BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Illegal Immigrants

Forget about that. If all illegal immigrants are deported we won't have any problem. And for immigration entrance policy. It should be an extremely hard, rigorous, and patriotic test. In my opinion. An extreme few should be coming in. Less than 250 or less per year. If they commit a felony within the first 5 years of staying. They should be deported and never allowed back. We should also give about a 65% disadvantage to people from big terrorist hubs in the Middle East and other watchlist countries. Such as Russia, North Korea, Somalia etc. America shouldn't be policing the world and a scapegoat option for people in other situations. This is my policy.
Illegal Immigrants

This is a rather strange argument for Pro to make. The issue at hand is whether or not the immigration policy should be the way that it currently is, not whether or not immigrants are aware of what the policy is and therefore what will happen if they are caught. I don't see the relevance of the latter in deciding the former. And in any case, it is not always true. Many immigrants gave up everything only after being told by the state department that their visas were being accepted and specifically being told that any future changes on Trump's policies would not revoke their visas. Then they were later told that their visas weren't being accepted after all, thanks to the Trump administration switching and changing the terms of the travel ban three separate times [1]. How is anyone to keep up with that, and with so much at stake? [1] https://www.nytimes.com...
A human is a beast inside but religion or Rules tames him.

still misinterpreting I say. The nazis believed what they where doing was right in gods eyes. And who says God picks sides? you've just contradicted yourself. Secondly you're lying for saying women are treated like "queens". Thousands are dying now for the reasons I've pointed out. GIve me evidence that says otherwise. You have not provided any information on how the bible gives us ethics, you base your argument on non-sense, rather than factual evidence to credit it. Give me statistics, an example. The more religious people reduces crime rate in an area (making that up). where are your facts rather than personal experience. I find it kind of ironic you find totalitarianism evil when your God holds that grip. -He has a list of things he does not want you to do(The 1st amendment completely disregards the first five amendments) -He has a place where you'll burn for ever if you do not follow the things he does not want you to do. -He can convict you of thought crime -He watches your every move for every minute of every day -He is all perfect, all wise, all knowing,and all powerful. -He loves you. Thats the perfect world you imagine. Maybe man keeps killing himself because he is still stuck up on bronze age superstition.
A human is a beast inside but religion or Rules tames him.

Religion always give the lesson of peace,love and care. These are the people who make alteration . Don't judge religion by bad followers. Religion shall not to be blamed. Let me ask you, do any religion put war ? No; religion give the lesson of peace and advise to create an environment to live in peace . But if war imposed ,Then defend and save peoples and society. Religion do not encourage Racism,Gays,sexism but always give the lesson to respect other religion. If Nazi say "God is with us" Then the God was with them? No. The War was won by America and its allies. Women are highly respected in middle east and treated like queen. . And if I accept that they don't have rights, on the basis of some news, then is it written in religion? Again I will mentioned that people are not doing exactly what is written in religion. Human being shall be blamed not religion. How shall I accept that we were doing good until birth of religion? instead we start doing good by the birth of religion. If you ask the religious view of totalitarianism then I will say it is totally wrong. In the year 395 the western world changed forever. At the request of Church leaders, the Roman state unleashed a totalitarian reign of terror unlike anything the ancient world had ever seen. Laws were passed that enshrined Christianity as the official and sole religion of the Roman Empire. All other religions were outlawed and practitioners of them were killed or severely persecuted. Pagan temples were torn down by both temporal authorities and mobs incited by Christian officials. Pagan priests were killed by mob violence, and storehouses of ancient knowledge, such as the library in Alexandria, were destroyed. Religion do not say to do like that. It is not written in religion . the truth is that it says respect every one ,whatever religion people got. The truth of religious rules and regulation is running in the books of law on which nation are progressing . But the deviation causes the problem. War, injustice, all the criminality are symptom of that. . We have killed more of our own kind than any other animal on earth. We have destroyed more ecosystems than any other animal. We have made species extinct more than any other animal. Is all that written in religion. Unlike any animal on earth man has created things never found in nature that kills. No animal on earth other than man has created bombs, poisonous chemicals, bio-toxins, cars, planes, heavy machinery and all the other billions of things that kill directly or indirectly. T That is why I call him beast. It is utmost important to control that beast and without religion you can not. Best regards
A human is a beast inside but religion or Rules tames him.

I never said nurture was religion but may have a relation ship with it. Environment is how we are raised. However by your claim there cant be any morals without being raised in a religious environment. I find that hard to believe, if anything religion has done more harm than good in a moral perspective. -Keeping calm, For thousands of years religion has waged war claiming they're the right one, still happening today -How is religion even tolerant, Gays, racism, other religions, sexism, sex, and more. Maybe human nature is compassionate and caring, religion takes nice average people to do awful things in which looking at the context of the religion its not bad. Look at the nazi party- On their belt buckle "GOD WITH US" actually believing what they were doing was right in gods eyes, If you don't believe my claim is right just type in hitler and christianity. Women have no rights in the middle east they cant free think, nor the right to choose their own religion, a slave to their fathers and husbands. they really have no rights if they contradict these laws against them the will be stoned/ death. Lastly tracing the human genome we've realized that the human race has been here for 200,000+ years and we seemed to have done fine for about 170,000 years until the birth of civilization and religion What is you political view on totalitarianism?
A human is a beast inside but religion or Rules tames him.

You already agreed that the religion which you called nurture has the role in structuring our morals. what our biology says I will explain to you below . Human structure the right or wrong with his own personal perceptions which suits him. Only religion or rules developed by highest authority ,who know the psychology of human, can give him the exact idea of right or wrong. Altruistic traits does not change his inner cruelty, He is doing for his own survival. Religion is teaching us to have strong society and help each other so that each one shall be equal. Religion never teaches that slavery is Ok but give respect,help and work on equality basis. Now let me explain to you the Biological nature of human being. Human is a conjugal Beast, meaning for his consistence coupling, he may go for rape or kill. Religion and rules of life will teach him the lesson of cool and calm. Human is a political beast , meaning imposing of wars on small country to rob the economy of others. . Million off human beings, have died in wars over the last century. Still Slaughtering is going on. Religion and rules will bring peace. Human is a mimetic beast. And he loves to use his imagination for destruction. . Cruelty and destruction is basically in human nature. We are our own worst enemy. The Dual nature of mind make human to be more toward negativity and religion and rules move him toward positive side. The human mind has a dual nature: on the one hand, we are ferocious, dangerous animals who regularly commit terrible atrocities against our own kind, on the other, we have a deep aversion to killing, Even while you are reading my lines, somebody, somewhere is thinking to destroy others. It applies to countries and individual .We are our own worst enemy. Human being uniquely lethal nature makes him a beast. The control is only in religion. your move.
A human is a beast inside but religion or Rules tames him.

I think you're talking about the nature vs nurture debate, claiming human actions are all due to the environment (nurture) he/ she grows up in. I would disagree, I believe that the biology and the environment both play a role in how we structure our morals. Humans know the difference between right and wrong... well at least most of us do, we portray altruistic traits because doing so benefits our own survival and the better for society its a darwinian trait to be altruistic. Not only can altruism be traced to human but also to other animals. For example, a cuckoo bird will lay an egg in the nest of a host bird of another species, usually one with similar-looking eggs to its own. The host bird then looks after the egg as if it were its true offspring. While some say this happens because other birds aren"t able to distinguish cuckoo eggs, others have shown that cuckoos periodically return to nests where they"ve left their eggs to see if all is well. If their young are still there, they will leave the nests alone. If not, cuckoos will destroy the nests and kill any of the host birds" eggs and chicks that happened to survive. So taking care of a cuckoo"s offspring may just be a way for a host bird to protect what she has left. You may have noticed in the previous example that was not pure altruism. Pure altruism may not even be possible because even by helping one another we will expect something from the other person consciously or not also further developing our ego. - survival. Religious morals vary An example: Religion once claimed slavery was ok. what are your thoughts?
Should the word athiest be updated within the dictonary.

I NEVER said that Atheists DO, I always said that they don't, I said that the statement that they DO is false, "Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities." BOOM!
Should the word athiest be updated within the dictonary.

And still you can't or refuse to see what you have said. Have you any consept of cause and effect of past, presant and future tence of any human language or don't educated idiots get taught that any more? you typed was this not you or was this another? This is true, as Atheists do NOT believe in any type of omnipotent figure. So you just updated the dictonary within your own personal allution. Then you done it again with Atheists DO believe in higher beings, they don't, that's why they're called Atheists and then No with if it ain't broken don't fix it and then Atheism's dictionary definition is 100% accurate! please explain how 100% accurate the dictionary is with "or lacks belief" Atheist; a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
Should the word athiest be updated within the dictonary.

So you lose with all that you have pointed out. Atheists do NOT believe in any type of omnipotent figure. Atheism is the absence of belief in omnipotent beings. and No. with If it ain't broke, don't fix it. maintain your car your body but pride and the lack of humilty won't let you maintain your own so call higly educated brain will it. GAME OVER.
Should the word athiest be updated within the dictonary.

https://www.youtube.com...... Maybe the word Athiest needs to be updated within all dictionaries to. Athiests do believe in some kind of existance creator. What sort of personal allution is still in process until a later date. Instead of Atheist; a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. Or even drop disbelieves out of the explaination all together.
which is more popular performing arts like plays, movies and music (con) or visual art (pro)

'Kath...hold up a minute' that is Lord_Starscream to you. Definitions- The conventional form of visual arts is paintings drawings and ceramics. Now does food art coming in your mind before these when visual arts is being said? I'll post my definitions from next time though. I probably have lost this debate already. I didn't say museums were boring, but they are certainly boring compared to the great movie theater. The famous artwork is expensive, why do they come in news otherwise. And when a child makes that sketchy drawing and parents smile, they do it to please the child, they actually find the artwork very unattractive and unskilled. Also making a movie or anime pleases parents even more, and singing or playing music can be praised as well. Although visual art is present everywhere like Pro says, it is not exactly acknowledged everywhere. Therefore I can try and add more things to performing arts. One could be television, which has no other form to match its popularity. Even dance can said to be a performing art. How can visual arts have more popularity than these?
which is more popular performing arts like plays, movies and music (con) or visual art (pro)

Kath... hold up a minute. You just rebutted in round 2, so I will now be forced to debate in round 3, as my previous statement said. First of all, Pro Tip: post all of your definitions before the debate, and don't just expect people to share your definition if you don't post it. Then you have two incoherent sentences that I don't know if they should connect. Generally if you want to make your sentences flow, you should make it more obvious, and read them out loud to make sure they flow smoothly. Then you talk about how boring museums are (I said the same thing) and talk about how popular music and movies are. However, visual art covers a lot more areas than just what you see in museums. I ask you Kathy to rebut my arguments in a way besides defining what visual arts are after I have already presented my arguments. Also, paintings and the forms of visual art that you are more familiar with aren't all expensive. Parents are often very proud and pleased with a drawing that their child gave them for free, and all that costs is a piece of paper and a box of crayons.
which is more popular performing arts like plays, movies and music (con) or visual art (pro)

My opponent mentions someone of 'Kathy'. This is for humor or what? Pro talks about visual art being present everywhere, such as food and table designs. But I talk about the main form, which is painting and sculpturing. Furthermore, then like you said even performing arts would fall in visual art, hence there shall be no reason to debate. Blindness is a symptom everyone would want to avoid due to high amount of visual stimuli received. But I talk about the visual ARTS, which is mostly painting, coloring and sculpturing. Performing arts include plays, movies and music, which are the extremely popular forms of art. Visual art has only museums that people see, and over-expensive paintings that common people can't buy. On the other hand, performing arts is well known by people, is cheap for 1 person but wields large profit when many people see it, so both the sides are pleased. No common man can buy a piece of artwork though. So, due to its compatibility with the audience it has reached new heights of popularity, while the arts have not progressed on such a wide scale.
which is more popular performing arts like plays, movies and music (con) or visual art (pro)

Okay I am assuming that this debate has no structure whatsoever due to the fact that there are only three rounds, and Kathy did not bring any opening argument to the table in round one. I will write my opening argument in Round 1. I propose that Kathy write her opening argument in round two without any rebutting of what I said in Round 1. I will use my round 2 to rebut Kathy's opening argument, Kathy uses Round 3 to rebut my opening argument, and I will forfeit my round 3. If you accept this, say so in the beginning of your next turn. If you do not show any indication of your decision, and rebut anything of my opening argument in round 2, then I will not forfeit round 3 and you will be at a disadvantage because not only will I get the last word, but an extra round to debate as well. You have been warned. This topic is very close to home as I am an artist myself, specializing in space ceramics (a form of visual art). I have many pieces featured in museums around the world, and even one in the Louvre. I admit that much of the population finds going to museums and such very boring. However, there are very many other forms of visual art very popular. This is because essentially everything is visual art. Tables are visual art and are very important to today's society, and are pretty popular considering that many people love eating and you place your food on a table. Food itself is a visual art. Just go on Instagram and search #delicious. Thousands of pictures of plates of food that many people find aesthetically pleasing can be found. Virtually everything that humans create is visual art, so all you have to do is take everything that humans find popular, subtract performing art, and you get the popularity of visual art, which is higher than performing art, because performing art takes up a smaller fraction of what humans find popular. Heck I could even argue that performing art is visual art itself, but I won't due to my excellent sportsmanship. Humans themselves are visual art, forged in the beauty that is the uterus. And look at just how aesthetically pleasing and popular humans are. http://blogs.psychcentral.com... . Also, nature is a visual art created by the lord Jesus Christ, and the Great One. No, not Wayne Gretzky. Calm down Canadians. No, not Daunte Culpepper. But he was pretty great. I'm talking about God with a capital G. Many people enjoy going out for a hike and being in nature. Reddit's 19th most popular sub-reddit is /r/Earthporn, a subreddit entirely devoted to beautiful nature scenes. How awesome is this? http://imgur.com... Would you rather experience that, or watch a movie? Thanks for your time Kathy.
Winnie the Pooh is part of the illuminati

Well, we all know that Winnie the pooh loves honey. This could affiliate him with Yo Yo Honey Singh, the music producer ( among other things ). Well, Yo Yo Honey himself has been rumoured to be part of the illuminati. Illuminati hand gestures, among other signs, has been our proof. This proves that both Winnie the Pooh AND Yo Yo honey Singh are part of the illuminati, and we must get rid of them. Thank You
Winnie the Pooh is part of the illuminati

This is fascinating but if you are referring to Eeyore the donkey I find this highly unlikely that you were talking to him on the phone as he has no means of operating a phone, nor does he have any possessions in his home other than an old honey pot and a broken balloon. His house also has no utilities and was reconstructed by Winnie the Pooh and Piglet. https://en.wikipedia.org... Also I was not referring to Christopher Robin the character from the series but rather Christopher Robin of the British Secret Service that over looks international matters involving fraud and corruption in other countries. As you seem to be well educated in schizophrenia and claim to be talking to an imaginary character that has no means of operating nor accessing a telephone, I can only make the assumption that you are possibly suffering from schizophrenia and are in a state of denial, currently struggling with your unconscious mind to accept the truth. Your perceptions of reality have affected your ability to judge and your delusions are surfacing in this discussion. Treatment is available however and you should consult your family doctor right away for your best options. Disney did not create Winnie the Pooh but rather purchased the rights to him in the 1960's, hence altering his designs and facial features. I still stand behind the conclusion that Winnie the pooh would not be able to create the complex hand gestures involved with illuminati ritual due to his lack of hands and having only mere stumps. Medical conditions put aside, I do not believe my opponent has provided significant evidence to prove Winnie the Pooh as part of the illuminati, although it is impossible to know the truth. If you truly believe him to be part of this devious scandal do not let my evidence sway you from uncovering the truth!
Winnie the Pooh is part of the illuminati

I am currently talking to Eyore on the phone, and he has revealed to me some pretty compelling selling cases. One of the dark side of the story of Winnie the Pooh is that the characters represent all a different mental disorder. For Christopher Robin, it's schizophrenia. This complex biochemical brain disorder affects a person's ability to determine what is reality and what is not. This proves that although Chrisopher Robin is a very lovable character, what he says isn't always true. And Disney woudn't have drawn a round nose because otherwise Winnie would have looked too much like Mickey Mouse. As for Richard Nixon's story, as you said yourself, he is know for being a crook. I highly doubt that he would create these Illuminati Stories. You say that he created the conspiracy to distract the public, but from what iv'e seen, Nixon was the one that was framed. The four burglars at Watergate were part of the illuminati, and they framed the president because they knew that he was going to reveal Illuminati secrets to the CIA. Yo Yo Honey is not an American himself, and if the American gourverment really wanted to distract the public, I firmly believe that they would convince a more well known celebrity, as Yo Yo Honey is not very famous in the United-States. As for Gandolf the Great, it seems that you are right. But still, I encourage you to read other responses to that poll, because they are very convincing and full of impressing proof. This is my last argument, and I hope that you and everyone reading this will believe me, so that we can beat Pooh bear before it is too late. As for my adversary, @Simple_Logic, I would like to thank you for being here and willing to debate this issu. In any way that this may end, I wish you the best. Thank you.
Winnie the Pooh is part of the illuminati

I am currently talking to Christopher Robin on the phone, he has some very interesting things to say about this scandal. Christopher has confirmed that Winnie the Pooh's nose is actually round. The reason Disney has drawn him with a triangular shaped nose is because they are actually funded by the American government to do so. He states that Richard Nixon in 1970 had a clever idea of creating an illuminati conspiracy to distract very observant individuals like yourself from government scandals, such as the watergate scandal. This proved very effective at distracting the public eye from real world corruption. I can not say much about Yo Yo Honey but I believe he is also funded by the American government to use illuminati hand gestures to distract the public eye. Christopher Robin also states that as Winnie the Pooh has no hands and only mere stumps it would not be possible for him to make these complex hand gestures. As for the claim of Gandalf the Great, I am only familiar with Gandalf the Grey and Gandalf the White. This Gandalf the "Great" as he so calls himself must be an impostor, and therefore we can not trust his word. As for Christopher Robin, he has never lied, while Richard Nixon is a known crook. I hope this is not too traumatizing for you, I know I am going to have trouble sleeping tonight.