompt response and hope this will be an enjoyable and intelligent debate. To sum up the base of your whole argument against either objection I would have to put it this way “not everybody listens to the standards of morality ergo it comes from themselves , they determine it” This is called the fallacy of the hasty conclusion. Objection 1: facts are not dependant on us Consider this analogy. I say our blood is made up of thousands of tiny living cells. You disagree and say they are made up of grape juice. We cant come to agreement on this issue so ergo our blood is determined by the individual. Yours blood is made up of grapes and mine is of cells. Facts, when they are facts, because they are facts, are not dependant on our successful analysis of them. If they were than they would not be facts they would be unreal illusions. If morality is determined by being whatever they heck you want it to mean for you at your current whimsy of what you feel like it should be then it is not a system based on any real thing. It is an illusion thus you do not as an individual truly determine morality because A: you cant determine a non-existent thing, its like saying I rule the physics of digimon land. (I don’t cause that place doesn’t actually exist for me to determine anything about it). B: your ‘system’ is arguable determined by your situation because it is that situation that factors into why you call what’s right “right” and what’s wrong “wrong”. “I will go to jail if I don’t lie so lying is ‘okay’ right now”. Objection 2: we don’t follow our own individual systems Your make your case as if its meaningful to discredit a system as being true objective morality because another person is not following it in there actions. This is completely bunk logic when you point this out while ignoring that even within the individual, they do not follow there own acclaimed system of morality. Because I lie or steal little things sometimes does that mean I have a different system of morals than the traditional Christian one where those things are considered immoral? No, In fact that traditional system is the system I will tell you I go by so to point out my actions contrary to it is meaningless. Your own position this debate at the very least admitted that “I determine my morality” so when I say lying is bad it really is for me according to you and yet I lie. Why? Its not because of any change in system I just lack the discipline to follow through with what is right always. Brushing my teeth each morning is wise and healthy and good but I don’t do it. I could on, but I think that’s the core of what Id like to start with. Don’t want to overload you with too much info to digest, this should be enough points to focus on for now, there are plenty of rounds to add more if needed. I await my opponents response.
Morality is determined by the individual

This is perhaps the greatest argument that faces man kind. ( In my opinion) This topic is open for anyone to debate but they must have a concept of what morality is. Morality- A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct - free dictionary. com Individual (noun) - single human considered apart from a society or community free dictionary. com Resolved:Morality Is determined by the individual. This definition has to be accepted so both sides may debate the topic fairly Round 1 acceptance Round 2-4 arguments The con may present any idea of were morality comes from but it is the point of the Pro (me) case to prove that morality comes from the individual. Rules: 1. )No semantics ( It would be interesting to see someone try but it is not a voting argument so it would be wasted space) 2. ) One cannot set fire to the rain, it is metaphysically impossible 3. ) This is not a humorous debate, but it would help to have a dry sense of humor 4. ) The effect of forfeiting means all seven points go to the remaining individual 5. ) Since this is a philosophic debate the burden of proof is logic. Sources help but are not a deciding factor (I hate to put this but after its philosophy not politics) 6. ) I hope that trolling is considered misconduct. 7. )
The Liar Paradox and Curry's Paradox are solvable

Thank you, AnalyticArizonan, for your response. My opponent has conceded that he has not solved the Liar's Paradox, thus conceding the debate. Regarding Curry's Paradox, every time I said "this sentence," I was actually referring to the original sentence. Perhaps this will clear things up: R: If R, then Q. Q: Santa Claus exists. S: R is true. 1. If R, R. (Law of Identity) 2. If R, if R, Q. (Substitution of Definition of R) 3. If R, Q. (Combination of conditionals) 4. R (Substitution of Definition of R) 5. Q (Syllogism of 3 and 4) Now, I'm not quite sure what my opponent means in his refuting paragraph. "This sentence is true" was never a premise, as my opponent claims. Every statement made in my logical proof in each round had the conditional "If this sentence is true" until the original sentence "If this sentence is true, then Santa Claus exists" was logically proven. It was a conclusion, not a premise. Now, my opponent claims that he may still win this debate, but he cannot. He had the burden of solving both the Liar's Paradox and Curry's Paradox, and as he already conceded one, it does not matter that his attempt to solve Curry's Paradox is also unsuccessful. The resolution is negated. AnalyticArizonan, if you'd like to try your new argument to solve the paradoxes at some point in the future, I'd be happy to debate you on it, as well, although perhaps with more rounds.
The Liar Paradox and Curry's Paradox are solvable

===Liar's Paradox=== "However, if we assume equivalency and thus that the first sentence is false, it instead resolves to true, leading to the very paradox that we are debating. " I concede that Con was able to refute the explanation offered as I reexamine my argument. I appreciate his intelligent analysis of my explanation. ===Curry's Paradox=== "My opponent then claims that Curry's Paradox is "invalid. " If by this he means that it remains a paradox, then I have won this debate. If he means that the statement is false, then he is incorrect. " A paradox is a logically valid argument or proposition that leads to contradiction. Of course, I disagree that I am incorrect that Curry's Paradox is not false. "S -> R If this sentence is true, then if this sentence is true, then Santa Claus exists. " If you say this sentence is true in that same sentence, you are referring to the entire sentence, not the antecedent. So even if we grant Con's first premise, we still cannot say: "This sentence is true" as the second premise for that would be a new proposition referring to itself, not the antecedent of premise 1. I have second argument regarding both of these paradoxes but as I did not put them forward in round 2, I will not put them in now. I believe that Con showed that my explanation about the Liar's Paradox was inadequate to disprove it as a paradox but Con was not able to show how my disproving of Curry's Paradox as paradox was wrong.
The Liar Paradox and Curry's Paradox are solvable

Thank you, AnalyticArizonan, for posting your argument. My opponent's analysis looks decent until he claims the following two statements to be equivalent: "It is true that this sentence is false." "It is true that this sentence is true and it is true that this sentence is false." Two statements are logically equivalent if they they have the same truth value at all times [1]. My opponent claims that the second statement is false by the law of non-contradiction, which is true. However, if we assume equivalency and thus that the first sentence is false, it instead resolves to true, leading to the very paradox that we are debating. A paradoxical statement cannot be equivalent to a false statement. Therefore, my opponent's analysis of the Liar's Paradox is illogical and invalid, and the Liar's Paradox remains a paradox. http://www.iep.utm.edu... http://plato.stanford.edu... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://kleene.ss.uci.edu... My opponent then claims that Curry's Paradox is "invalid." If by this he means that it remains a paradox, then I have won this debate. If he means that the statement is false, then he is incorrect. Clearly, if the sentence is true, then the conclusion that "if this sentence is true, then Santa Claus exists" is true by substitution, and therefore it follows from the original sentence that Santa Claus exists. To use my opponent's labels to summarize the paragraph logically: S -> R If this sentence is true, then if this sentence is true, then Santa Claus exists. S & R -> Q If this sentence is true and Santa Claus exists if this sentence is true, then Santa Claus exists. S -> Q If this sentence is true, then Santa Claus exists. Therefore, the conclusion does follow the premises logically. The only issue, of course, is that Santa Claus does not exist, and even if he did, we could assert, "If this sentence is true, then Santa Claus does not exist," and come to the opposite conclusion. Hence, Curry's Paradox. http://plato.stanford.edu... http://en.wikipedia.org... I have demonstrated both the Liar's Paradox and Curry's Paradox to be indeed paradoxes. Good luck with your response, AnalyticArizonan.
The Liar Paradox and Curry's Paradox are solvable

===Liar's Paradox=== The Liar's Paradox is a self-referential statement, originally formulated by Eubulides of Miletus in the 4th Century BC. The Liar's Paradox is as follows this sentence. "This sentence is false. " Now at face value, it seems that if we say that the sentence is true, then is false. If we say it is false, then it is true. We see that either way, we find a contradiction. I will show how the Liar's Paradox is not a paradox that leads to contradictory conclusions but is in itself, a contradiction. This make the sentence false. The solution I believe that works is the one laid down by Arthur Prior (1914-1969), who claimed that he found the method in the writings of both Jean Buridan (1300-1358) and Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914). The solution states that every proposition has a hidden part, namely "It is true that". So when we examine any proposition, we can add those four words and see that it is true. It is true that Socrates was a man. It is true that the Earth is round. It is true that SocialPinko changes his profile picture way too often. Etc. Using this standard, let us examine what the Liar's Paradox is really saying. It is true that this sentence is false. The previous statement is equivalent to saying "It is true that this sentence is true and it is true that this sentence is false" which is a contradiction and therefore, false. It is true that this sentence is true if and only if it is true that this sentence is true and it is true that this sentence is false. ~S<---->(~S&S) If we say that ~S is false, then we see that, without paradox, the paradox is false. . http://www.iep.utm.edu... . http://plato.stanford.edu... ===Curry's Paradox=== Curry's Paradox is similar to the Liar's Paradox but rather uses the negation of the Liar's Paradox in a modus ponens argument. Originally formulated by Haskell Curry (1900-1982) and is as follows this sentence. If this sentence is true, then Santa Claus exists This sentence is true Therefore, Santa Claus exists Normally, we would formulate this argument as follows: (P-->Q) P Q But in this case, we must examine what is really being said in the argument. The "This sentence is true" in the first premise is referring not to the antecedent but to the entire conditional "If this sentence is true, then Santa Claus exists". The second premise, though identical in words to the antecedent of the first premise, is referring to itself which is a difference sentence. Therefore, the conclusion does not follow from the premises, it is invalid. R=If this sentence is true, then Santa Claus exists. Q=Santa Claus exists S=This sentence is true (R-->Q) S Q We can clearly see that Curry's Paradox is an invalid argument. . http://plato.stanford.edu... . http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_paradox