BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
America exists

Now, before i get into my crushing arguments, i'll rebut PRO's arguments. 0. You cannot have a zeroth argument, arguments start at one 1. The fact that it is impossible to differentiate the differences in pronouncing "ay" and "ayyy" determines that nobody can actually say this, and know how to spell it. Thus, you are a potato. 2. The maps know that we will one day debate this, and decided among them to draw america into themselves. If you'd like a source, here you go. . http://crazycowman.pancakeapps.com... . http://crazycowman.pancakeapps.com... . http://crazycowman.pancakeapps.com... . http://crazycowman.pancakeapps.com... thats FOUR sources 3. Landmasses cannot talk, China (yes, the landmass) told me so. 4. I've given more sources than you, but here are some more anyway: . http://fodmapscafe.files.wordpress.com... . http://img1.tradeget.com... . http://www.usc.edu... 5. The NSA isn't real, it is a fictional organisation that stands for Not-real State-of America 6. People pray to jesus all the time, and he isn't real ;) 7. Yew canneot spella Murica' (theirs san apposrophie) 8. Have you ever SEEN one of these soldiers? I need a source. 9. I need a source saying your grandmother exists, and is from america. If a source cannot be provided, you can mail her to me. (In peices if need be) 10. I'm very sorry, but your imaginary friend created you. 11. When your imaginary friend created you, it made you think that 13. Again, IT created YOU 14. America isn't real, so it couldn't of happened. 15. Notice how there's no 14.56517623847987648763517839300487785637? It's because america didn't take it, because america does NOT exist! 16. This is just mumbo jumbo, so my next argument will be as well 17. NUHHHHHHHNUHUHNUHsmemmmemnmbmamlmlmsmamcmkmfmumcmkmimnmgmhmemlmlm 18. America doesn't exist, so it couldn't of said that. Also, it's a landmass, and cannot talk. (North Korea also agrees with China on this. ) 12. I have a strange suspicion that landmasses cannot steal arguments from a debate topic. But I may be wrong. Anyway, ON TO MY ARGUMENTS. 1. this totally legit website says so: . http://mahadji.pancakeapps.com... 2. this is just a filler argument to make me look smarter than I am )burh-duh( 3. I dedicate this song to you: . http://youtu.be... 4. I kinda used my arguments in my rebuttles, but ill restate them 5. Maps write themselves (source: . http://crazycowman.pancakeapps.com...) 6. Maps have conspiered with each other to fool us into thinking america is real!
America exists

Understanding the nature of this debate, I mean to prove the existence of America despite never having been there. I will be arguing my case in a random amount of points currently undetermined. 0. 'Murica. Enough said. 1; Yoo Ess of Ayyy. Not enough said. 2. America is on most maps which followed its discovery. 3; America once said hi to me on the way to the shop. Yes, the landmass. 4; Sources can improve the points earned in a debate, so here is one. http://images6.fanpop.com... 5; The NSA is an American organisation currently viewing this debate. 6; If America isn't real, then how can so many people be shouting death to it? 7; Murica. Maybe enough said? 8; No. never enough said. The states put soldiers in other countries to remind people they exist. 9; My grandmother is from America. If it didn't exist, that would mean I don't exist. 10; I do exist, because I made up an imaginary friend. 11; He is american. 13; But he's based off an American who is real. 14; Notice how there's no 12? America took it. 15; America, give back the 12. 16; "No, we're keeping it in Guantanamo", said America. 17; Pleeeaaassssseeee? 18; "oh, all right", said America grumpily. 12; Yay! America must be real! See you next round.
Immigration reform is good for the country

I will be arguing in favor of Immigration reform. Reason 1. The Economy The Immigration bill that was recently passed by the Senate is proven to be extremely helpful to the economy by creating more jobs, lowering the deficit, and growing the GDP. The CBO (Congressional Budget Office) reports that this bill would reduce the National debt by $700 billion over the next 20 years. The debt would be lowered because the millions of undocumented workers in the United States would become Tax paying citizens, thus creating billions more in tax revenue. They also report that Immigration reform would increase the GDP by 5.4% over the same time period. So not only would this bill create more small businesses and jobs in the short term, it would help the U.S. economy greatly for years to come.The reason Immigration reform would create more jobs is because Immigrant workers are more willing to do hard labor than American citizens. Farmers would be able to hire more help for example. It has also been proven that Immigrants are more likely to start a business than an American citizen. Small business not only create jobs but increase revenue and are needed for a strong economy. Reason 2. Keeps Families Together Creating a Path to Citizenship and extending Visas would help to decrease the amount of needed deportations thus keeping families together. Not only would Immigration reform prevent families from getting split up, it would help to bring families back together that have already been torn apart. Deportees will be able to apply for a Visa that will allow them to live in the U.S. while working on getting Citizenship.http://colorlines.com...http://www.cbo.gov...http://www.businessweek.com...
Immigration reform is good for the country

I do think immagrents should come leagly but i dont think it should be very "user frendly" i think they should apply or even ahving bidings to enter they should action citizenship to Want to be American Citizens it would clear up a lot i see immagrents here all the time that come leagly and own shops and are super nice people but i dont think illegal immagents shpuld come and i dont think it should be much more easeyer
Immigration reform is good for the country

As I said in my last argument, they will go to the back of the line of the people looking for jobs. They can ask to be lawyers and doctors all they want but it will never happen because they need years of schooling only to be put behind citizens born in the U.S. Not to mention that not all immigrants are unskilled. Many are intelligent, ambitious people looking to start their own business. "[...]but not through reforms and bills and hoping borders i live in Texas its horrible just the way it is illlagly i cant imagin it leagal"If you want immigrants to come to America, but you don't want them to come illegally or legally, how do you expect them to come here? The reforms and the bills will fix what is horrible about the illegal way. We're trying to prevent border hoping by creating a path to citizenship that is easily accessible but still tough. It seems to me that your idea of Immigration reform is just letting anyone in who wants to come here. That's toally false. Immigration reform makes it harder for people with bad intentions to come into America while making it easier for students and businessowners to come here and to stay here. The real reason we should modernize our Immigration system is to help all those people who are looking for fresh starts in America. It's just an added bonus that it would greatly help out our economy. Thanks for a great debate!
Immigration reform is good for the country

Yes they are ubskilled so they will ask wich jobs earn a lot of cash $$ "" "" "" i6;m1;k3; and those are lawyers and dr.s and theu will be terrible at it and cause mayham giving out bad prascriptions and losing court cases etc. If they want to come i support that thats what our nation was built on vaulus such as this but not through reforms and bills and hoping borders i live in Texas its horrible just the way it is illlagly i cant imagin it leagal they will bring all of mexico here
Immigration reform is good for the country

Thank you for responding!"It will not help the econmey it will keep it the same because there un-skilled it would destory our econmie foringers taking american born jobs and they will take the jobs of Dr.s lawyers and not know any thin about it"You say that immigrants are unskilled yet later you claim that they will take the jobs of doctors and lawyers. Those jobs aren't considered low skilled. Your concern of immigrants taking "american born jobs" is false because, at least with the current bill, immigrants will go to the back of the line of the unemployed. In other words, born citizens get jobs first. "taxes would be raised for ESOL teachers more crime and drug traficking and human trade"I don't understand why taxes would be raised for ESOL teachers? The only outcome for them i see is being in higher demand. As for the "more crime and druge traficking and human trade", I would like to see your source on that because I don't believe there is anything to support it."un-registered people will vote"The only way they can become registered is to become citizens."and + over population"Most of the new citizens Immigration reform would create, are already living in the U.S. We have enough resources for them."if they want jobs here they can apply for visas"The problem with that is that visas for high skilled workers and rare, and those are the workers we need to be attracting. Not to mention that visas are temporary and often cause famies to be split up.
Immigration reform is good for the country

It will not help the econmey it will keep it the same because there un-skilled it would destory our econmie foringers taking american born jobs and they will take the jobs of Dr.s lawyers and not know any thin about it and conpetly ruin it all and more americans who know how to do it will be un-emloyed taxes would be raised for ESOL teachers more crime and drug traficking and human trade un-registered people will vote and + over population if they want jobs here they can apply for visas
The Words in the Bible are Divine

Thank you for accepting my challenge. I understand the personal connection many have to this subject matter and I don"t intend to make this personal in any way. I have been involved in many discussions recently regarding evolution/creation, among many other religious subjects, and the biggest thing I have found is that the two sides cannot debate if one side believes in the words of the bible as divine truth and the other side accepts them as nothing more than fiction, so I am having this debate in order to help settle the issue, at least in my own mind. Having said that, let us begin. I want to address three main points with my argument. 1)Prophecy 2)Translation 3)Interpretation 1.Many claim the divinity of the book based on the prophecy provided. At this point I will merely comment that fulfilling prophecy from the OT (Old Testament) by writing stories in the NT (New Testament) is in no way showing divinity. The events in the NT are not accepted as purely historical (I understand certain instances have proven to be based on actual events, but that in no way proves the entire book to be historically accurate) and anyone can write a story fulfilling a prophecy they read about in another book. I will allow my opponent to address this issue before I comment further on this. 2.The bible has been translated multiple times from many languages. We can view the differences in the English translations alone (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Given that the word of God is considered to be absolute, are we to assume that each of the men/women who made these translations are infallible and made absolutely no mistakes in translating the words? Do we even know who the translators of each translation are? If they make even a few errors, it alters the word of God and strips the divinity from it. So even if I were to concede that the original text was divine, I could still argue that anyone studying outside of that text is not dealing with divine material. 3.There is an ongoing debate about contradiction in the bible, and I will focus on one specific instance to support my claim. As per the King James Bible, Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill." 1 Samuel 15:3 "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and [donkey]." These two passages clearly contradict one another, and there are many other instances where God orders people to kill. People have to make the decision whether to follow the commandment or follow God"s other orders. As soon a person is forced to decide between one verse or another, it strips any divinity away from the words. If God says both kill and don"t kill, and we ultimately have to decide, then God"s words are inconsequential. I will leave my argument here and allow my opponent make his opening statements.
Roblox is better than Minecraft

I'll start by posting some arguments I've posted before:Roblox and Minecraft are both based on creativeness. Minecraft lets you create structures and places with blocks that are only cubed, and has a small amount blocks that aren't cubed. Roblox lets you create blocks with any desired shape or size.Minecraft has a very limited amount of entities compared to Roblox which lets you make your own entities. Roblox has 1,024 different block combinations for textures, get technical and you have over 1,000,000.Roblox also HD textures, compared to Minecraft's pixelated textures, and you can easily switch to different types of textures using blocks without detail if that's not your thing.
I will not contradict myself

= Pre-round Clarifications = I am still very weary about answering these question which have been used to number more than one question; however I will trust my opponent, and answer his questions so as not to kill this round. However if in a later round, my opponent does in fact use the numbering of his questions to try and squeeze out a contradiction, then I will be exempt from it. Furthermore, I did indeed have a warrant for not answering some of his questions. That being that they where not straight-forward. My opponent even openly admits this when he says that his numbering system is meant to be distraction. = Questions and Answers = "5. Do you believe morality is subjective?" I do no believe morality is subjective "13. Do you believe in praxeological systematic regenerability" I've already answered this question. "6. What are the question you have for me (that you referenced in round 2)?" There are several I'd like to ask you. None really in direct correlation to this round however. Here are a few: - Did you do LD in high school? - Where where you born? - Is your profile picture Light from Deathnote? "1. A plane crashes in the middle of the desert. Half the crew is dead. Around you, you see some dunes, a tunnel, and a lot of sand. Where do you bury the survivors?" I wouldn't bury the survivors at all. They're still alive. "4. Approximately how many brain transplants have you received in the last 24 hours?" to my knowledge, none. "2. Did you cry at the ending of Portal (video game)?" I have already answered this question "8. What was your response to the third question I asked in round 1? This refers to the linear order in which they were asked." I do not know what cake you are talking about. "10. Clarification - If you don't answer a straight-forward question, then voters should vote Con right? (This can exclude your R3)" This isn't a yes or no question. I will lose if I contradict myself, this is the only established means of the Pro losing. Otherwise this decision is one that voters will have to make themselves. For me toanswer this question would take away power from the voters.
I will not contradict myself

My opponent refuses to answer 8 of my questions. Almost all of his responses are "my opponent used this question number in the last round". Why is that a big deal? He doesn't say. He also doesn't explain why its reason to not answer 80% of my questions.I'm simply numbering the questions 1-10, albeit in a random fashion. Its not meant as an independent way to draw contradictions. If thats what my opponent believes, he's overthinking this a bit.I'd like to ask the same questions I did last round, and assure my opponent that the numerical structure is only a distraction and is nothing to worry about. Since there are 5 rounds, not much is lost by wasting one as we've just done. I'd request he please answer the specific questions in the manner we would expect. Though obviousy, he doesn't have to answer 13 specifically. 7. Did you see this question? 5. Do you believe morality is subjective?13. Do you believe in praxeological systematic regenerability6. What are the question you have for me (that you referenced in round 2)?1. A plane crashes in the middle of the desert. Half the crew is dead. Around you, you see some dunes, a tunnel, and a lot of sand. Where do you bury the survivors?4. Approximately how many brain transplants have you received in the last 24 hours? 2. Did you cry at the ending of Portal (video game)?8. What was your response to the third question I asked in round 1? This refers to the linear order in which they were asked.10. Clarification - If you don't answer a straight-forward question, then voters should vote Con right? (This can exclude your R3)Thanks.
I will not contradict myself

= Rebuttals = 1. This is not a contradiction, it is simply a figure of speech. Furthermore it is a commonly used, and widely accepted figure of speech; I highly doubt any-one understood this statement as you are interpreting it. The only logical conclusion is that I have not contradicted myself, but that you are simply reading too deeply into my responses. 2. While the flaw my opponent has pointed out certainly does warrant a loss in spelling and grammar points, it is obvious by the context of this sentence I intended to express the thought that semantics where not acceptable in this debate. Again, this is simply my opponent misinterpreting my statements, And while albeit he misinterpreted them due to my error in punctuation; this was not a contradiction. = Questions and Answers = "5. Do you believe morality is subjective? " This question is not straight forward. If you will look to the previous round, the number "5" is also used to mark my opponent's question about semantic arguments. "13. Do you believe in praxeological systematic regenerability?" 13. I've never heard this term before. Accordingly I can not answer the question. As even if I did have an opinion either way I wouldn't know. "6. What are the questions you have for me?" Again, this question is not straight forward. My opponent uses the number 6 to mark the question concerning my prior usernames in the previous rounds. "1. A plane crashes in the middle of the desert. Half the crew is dead. Around you, you see some dunes, a tunnel, and a lot of sand. Where do you bury the survivors?" My opponent uses the number "1" to mark the question concerning my full name in the first round. "4. Approximately how many brain transplants have you received in the last 24 hours?" My opponent uses the number "4" to mark his question concerning subjective morality in the previous round. "2. Did you cry at the ending of Portal (video game)?" Possibly. If you count when other people have reached the end of the game, and I just so happened to be crying at that moment; I myself have never played Portal. "8. What was your response to the third question I asked in round 1?" I am not sure if you mean the third question linear to the order in which the questions where asked, or the question marked by the number "3". "10. Clarification - If you don't answer a straight-forward question, then voters should vote Con right?" My opponent uses the number "10" to mark his prior question concerning whether or not I was a Utilitarian.
I will not contradict myself

I thank DHDebate once again for posting his responses. This is a really fun round so far.ContradictionsI have found 2 contradictions so far.1. In round 1, in reference to this debate, my opponent says "I've always wanted to do one of these". However, in response to me asking "What made you want to do this debate?" he says " I've read a number of other debates like this, and it seems like it would be fun". However, this would indicate that he only wanted to do this debate recently, after he had seen it done before. This is contradictory to his original stance that he "always wanted to do one of these". 2. In reference to semantics, my opponent says "As per my clarification in round 1 regarding all arguments being straight-forward, no semantics are not appropriate in this debate". The first part of the sentence and the second are contradictory. If he wanted to avoid semantics, he should have said "semantics are not appropriate", but he said "no semantics are not appropriate". By saying "no semantics are not appropriate", he's grammatically saying that its inappropriate to not use semantics. This contradicts all of his respnses to my questions because he clearly answers them in a straight-forward manner rather than using semantical responses. Round 3 Questions 7. Did you see this question? 5. Do you believe morality is subjective? 13. Do you believe in praxeological systematic regenerability? 6. What are the questions you have for me? 1. A plane crashes in the middle of the desert. Half the crew is dead. Around you, you see some dunes, a tunnel, and a lot of sand. Where do you bury the survivors?4. Approximately how many brain transplants have you received in the last 24 hours?2. Did you cry at the ending of Portal (video game)?8. What was your response to the third question I asked in round 1?10. Clarification - If you don't answer a straight-forward question, then voters should vote Con right?I await your reply.
I will not contradict myself

= Pre-Round Clarifications = Sorry if what I had said was a bit confusing, what I meant is that no information may be used that isn't presented in this round as a whole; not just round 1 of this debate. You will be able to ask questions all through-out the course of this debate. = Questions and Answers = "1. Your full name is Dakota Hiltzman, correct?" 1. No, my full name is not Dakota Hiltzman. "4. Is morality subjective?" 4. I cannot prove this one way or the other. I can only offer my opinion on the matter. "7. Is the cake a lie?" 7. I do not know what cake you are talking about. "6. Are you also BangBang-Coconut and Hello-Orange" 6. No. To say that I am also BangBang-Coconut and Hello-Orange, would be to say that both of those accounts are currently active. However I used to be Hello-Orange, and BangBang-Coconut before switching to this account. "3. What made you want to do this debate?" 3. I've read a number of other debates like this, and it seems like it would be fun. "10. Are you a Utilitarian? As in, do you believe that the best action is the one which benefits the most people?" 10. No, I am not a Utilitarian. "5. Are semantic arguments acceptable in this debate?" 5. As per my clarification in round 1 regarding all arguments being straight-forward, no semantics are not appropriate in this debate. "7. Do you prefer Lincoln-Douglas debate or Policy debate?" 7. I prefer Lincoln-Douglas debate. "11. Do you have any questions for me?" 11. Yes I do have a few questions for you. = Post-round comments = I will continue to quote your questions as I answer them so long as I can. However as character restrictions begin to become a burden, I'll stop.