BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Birthright citizenship should be abolished in the United States

Well knowing that abolishing Birthright Citizenship will cause every baby to not have citizenship, we will also amend the United States Constitution. Doing this will lead to a opposition on the federal level which will not be good for the country. Illegal immigrants come here for opportunity. Isn't that what this country is for? A start for an education, to get a job and make money. If we abolish Birthright citizenship, we will have many immigrants deported everyday. Not only that but many of the babies will also be deported with them. If the parents child goes to school, gets and education and job, aren't they earning the citizenship of being an American? But if the child has to leave the country once they are born, they won't have that opportunity to do that. The children that are born here are born on United States soil and Jurisdiction, shouldn't that make them a Citizen at birth? Abolishing birthright citizenship will not contribute to the many people that can start a life in the United states. Especially the ones that are being born. The 14th amendment does not say that people that are born here or illegal immigrants need to swear an allegiance to the United States. They just need to be on the jurisdiction of the United States. Many things have changed since the 14th amendment was written but our founding fathers wrote this them for a reason so that it can be pasted down generation to generation. If the people of the United States want to change something that was written in the US constitution, then the whole constitution will be unjust because the it can then be changed more so. We should not change this even if our founding fathers could not foresee this but they wanted the people of the United States to follow something that was put down to make the country what it is today. And changing one thing in the US constitution will not benefit from this country.
Resolved: Birthright citizenship should be abolished in the United States

In you argument you are saying that if we abolish birthright citizenship it would cause more work for the government. But in fact would you say that by having this law it is causing the government to do a ton of work by giving these children citizenship and documentation. In both worlds the government has to do a lot of work so therefore your argument is non-unique. In fact by abolishing the birthright citizenship law or changing the 14th Amendment it would in fact lesson the amount of documentation. If the parents have documentation then the baby receives documentation and it simplifies the problem. Now in the essence of what you said about the parents taking the test, even if they take the test is it fair that they pass the whole waiting list and bypass all the rules and regulations that were set up for other families? America is based on a belief that we all have the same opportunities and have a fair share. The government has actually done everything in their power to create a fair society. While their is an economic inequality that does not mean we are treated unfairly. Now for your last thing stating whether or not it is a big issue or if it is a small one has no relevance to the situation. No matter what kind of inconvenience or problem it should still try and be fixed. This debate does not say when or how the bill will be abolished but the debate of whether or not it should be abolished.
Resolved: Birthright citizenship should be abolished in the United States

If we abolished Birthright Citizenship, then we would have to keep up with all the babies that are being born every minute in the United States which would be very hard to handle for the Government. Even though its true that having millions of immigrants have babies and have their babies become citizenship at that moment they are born is a bit unfair. But those immigrants should have their records check to see if they have citizenship in the country. If they don't, they should obviously be marked down on a list and have their information recorded so that they can apply and get citizenship. The parents should take the test to gain citizenship even though they have the baby and if they don't. The Government can fine them for not doing so. You speak of the country to be equal and fair but in reality, it can never be unless everyone's mind set is set to that. The Government has not been fair with us in the past couple of years so how can they care about abolishing birthright citizenship when they have bigger issues at hand? Having birthright citizenship should not be abolished because its too much work to handle to handle with all the citizens. Knowing that it is unfair to some people, but in life, everything is unfair and will stay that way no matter what happens. So birthright citizenship is a smaller issue for the country which is why its still a law and that its not going to be abolished anytime soon.
Resolved: Birthright citizenship should be abolished in the United States

Why should birthright citizenship be abolished in the United States? Birthright citizenship does not really do anything to people in the United states. It just gives them the citizenship of being a citizen of the United States. If it should be abolished, then every new born baby would have to take a test to prove their citizenship which will be impossible. The babies have no ability to take the test and of course don't have the knowledge. Yes, maybe when they're older, they can take a test to prove their citizenship but what's the point of that? If students take the test and don't pass it, what happens? They get kicked out the state? They retake it? It seems a bit pointless for birthright citizenship to be abolished because it will be giving the Government more work to take care of the people that have been born and it will be too hard to keep up with the amount of babies that are born everyday.
Santa Clause is alive and well

My opponent is using a fnatasy-based argument that on christmas we all become this: . http://www.polyvore.com...;His justification throughout the debate has been that "We all become Santa every time we buy a gift for someone that is special to us be it a child, a spouse, partner, friend or stranger. No that is much more than a spirit it is the actual being, the essence of which is in each and everyone of us, and for that I believe that Santa Clause is alive and well in each and everyone of us. " this is almost saying that by some demonic possession Santa Claus has become alive and well in all of us as a parasite? ONE Individual named Santa Lcaus (not Santa Clauses) Is somehow in ALL of us?
Santa Clause is alive and well

Oh but I my friend? Is not the fact that complete strangers provide gifts for children proof that Santa is not alive and well? How about the millions of people that are so moved to assist those in need during a time of crisis is that not what the original St. Nicholas had devoted his life to? I would dare say that Santa is alive and well in most people across the world, not just the spirit of Santa, but the actual person. We all become Santa every time we buy a gift for someone that is special to us be it a child, a spouse, partner, friend or stranger. No that is much more than a spirit it is the actual being, the essence of which is in each and everyone of us, and for that I believe that Santa Clause is alive and well in each and everyone of us. .
Santa Clause is alive and well

Thank you Mr. Rational Madman for agreeing to debate this fun subject, I wish you well. Who is Santa Clause? One can go to many historical books and find all sorts of definitions and descriptions of what we call Santa, and yes there have been commercial influences in the appearance of the old fat man over the years, but the spirit of Santa has remained unchanged over the centuries. According to History, the legend of St. Nicholas began in what we now know as modern Turkey when a monk was giving away his wealth to the poor. As his mission continued he became known as the protector of children and sailors. [1] This is the crux of my debate, Santa is alive and well, the spirit of man helping his fellow man. While it is seen more during the holidays such as recently reported by the news about a man who is handing out 100 dollar bills to victims of hurricane Sandy [2]. Or the recent rash of people paying the lay away bills of people at Wal-Mart, Target and other department stores. Man, in general cares about their fellow man. This scene has been played out time and time again where we see neighbors helping neighbors in disasters such as Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy. Wherever there is mass suffering and misery you will see the love and kindness of others attempting to help. Is this not the spirit of Santa Clause? To assist and help those who are in need. The original St. Nicholas was credited with paying the dowry of 3 poor sisters who's father was selling them into slavery or prostitution [3]. Of course Santa Clause has become synonymous with Christmas and the birth of Jesus Christ, one may ask how did this come about? I am of course not sure, I may be older, but not that old. However it would be safe to surmise that the original St. Nicholas died on December 6th and with the influence of the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages it is logical to assume that these dates were merged into one celebration. Jesus Christ was the promise of eternal life, he gave to all the promise that through Him one could get to the gates of Heaven and be with Him. What other gift could be more precious. Humans are giving and caring creatures at heart. Sure there are some that are violent and steal or turn their backs on those in need however in general we are a caring species who believe that if not for only one short time a year that we can help those who are not as fortunate as ourselves. I urge you to look around during this time of year and see the good that is done by people. Do not look at the commercialism of big business or the commercials telling you to buy,buy,buy but look at the Salvation Army volunteers, watch people walk down the street and say hi to strangers. Look at the joy in peoples faces as they work in soup kitchens or make packages to send to our troops, this is the true spirit of Santa Clause, giving without expectation of receiving anything in return. [1],[3] http://www.history.com... [2] http://articles.nydailynews.com...
Santa Clause is alive and well

Merry Christmas..I was in the mood for a light hearted debate and seeing it is the Season I felt that we could tackle the all time question about Santa Clause being alive and well. I will take the pro position that Santa is alive and well. The rules for this debate are easy, have fun, opinions are welcomed and encouraged, and it's the holiday season so be nice because Santa is watching.Santa Clause, Kris Kringle or the many other names he goes by is alive and well. In today's society where information is available immediately and big business attempts to drive consumers to buy, the true Spirit of Christmas and Santa lives on in the hearts and actions of most Americans, and in fact most of the Christian world.
Cats are the best pets!

Cats are just good pets to have. A study of Harvards students pets revealed that students who keep cats are significantly smarter than students who keep dogs. People who own dogs constantly get distracted because dogs frequently need walks and are too dependent on humans. Cats, however, can feed themselves and are happy as indoor pets. Dog owners all agree on one thing; dogs are just too dependent on us. Also, cat owners are less likely to be stressed as having a cat relaxed people. And, in USA, there are more cats than dogs. You will spend less money caring for a cat, cats don't chew, cats don't need a lot of space, and as a renter, you'll likely find more apartments available to cat owners than dog owners. Landlords look more favorably on tenants with cats for several reasons: No cat-related noise complaints. No fear of cats walking the hallways, potentially harming other tenants. Less repair needed at move out due to stained carpet or scratched walls and doors. To add to that, you can leave kittens in your house all day, but with puppies, it's chaos. Dogs do cause more mischeif than cats, and cat cover their poop and pee. Give them a litterbox and litter, and your cat will be potty-trained. You need to scoop dog poop, though. Cats don't bark, and purring is just something mysterious and relaxing. Cats also keep themselves clean, while dogs have a reputation for rolling in mud or worse. And cats were worshiped as gods! The Egyptian Mau were kept by Egyptians and worshiped as gods. So, even if the battle between cats and dog owners still rages on, us cat lovers know that the battle is already won and you doglovers just don't want to admit that.
Cats are the best pets!

Despite me agreeing that Cats are the best pets. I will argue against why CATS are the best pets. 1. Dogs are named as mankind's best friend. The phrase "Man's best friend" is a common quote relating to dogs. Fredrick the Great even said one of his Italian Greyhounds as a best friend. 2. Dogs can be trained easier than cats. According to petsworld.in, you can easily teach dogs how to do stuff, like not to eat people or do tricks. It is a very popular reason why dogs are over cats. 3. They can be trained to protect homes. Dogs can be trained even to protect homes, a cat cannot protect a home, since cats are very scared of strangers, so cats run away to hide. 4. Dogs listen more than cats. Dogs would tilt their heads, possibly a sign that the dog is listening to the owner. Cats in the other hand, ignore and take a nap. 5. Exercise! Like the 3rd reason, they can be trained to do exercise, even walking a dog is very common. Walking is a very good exercise, so dogs too listen when the owners tells the dog to do walking. 6. Cats have private baskets, preventing cats to go. Note: If the owner wants to take for a ride, a dog will sit next to the owner, while cats will not go with the owner or go on the private basket. That's 6 "short" reasons why dogs are better than cats, they tend to be referred as man's best friend, easier to train, they protect homes, they listen more than cats, they do exercise with the owners and dogs follow you. I conclude by saying you have some cat reasons but I got ideas, such as reducing a heart attack if you own a cat, that's a few reasons why I say dogs are better than cats. These are a few examples, expect more in the rounds coming.
Cats are the best pets!

Cats are more capable of loving us and forming close friendships with us, because cats have more oxytocin than dogs. The stereotype that cats are lazy is wrong. Cats are quite playful around the house, and will often spend its time chasing flies or yarn. If outside, they have a daily patrol around their territory. Some will walk for miles! Cats are quite good hunters and spend a lot of time doing it if possible. So cats are not lazy. And a survey revealed that there are more cats than dogs in the United states of America, as mentioned in my previous argument. Also, cats are able to land on their feet in less than 30 centimeters. Dogs are not able to. Cats can quickly realize danger, while dogs cannot, and that outrules your previous argument.
Pizza Rocks My World

I'll wrap this one up quick. First, my opponent states that I admit that I like pizza, but this is completely irrelevant. As you can see, the topic concerns whether or not my opponent likes Pizza. My opponent suggests that the history of pizza must be relevant to this debate, but does not provide any evidence for this statement, so you are free to dismiss it. My opponent demands that I explain why he would want to address anything I've said. My answer: It is the job of both debaters to address ALL objections made against their stance. I told my opponent to go about the method I had listed in my opening argument because it was one of the only ways to present credible objective evidence that would prove he liked pizza. My opponent has refused to do this and has refused to present any valid evidence in this round (for that matter), so he has gone without supporting his case. My opponent submits a definition of pizza, but this definition has nothing to do with what he is attempting to prove, so you're free to dismiss it. Next, my opponent attempts to shift the burden of proof by demanding that I prove that pizza isn't' good. First, this is misleading as the goal of the debate concerns whether or not my opponent really considers pizza to figuratively rock his world. Second, it is his burden to prove that it does. Furthermore, I've clearly outlined my stance in my opening argument. I am advocating that pizza MIGHT rock my opponent's world; I'm in favor of possibility whereas my opponent is in favor of certainty. My argument for this has been that there is a lack of empirical evidence to be observed in this channel where we are debating. Reason to vote con: My opponent has not defended his case and has basically produced irrelevant information in all of his rounds. At the same time, I provided reasons to support my stance. Thus, I urge you to vote con. Thank you.
Pizza Rocks My World

rite theyre, yu admit that you liek pizza. You sed that they look mouthwatering, which means that you like it. Actually, they doo haf significance, because this debate is about pizza and they r pics uv piza. Your wrong! Teh histery of pizza does have sumthing 2 do wif this debate, becuz iff theyre iz a history such as pizza's, then it muzt bee important. You say i didnot adress anyfing yu sed, welll y wuld eye want to? Yu told mii to go finnd yu, im sry, butt dats a wee bit creepy. Here iz a definition of Pizza from dictionary.com: Pizza: a flat, open-faced baked pie of Italian origin, consisting of a thin layer of bread dough topped with spiced tomato sauce and cheese, often garnished with anchovies, sausage slices, mushrooms, etc. Asss you can c, pizza iz actuilly pretty healthy for you, as it hass multiple food groops. Dairy(the cheese), Grain(the crust), Vegetables(mushrooms), Fruit(pinapples and sauce) Meat/Protein(Sausages, Pepperoni, Anchovies) Actually Mr. Imsogood instead of saying dat eye donut haff enugh proof to proove that pizza is good, why dont yu proove to mii dat it isnt, 4 iff you dunt, i win this debate, because you are not going aganst me (asss you admitted pizza's good) you are simplee asking me for my reesons without haffing any of ur own. End O' Storiee
Pizza Rocks My World

My opponent starts off by providing some pictures of pizza. Although these pictures look mouth watering, I must object by claiming that they hold absolutely no significance on whether or not Pizza rocks my opponent's world. My opponent then attempts to correct me by claiming that "pizza rocking his world" is a figure of speech, but if you've read round one, you know that I never even claimed that it was not a figure of speed. My argument was that it was my opponent's burden to prove he liked pizza and that merely claiming that he liked pizza would not be sufficient evidence for an online debate. My opponent then cites a wikipedia article that talks about the history of pizza, but this is yet again a citation which has nothing to do with the argument. Therefore, I urge you to dismiss it. Finally, my opponent closes by suggesting that I go read yet another wikipedia article which talks about pizza, but like the previous citations, this has nothing to do with the resolution. So basically, my opponent does not address my arguments (nor the actual topic for that matter), so you can extend everything I said in the previous round and dismiss everything my opponent said in this round. I now stand waiting for my opponent's final rebuttal.
Pizza Rocks My World

Greetings. First, I'd like to thank my opponent for starting this debate. Second, I'd like to request that voters vote on who provided better arguments. With that said, let us proceed: Ladies and gentleman, the burden of proof belongs to my opponent; my opponent must conclusively prove that pizza rocks his world. Now I know what you're thinking: Since he stated that pizza rocks his world, it must be true. However (and respectfully), your presumptions are misguided here. Him stating something about his personal life in a debate that directly concerns the validity of his personal life is not to be considered valid evidence. Besides, another reason such evidence is faulty is that I could merely counter it by claiming that I've met my opponent in real life and know that pizza does not rock his world. In both cases, you would have to take our words at face value. I believe that there is an objective means of solving my opponent's conundrum. He can drive to my location (which is listed in my profile)(I will set up further instructions via email) and I can have two or three of my campus psychologists mentally examine my opponent. They can examine him and conduct multiple tests that will lead them to the conclusion as to whether or not pizza really rocks my opponent's world. After they conduct their tests, they can posts their results online and you can confirm for yourselves that my opponent was involved in their study. Again, the burden of proof belongs to my opponent and nothing within his opening argument constitutes as evidence. As for my position, I'm going to advocate that pizza might rock my opponent's world. This position conflicts with my opponent's since my opponent is advocating certainty. I now stand ready for my opponent's first rebuttal.
We Should Legalize All Drugs

In response to the fact that you say a drug, such as marijuana, can be very harmful, I completely agree with you. I, myself, would never use these substances, but the thing is, it is the choice of the people to actually use these substances. The ones that do use the substances would provide the government with money, which we need desperately in a time of economic crisis. Additionally, I think that we also need to increase drug education in schools. If all drugs are legal, we need more education so the kids can make more decisions for themselves. There is also a medical aspect to this debate. The legalization of marijuana has cured thousands of people of cancer, and making it illegal would prevent these people from getting the proper medical treatment. Harder drugs like cocaine and heroin also serve as a great way to relieve pain, but they are slightly more addicting. Where cocaine is legal, in countries like Canada, dentists often put cocaine on their patient's gums to create a numbing sensation, easing the process of surgery for those who may be allergic to other numbing agents. Heroin also serves as a great painkiller for those who have gone through painful surgery or something of that nature. I know that abuse is a problem, but that is because doctors and drug companies try to make us buy more drugs to get us addicted and buy more. This can easily be fixed by banning all pharmacies and making them government owned. Finally, there are also hundreds of drugs that get people in trouble, but are actually not even bad for you. For example, ecstasy makes you see hallucinations. It's not even addicting, yet people are getting their lives ruined for only doing having a little bit and end up having to serve life in prison. The economy would see a great boost if all drugs were legal. Those who are addicted would give a lot of money to the government, reducing our taxes and making our country #1 in the world again.
Resolved: Progressive income taxes are just

I would like to simply argue the resolution on facts, evidence, statistics, etc. My opponent should feel free to include a broad moral idea, but I don't plan on using it in my arguments or connection what I am saying to a philosophical view of any kind. Also, I would like to provide an alternative definition of just, for I feel the one provided by Iddebater (Pro) strayed too far from simply the adjective "just". Just: based on right; rightful; lawful: (http://dictionary.reference.com...) I also congratulate my opponent on his previous win, and am anticipating high quality work from him. This challange will be enjoyable and intellectual.