BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The U.S. needs to clamp down on illegal immigration

I believe that illegal immigration is a growing problem in the United States, and that we need to strengthen our laws against them and step up enforcement. Some definitions "illegal": forbidden by law or statute "immigrate": To enter and settle in a country or region to which one is not native. (dictionary.com) CON ARG # 1 I agree that where you are born is based on luck. However, that is the main criteria that most countries use for citizenship (including the United States, with some exceptions). Citizens of a country do have some responsibilities to that country, simply because they were born, and they also receive different rights (such as suffrage). Most of the people born in a country carry a loyalty to it with them until they die. This loyalty can raise issues when obeying law enforcement and can be considered a valid reason to cut back on immigration. I also agree that, to a certain extent, the receipt of permissions is dependent on luck. I would argue though, that this is due to needed limits on the number of immigrants into our country. The United States cannot allow everyone in. While space may not be an issue, economically, the US would quickly lose its high standard of living and job quality that makes people want to come here in the first place. Some would argue that it is necessary to completely cut off immigration, since the United States will be unable to sustain the influx long term. CON ARG #2 This argument simply does not apply in this situation. Until Mexico is attempting to take over parts of the United States, all illegal immigration is the act of individuals, rather than a country, as you are referring to. CON ARG #3 First, to clarify, no argument for CON can be made by stating that there are problems with selective enforcement. CON is arguing that we shouldn't FIX the selective enforcement (by clamping down). I am interested in seeing how the laws and their enforcement is either racist or harmful however. The "racism" claim could come from the fact that "Hispanics" are "singled out" to be asked for identification, but that can easily be explained by the statistics which show that 81% of illegal immigrants are from Mexico or Latin America. Such a huge difference in numbers means that it is only logical for law enforcement officials to primarily focus on "Hispanics" in their search for illegal immigrants.
The U.S. needs to clamp down on illegal immigration

The subject of this post is: The U.S. needs to clamp down on illegal immigration. I, the instigator, am taking the con side of this discussion. That is, I will be arguing against the notion that "The U.S. needs to clamp down on illegal immigration." This debate is open to any challenger to accept the "Pro" side of the debate, upon whose shoulders rests the burden of proof to establish that the U.S. needs to clamp down on illegal immigration. === My argument begins with some stipulations: I will not argue against gang members and other violent offenders committing such acts within the U.S., but I argue that these are in a much smaller minority than are emphasized by the likes of "Lou Dobbs" of CNN, and over-emphasis distorting that exaggerates the image I will call out as xenophobic and racist. I believe the laws against "illegal immigration" are wrong for the following reasons: CON ARG #1:"Illegal immigration" laws determine a person to be an invalid based solely on the combination of what side of a geopolitical border they were born on and whether or not they were among the lucky few to get an overly strict number of legal permissions CON ARG #2:"Illegal immigration" laws are hypocritical of the United States, as the United States has a history of expanding itself into areas in violation of its own accords with sovereign peoples CON ARG #3:"Illegal immigration" laws and their selective enforcement on the Mexican border are both racist and actually harmful to national security
We Go To School For The Diploma Not For The Love Of Learning.

I. Pro fails to affirm the resolutionThere has been no evidence given by Pro to justify the claim that we only go to school for the diploma. As it stands now, it's nothing more than a baseless opinion. II. Proof saying otherwiseAt this point, I just need to show one case where someone goes to school because they love learning:It's why Justin Chess goes to school. [1][1] http://www.voorhees.k12.nj.us...
We Go To School For The Diploma Not For The Love Of Learning.

Pro is affirming the resolution that: We Go To School For The Diploma Not For The Love Of Learning. I'm negating that resolution based on the grounds that "we" is plural and thus Pro is making an absolute claim about all people. This is an incredible burden for Pro to overcome as he now has to show why every person alive goes to school just for the diploma. I now return the floor to Pro so he may begin fulfilling his burden. Thank you.
There should be a minimum ELO ranking for DDO voting priviledges.

I agree with my opponent that there are many people on this site who can successfully count to potato. However, that doesn't mean they should be voting.Currently, DDO requires that a person complete three debates before they can vote. Forum users can not vote until they complete three debates. "People who don't like to debate," can not vote until they complete three debates. Are these examples of the segregation my opponent so dislikes? Why not require that they show some level of competence in these debates?I draw no correlation between ELO and intelligence as my opponent alleges. However, a general correlation between ELO and debate skill cannot be denied. My opponent has pointed to some users who are arguably exceptions, without dissproving the general rule."Some of these debates[sic] like envisage only challenge elite members, so their elo is reflected as lower than what it actually should be. They could easily get a higher elo but because they chose to debate the best members on the site they get more loses[sic] and their record is not as sound as others. Members like pots have to FF due to real life situations and how busy their scheudle[sic] is." Envisage's case is a good example of the need for some tweaking in the ELO system. Furthermore, my opponent acknlowledges that Envisage could easily raise their ELO ranking by winning some debates against opponents closer to their ranking. People who consistently forfeit fail to show the debating skill required for ranking. Consistent forfeits should lower your ELO, and your access to site features. I am not saying he does not possess highly developed debating skills, he clearly does based on his debate with you. However he failed to consistently show those skills.Discrimination against stupid peopleDisrimination against stupid people is not a bad thing. I don't let stupid people work on my car. I don't let stupid people watch my kids. I think this is reasonable.Again, ELO does not equal intelligence. However people with no skill should not be judging the skills of others. Also the skill should be proven first. Under my proposition, at the time of this writing, I would not be allowed to vote. I can appreciate that I would have to earn my stripes before handing them ouot to others.
There should be a minimum ELO ranking for DDO voting priviledges.

I am going to keep this simple as he made no actual arguments and just provided an example but I would like to review the underlying principle behind what he is actually saying. Pro is basically saying that *there should be* a minim elo requirement for people to vote. This could be any elo, but as we can clearly see in his round 1 he is proposing an minimum elo of 2,500" I would propose that an ELO of 2,500 or greater should be required before DDO voting privileges are granted. "Now the issue of this is that you are segregating stupid people, or people that just don't take the time to debate. So let's get down to some contentions C1) Correlation between Elo and intelligence is falseMy adversary is literally drawing a line from elo to intelligence. He is making the positive claim that only people with 2,500 or more are capable enough to place a valid vote on a debate. This is inherently false. A great deal of users just do not like to debate alot or just are forum users, so undermining their opinion and denying them the right to vote is detrimental to the site. You are restricting someone the right to offer their opinion based on one example he has given. Granted I am sure there are a great many other examples to back this up as well, but even then we cannot deny someone the right to cast their vote based on their activity level or site preference. He is essentially undermining the principle of debate as well. In any debate the goal is persuade the voters to agree with you, and this is entirely subjective. Debate when judged lies within the mind of the person that is voting. This happens with formal judges( even if there is a criteria), audience wins, or just anyone judging in general. There is always a subjective factor in voting, even if we try to objective it is still opinionated and will always be opinionated. Denying someone their right to speak based on a false correlation between elo and intelligence is detrimental in general and also a horrible fallacyTake a look at some amazing users with an elo below 2,500(1) http://www.debate.org...example of debate : http://www.debate.org...(2) http://www.debate.org...example of debate : http://www.debate.org...(3) http://www.debate.org...example of debate : http://www.debate.org...Some of these debates like envisage only challenge elite members, so their elo is reflected as lower than what it actually should be. They could easily get a higher elo but because they chose to debate the best members on the site they get more loses and their record is not as sound as others. Members like pots have to FF due to real life situations and how busy their scheudle is. This does not take away from their intelligence or is no way necessitates their inability to vote properly. C2) Discrimination against stupid peopleHe is basically say if you can count to potato you should not be able to vote , undermine the principle and basis of debate while implementing segregation on the site. ConclusionI support people who can count to potato , so vote for me
There should be a minimum ELO ranking for DDO voting priviledges.

This should be interesting. Voting on debates is one of the many interesting opportunities offered by DDO. However, people who are unable to effectively debate others, often lack the critical thinking skills to properly vote in a debate. For example, blackkid's vote in the debate Aerogant is very rude. Blackkid gave Con a full 7 point win, though Con conceded the resolution in the final Round. [1] Blackkid's ELO at the time of this argument is 2,198. [2]I would propose that an ELO of 2,500 or greater should be required before DDO voting privileges are granted. Sources1. . http://www.debate.org...2. . http://www.debate.org...
does school suspensions do more harm than good.

I am very impressed, you are obviously a young girl who has true concern in a topic that effects your life not only in school but in your future. It is unfortunate that the numbers of suspension are increasing but the problem starts at home where parents do not discipline their children. If their is no discipline at home no amount of punishment at school is going to fix anything. In the real world a person who is habitualy breaking rules or tardy will not be suspended and guaranteed a place to come back to they will be fired. With that fact true why baby the children who continue to disrupt the educations and future. Thanks for your debate and I wish you the best. Sincerely, SPC Rautert, Frederick J. USAR
does school suspensions do more harm than good.

no...im not saying that at all...im saying that instead of putting them somewhere where they will be disruptive and not paying attention,you could instead put them where they will not get distracted.The incidence of "out-of-school suspensions" is increasing dramatically. For example, the Chicago public school system suspended over 20,000 students in 2003, more than doubling the rate over the past decade. The wrong "message" is being sent to the offending student who is suspended out-of-school. That message is: "You as a person are so repugnant to us that you do not even deserve our attention or support."
does school suspensions do more harm than good.

All of those are very good levels of punishment for children but in a situation in which class is in session are you advocating that we should allow a student to stay in class and disrupt other students from learning. It is a teachers obligation to teach the curriculum and he/she cannot do that if their is a child acting up. How would you go about punishing those who are disruptive on a regular basis? How would you punish those who take other students and corrupt them into committing disruptive behavior? Why do you place the welfare of the disruptive child that try before that of the students who follow the rules? By coddling these children you teach them that there is no punishment for bad behavior and your teaching the students that obey that there is no benefit for poor behavior.
does school suspensions do more harm than good.

instead of out of school suspension,you could do the following consequences:1 Phone call to parents and/or a parent conference 2 After school or lunch detention 3 Co-curricular activity suspension (sports or clubs) 4 Restitution (financial or social, such as a written apology) 5 Community service around the school 6 School-based or home-school contingency contract 7 Saturday school
does school suspensions do more harm than good.

My opponent has made her opening statement concise so I will do the same in an effort to move this debate along and make it fair. Suspension to those who care about school takes you away from your friends, at my school if you where a habitual offender they would also take away extra curricular activities such as sports and clubs away. So their is a punishment for being suspended. The fact that you must make up the time and school work on your own time simply adds to the punishment. The problem with my opponents issue is the fact that suspension is made to protect students who want to be at school from being interrupted from clowns. Suspension gets the distractions out of class while the students are free to learn in a better environment. I would like to see the issues my opponent brings up in the later rounds and for those of you who want to chime in be my guest.
We should follow Yraelz's lead and start over on Debate.org.

I negate. Before I continue, I'd like to state that this is just for the sake of argumentation (devil's advocate), I personally believe that this is an overall good plan. Here's our little conversation about this debate. http://www.debate.org... In interest of entertaining the debating community, and because I like a nice argument, I'll still debate this topic anyway. :D _____________________________ My opponent's proposition cannot be achieved within his set parameters. For multiple reasons. First, he proposes that the community has only three days to follow his plan... Dear voter, Please give attention to the top of this page where it says, "This debate began on Thursday, May 29, 2008, 4:53:31 PM Pacific Time." I am more than confident that you are reading this after three days of his initial post at 4:53pm. May 30th @ 5pm May 31st @ 5pm June 1st @ 5pm Yup, that's THREE days. Due to my opponent issues with pragmatism(=D) one can only negate. Second, currently there is a face book tourney going on... Due to the fact that there are still 21 debate.org members whom are engaged in this tournament, the three day guideline is not fair because the following debaters would feel sad because they couldn't join the movement. =C Logical-Master Zakkuchan TheLwerd PublicForumG-d BRIK Astrosfan Vi_Veri Nini722 Jokerdude SportsGuru Pluto2493 Lasalle Darth_Grievous_42 littlelacroix DrAlexander girr29 Johnicle Noblethe3rd JustCallMeTarzan beem0r Parothead13 These poor debaters. Of course Korezaan could just say, "oh well, if they really wanted to join the movement, they still can, it's not like they HAVE to participate in the tournament..." I'll preemptively state to the voters that this is unfair once again, these individuals are on their FOURTH round already, they've spent many hours debating in the pursuit of the cash payoff or maybe just for the satisfaction and emotional boost of knowing that they're the best. For these reason I propose the following plan. Similar to Korezaan's, just with a few corrections. ______________________________ I propose this: Every debater that believes that they have some sort of stigma attached to their name while they go into a debate, delete their accounts within the next MONTH and start over on a new one. This way, debaters can be prepared and well informed about this movement and will have the opportunity to start over on a clean slate, with the least possible judging bias on them. I think it's time that people give those 'haters' a run for their money. We should follow Yraelz's lead and start over on Debate.org. Negate Korezaan's plan and follow mine. Thanks! LEAVE COMMENTS!
We should follow Yraelz's lead and start over on Debate.org.

I affirm. When I looked over this debate's comments (http://www.debate.org....) several days back, it dawned on me that Grievous was right: "I think we should all delete our current accounts and start from scratch. Having a hierarchy of popularity on a site such as this has always been bad. A state of neutrality should be maintained for the fairness and competition this site needs." I propose this: Every debater that believes that they have some sort of stigma attached to their name while they go into a debate, delete their accounts within the next three days and start over on a new one. This way, debaters can start over on a clean slate, with the least possible judging bias on them. To tell the truth, I'm really tired of these 2-5 people that always go through my debates to vote against me. In one day during a certain debate, my win ratio went from ~80% to ~40%, and I am not the only one that has taken this sort of "punishment". I think it's time that people like me give those 'haters' a run for their money. We should follow Yraelz's lead and start over on Debate.org.
Planetside 2 is superior to Halo (any entry available as of the time the debate was posted)

Thanks for a diversionary, non-serious debate, Pro. I'd like to point out that much of Pro's arguments are centered around the strategic/tactical immersion, and battle size of PS2 over Halo, and how much he prefers that. This does make it a superior game... when it comes to strategic/tactical immersion. If this debate were about which game requires more strategic thinking, PS2 would inevitably be the winner. But the debate is simply over which game is superior. No qualifiers about how, so it must be assumed this is an overall judgement. It is my judgement that Halo: Reach is overall a superior game because it has more to offer. PS2 really only provides one thing that Halo doesn't: Massive multiplayer battles on enormous maps. But Halo still provides countless game types because of the number of player controlled variables in making games and maps. You can even play game variants where there is no death, if you so choose. People have made race tracks and Rube Goldberg like devices in the map editor, spacecraft boarding action maps, and it goes on. PS2 has only one thing, which it does uniquely well: MMO FPS. Yet my contention still stands that if a real military strategist were to enter the world of PS2, they would immediately demand artillery and ballistic weaponry. This would not, as Pro contends, make tanks obsolete. Effective artillery was ubiquitous on the WWI battlefield when tanks were introduced, and they were a game changer, yet neither tanks nor artillery caused the other to disappear. They would add a much needed niche, requiring much skill and planning to be effective in PS2, exactly what Pro wants more of in a game. I'd also like to remind the audience that lack of appeal to a certain age group (the very young) doesn't ruin a game, but it doesn't make it better. Risk is a simpler and faster game that has broader appeal and is far more successful than it's counterpart, Axis and Allies, and both are fine games, but Risk has far broader appeal, and it doesn't take an hour to set up. Considering so many more people know how to, and like to play Risk over Axis and Allies, though I like Axis and Allies, I'd have to say Risk is the superior game overall. I run into far fewer people with an aversion to Risk than Axis and Allies. The same applies to Halo and Planetside 2. Both are good games. Halo has broader appeal and more versatility, and it does what it sets out to do well. Planetside 2 has limited appeal, does only one thing, yet is lacking in a very basic modern military function of ballistic weapons beyond some minor bullet drop. I would argue that since the point of the game is to have fun, the game more people can have fun with is the better game, overall.
Planetside 2 is superior to Halo (any entry available as of the time the debate was posted)

Oh balls. My Internet died and now I only have an old iPod to do this on. Ok so first topic, strategy and tactics. On any small(Er) maps in fps games, strategy and tactics are irrelevant. This is because no matter how much time you put into it, the game will end with little effort being put in. There are too many variables, and as such you cannot plan and then effectively execute the plan to attack a point. They will always manage to Zerg rush or simply get lucky and Push through. In planetside 2 it is rarely human error, more often a flawed plan. Because they can only come from a single area, with limited resources, you can have small encounters which require this knowledge. The small encounters all link together, as part of a large plan. Also, teamwork is essential. The classes are balanced and a medic and engi are essential to keep even a small task force going. Secondly, more children. Have halo bought by parents, and are tainting the playerbase. PS2 is lesser known, attracting a higher class of player in general (so far at least) no matter whether they can afford the time or free download. I fail to understand your argument for people spending time in PS2 instead of working, and why Halo isn't as addictive. Unlike Halo, you can leave at any time, without ruining the game for a team now short of a player, or missing the end. The encounters usually have a platoon commander, with his own 12 man squad and 3 others. These encounters ARE the game, and provide longer, more thrilling and more exciting battles than halo games. This is because there are bombing raids, tank columns, lines of sunderers spawning everyone AT the action, small vehicles for harassing and then max suits with engineers and heavy and light assails wih medics. Much more immersive and involving. In halo, if you get tired of a game mode it is because it is inadequate. The main multiplayer gamemode of TDM is where all the fun is at because people spend all of their time there. This means that they are more comparable. PS2 has more varying multiplayer, and is therefore more rounded. Anything missed, misunderstood or disagreed with from round 4 can be tirelessly bickered over in the comments, thank you for this awesome debate, and I urge the floor to vote Pro because that is me and I can. P.S. make the votes unbiased. If you agreed with me, put unbiased votes if you thought he was better and vice versa, I have lost 1 debate through favouritism and another by the same guy for a grudge. Thank you and good night.