BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Religion is not Important

I looked up religion at dictionary.com as well. I found this: noun 1. belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny at BBC religion was described as this: Religion can be explained as a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. With these two definitions it means that everyone has some sort of 'religion'. However, it doesn't mean that it is important. In fact, it is often said that people turn to religion when they are in trouble. Why would you turn to religion and not God? Religion is just another way that the world can define you, that they can look at you. If we were to get rid of religion, all we would have left are our God, or gods to worship. People put themselves into different categories when they call themselves "Christians", "Catholics", "Baptists", "Hindi", etc. Why do we have to do that? Why can't we just say that we trust in ......, we have faith in...... we follow..... By the BBC terms, if you don't have religion, you don't have morals. Which we all know is not true. Atheists have morals. They just don't believe in a god. Religion doesn't define you, it doesn't help you, it doesn't take care of you. (Depending on what/who you believe in) God helps you, God takes care of you, God loves you. Religion is the world's way of describing you, not God's.
Religion is not Important

Is religion important? Dictionary.com has 7 definitions for the word important. My argument will function around these definitions. (1) 1: “of much or great significance or consequence:” Religion has been and still is of great significance. More than 80% of the world is religious.(2) Pretty significant. It is also of great consequence. Many wars have been or are being fought in the name of religion. 2. “mattering much (usually followed by to):” Same stat shows that religion matters to more than 80% of the world. Obviously Religion matters much. 3. “entitled to more than ordinary consideration or notice:” Religion is a large part of culture and does receive more than ordinary consideration or notice. 4. “prominent or large:” Again, 80% of the world shows how prominent Religion is in the world. 5. “of considerable influence or authority, as a person or position:” Religion has considerable influence, or authority over the 80% of people who follow a religion. 6. “having social position or distinction, as a person or family: “ The Pope, or Dalai Lama show the tremendous social distinction a religion can give a person. Religion itself gives social position in many places in the world. 7. “pompous; pretentious:” Ever hear of Mardi Gras. Pretty pompous, wouldn’t you say. Conclusion: Having observed all 7 definitions of the word important, it is clear that religion fits all of them. As such, religion is important. The resolution is negated. (1) http://dictionary.reference.com... (2) http://www.washingtontimes.com...
Religion is not Important

Religion is not important for many reasons. First of all, most religions agree that there is one God. However, each religion hates another religion just because they do not believe exactly the same things as their religion does. If you all serve the same God, then religion is the only thing that sets you apart. Also, God doesn't just love one religion, He loves anyone that will 'take up the cross and follow Him.' How can religion be important if that is true?
Religion is not Important

Pro says “You must have missed something when you were reading from God's word. God does not categorize us into religion. People do that. God loves all of us equally, regardless of religion, status, or income. Religion is not important because you will have God's love either way. ” Acts 11:26 “And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. ” James 1:27 “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. ” It seems that the Bible teaches that disciples of Christ are to be called Christians, as well as advocates for “true religion. ” Also pro’s definition of important being “having God’s love” is not from the dictionary, rather it is my opponents own definition. Pro says “Why would you need to be labeled with a religion if you are reading from the Bible that not only tells you how to love God, serve God, or follow God, but how to be like Him as well? ” I am not contending that people need religion… rather that it is important. Conclusion:My opponent has not disputed any of the definitions of important. Therefore, “Having observed all 7 definitions of the word important, it is clear that religion fits all of them. As such, religion is important. The resolution is negated.
the rights of infants in the womb should sometimes trump the rights of the mother

i am not going to dignify your semantics with a debate. i will only say. a wise man does not look to twist words, and premises, and assumptions, when it's not warranted. that's a matter of good judgment. sometimes it's so unclear what's being asked for debate, but that is not the case. furthermore, a wise man knows, every statement has assumptions in them, and to debate them without looking at the intent involved misses the point. you can always find unstated assumptions in anything anyone says and so you should only question them when it's justified, warranted as mentioned earlier. like half the people here missing the point and engaging in semantical debates, you obviously lack good judgment in that regard too. so, this debate is over with.
the rights of infants in the womb should sometimes trump the rights of the mother

The rights of infants in the womb should sometimes trump the rights of the mother. Since you decided not to bring definitions, I will. Infant: "a child during the earliest period of its life, esp. before he or she can walk; baby" Sometimes: "on some occasions; at times; now and then" Trump: "to excel; surpass; outdo" Dictionary. com My position is going to be that "The rights of infants in the womb should always trump the rights of the mother. " Firstly, you have not stated what "sometimes" means and what situations "sometimes" applies to. Secondly, you said "the mother" implying one mother, and "infants" implying multiple of babies about to be born (because they are infants). So therefore it would have to be twins or more. Twins are a scientific rarity. They are more common nowadays because there are more people. They should be kept alive even if they are close to dying, mostly because of the condition they have. Another thing to look at is morally, "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few" ~ Spock The needs of twins should outweigh the needs of a single mother.
the rights of infants in the womb should sometimes trump the rights of the mother

at least later in the pregnancy... sometiems infant's rights should trump. a mother assumed the risk of pregnancy, and then, she assumed the risk of carrying the child for many months. an argument could be made that earlier in the pregnancy she forfeits her right to not be pregnant by assuming that risk. much like... if you cause an accident, and the victim's body is somehow temporarily attachedk to your body, hypothetically speaking... a reasonable person would say the tortfeasor must at least wait a few months until they can be separated. that analogy could be extended to later in pregnancy, and then topped off with the fact that she didn't bother to terminate when it was more debatable whether it's a person or not. (if it's debatable, who should decide? the governmnet? why not the mother who is more proximite?) later in the pregnancy though, it's not debatable about personhood. if there's no significant health or life or very very significant emotional problems, aborting the infant in the womb is no different than aborting it when it is born. the only difference, that the mother is hindered, is trumped by the risks she assumed, and that leaves nothing to justify abortion later in the pregnancy if an exception doesn't apply. i think the focal point of the debate would be the assumption of the risk stuff but. so.. at least sometimes, even if these times are rare, an infant in the womb rights should trump the mothers. i'm not talking legally btw, only morally. i will debate you on the legality in another thread if you want.
The border fence.

1b & 2: I understand your argument, however I still feel it would put even more unnecessary tension on the relationship if a wall was built. We do have the right but I do not believe we should excersize it. 1c: The intention of the wall may be for good but I believe it would be seen as oppressive, just as the Berlin Wall was. I think it would just make a lot of people angry on both sides, as instead of being seen as a security measure it would be seen as an oppressive force, a barrier, or a cage. 3a: Though more may be seen as resistant, the number is still very small. Many immigrants come here and are resistant to melt in to America, especially Uzbekis and other Middle Easterners. I do not think the portion of Hispanics is unequal to the portion of other immigrating countries; but again, we have gone off topic! Immigration is not the issue, the fence is. 3b: I agree completely. Vigilantes do not help when taking direct action, which is why we need properly trained border patrolmen. The cost, however, would be very high between training, wages, and upkeep of the fence-- I think building such a fence and hiring all the security is unnecessary compared to other things we should be spending our money on. 3c: Yes, they should, and if the government realized how much these millions of people could be contributing in taxes, maybe they would be a bit lax on their at least temporary citizenship requirements and let these people work here and pay taxes like a normal citizen. 4: Only would-be illegal Mexican immigrants from crossing at that border-- there is still the problem of boating, which is how many Guatemalans get into the Midwest. I feel that the border fence, despite the intentions, would only be seen as an oppressive force to people. In general, nobody likes to be kept out. Mexico would view it as a blow to them, Mexicans would view it as our government being oppressive, and it wouldn't stop drug runners from tunnelings, terrorists or illegal immigrants from boating here, and it wouldn't help our country's foreign relations at all. We continue to mutilate our foreign relations and making our neighbors angry is a very bad idea. We should not spend so much money on this fence and its upkeep which will have only negative connotations, and instead we should look for a way to encourage illegal immigrants to become citizens and increase jobs by giving more job to border patrol men.
The border fence.

1a: Worker visas could lead to a sort of second-class citizen, and I don’t think any decent person would want that. I do however agree that a streamlining of the immigration process is a good idea. 1b: I favor both the fence and an increased number of border guards, a comprehensive approach to the border. 1c: The Berlin wall was to keep people in as an act of oppression. The border fence is simply the front line in our security measures. And should be patrolled by an ample security force with full government backing to uphold the law. 2:As I stated before we have a national right to secure our border, so does Mexico. And they have no grounds for complaint if we decide to exercise our national right. 3a: I didn’t say all illegal immigrants are resistant to assimilation. However more of them by are resistant then say the German immigrants of the 1800s, or the legal Mexicans of today. 3b: They are only vigilantes if they take direct action; otherwise they are simply doing their civic duty. I do not condone private citizen taking direct action against illegal aliens that is the job of the border guards. 3c: Perhaps, but that does not excuse them from paying taxes just like everyone else. If they want to send the money fine, but they have to contribute like the good citizens they claim to be. 4:A fence separating Mexico from the US, would keep (Would be) be illegal aliens on their side and away from any possible violence on the north. People have come to America from numerous backgrounds, many of them cruel and oppressive, but they did it the right way, and our southern neighbors should follow their example. Yes the immigration laws could stand a good revamping, but they are (for better or worse) the law of the land and immigrants can demonstrate their respect for their new country by following them.
The border fence.

1a. Which is exactly why we should make it easier for immigrants to get temporary visas and become citizens. 1b. I wouldn't call the tunnels laughable; though the boarder patrol comes up on them often, many tunnels have been in existence for a long time or were before they were stopped. Increasing boarder patrol is much more important than putting up a fence. 1c. I agree that the boarder is the easiest way to enter, but I also think that a fence is the least effective way of stopping terrorists from entering. It's just a wall that will become exactly like the Berlin wall, doing much more harm than good. 2: I am not debating over Mexico's government, but the relationship between the two nations. It is important as Mexico is directly below us to at least maintain a decent relationship, and a fence WOULD NOT help. 3a. I don't agree with you on what illegal immigrants want. In St. Louis, we have a lot of illegal immigrants and I have met many of them when I worked for a local clinic as a translator and also a Mexican grill; these immigrants struggled to fit in and embraced the English language, however the English language is one of the most difficult to learn and so they were very slow going at it. The belief that illigal immigrants have no interest in melting into the States is exactly what I meant about a boarder increasing negative connotations; while some immigrants may be resistant, the majority are not and try to work with Americans to melt in-- its the Americans that resist them by being prejudice against the Hispanics. 3b. Yes, but I feel the issue is a lacking number of guards who are professionally trained. There are too many vigilantes taking action when it should be the boarder control. 3c. Immigrants sending money home should not be a huge derailment to our society if they are still spending money on themselves in America. 4: I believe the fence would only make a lot of people angry and increase violence at the border. The negativity towards illegal immigrants is entirely in the heads of those who don't understand the reasons people try to come into America and eventually are forced to enter illegally. Immigrants come as a refuge from their countries, to escape poverty, or to be with their families. While I am not advocated illigal immigration, I still hold that the government should revamp its laws about immigration and the people should encourage illegal immigrants to become citizens, rather than refer to them as violent criminals or "bad" Hispanics.
The border fence.

My counter responses are as follows: 1a: When it comes to illegal immigration what can I say, its illegal. Encouraging it would promote disregard for American law, if they don’t respect American law, why should we let them in? Furthermore it would make a mockery of every immigrant who comes here legally. 1b: As the drug tunnel near Lynden Washington demonstrated so handily, the border patrol’s sensing equipment is quite capable of detecting such laughable attempts to bypass our border security. They were detected months before completion of the tunnel. Such equipment would be a natural supplement to the fence. 1c: No one method will stop 100% of the terrorists, do you suggest that anything that is not completely effective at halting terrorism on its own should be discounted? The border is still the easiest way for terrorist groups to enter our country. 2: Every nation has the right to secure it borders, like it or not, that includes us and that takes precedent over appeasing a corrupt Mexican government. Of course they would be upset, the drug lords bring a lot of money into the country, some of that money greases palms in their government, That’s not something I want to support, do you? 3a: Over the course of American history our culture has benefited from outside influences as immigrants brought element of their culture even as their took on our own. That’s the melting pot at its best. However many of the illegal immigrant have no intention of melting in, they want to keep their culture and language, and are loathe to blend into the general population. Even President Clinton spoke of it, “Ethnic pride is a very good thing. America is one of the places which most reveres the distinctive ethnic, racial, religious heritage of our various peoples. The days when immigrants felt compelled to Anglicize their last name or deny their heritage are, thankfully, gone. But pride in one's ethnic and racial heritage must never become an excuse to withdraw from the larger American community. That does not honor diversity; it breeds divisiveness. And that could weaken America.” And for once, he was right. 3b: No one would expect the fence to run itself; it is a tool and not a replacement for our border guards. 3c: On this I agree in part, they work and spend here. However they often send money home and out of the country. Secondly they receive services from the government but pay no taxes, unbalancing the system. I would consider that an economic problem. Immigrants who come to contribute to the economy are welcome; those who come for handouts are not. 4: The fence is by definition, increased security at the border. It is not a total solution, but should be implemented as part of a wider reinforcement of border security. The negativity you refer to is often a result of the problems mentioned above, and would probably decrease if they flood of illegal immigrants stopped crossing the border and giving our many outstanding Hispanic citizens a bad name.
The border fence.

To help me (because quotes bug people and I hate switching between frames), I'll list your arguments presented at the top and respond to each. 1. Without a border fence, we run the risk of allowing a. illegal immigrants b. drug runners c. terrorists into America at will. 2. The border fence is an asset to our national security. 3. A fence would help protect our a. culture b. our citizens c. our economy 4 The completion of the border fence is a national imperative. In response to point 1a, illegal immigration is a completely different can of worms to open. I don't think that illegal immigration is necissarily a bad thing, and I think instead of intimidating illegal immigrants we should encourage them to apply for citizenship. In response to point 1b, a fence will do little for drug runners. According to the New York Times, drug runners use tunnels a lot of the time so a fence wont be highly effective in elimminating this problem. In response to point 1c, terrorists crossing the Mexican border wont be stopped by a border fence. That money should instead be spent on better security and research on more effective ways to keep terrorists out. In response to point 2, I agree that the threat of terrorism and drug trafficing is a threat to our national security, but I maintain that a fence will not help either of these causes. Drug runners will go through tunnels and terrorists will find other ways as well, so the better option is to have more security at the border. The fence will not help our relationship with Mexico, and as their neighbor its important that we maintain this relationship. In response to point 3a, I am sure my opponent will agree that America's culture will not be threatened. America is a melting pot and many Americans celebrate the diversity in our nation. Allowing illegal immigrants into the nation does not hurt our culture, it strengthens it! The only hurting is the resentment many citizens feel towards these immigrants, but were we to make becoming a temporary citizen less difficult, this could be improved. In response to point 3b, our citizens are only harmed if the terrorists are getting through. This is why a fence is a bad idea, because a fence can be overcome much easier than security. In response to point 3c, what will our economy be hurt by? I imagine this is referring to illegal immigrants, but they will spend a lot of the money they make. Illegal immigrants will eat food in America, buy clothes in America, rent in America...they will be putting their money back into the economy. As far as taxes go, again this would be improved (not rectified I grant you) if we were more lax with temporary citizenship in America. In response to point 4, I feel that it is NOT a national imperative because it will hurt our relationship with Central America and increase the negativity many Americans feel about the Hispanic culture in America. Instead of spending money on a border fence, we should spend it on increasing security at the border.
The "Third World" is a necessary evil for human society to attain success

First I'd like to make sure the viewers know to look in the comment section for my opponents debate for round two. I also fully believe what pro said to be true regarding his not posting the argument in the debating section on time. Secondly I apologize for the shortness of my argument. I meant to write more but I couldn't find enough time as I was busy with other things. One reason being that I had two days to post my argument while I am used to having three days, as all my other debates have been. Mainly what I will be doing in this round, is pointing out the flaws in my opponents argument. (1) The first (and biggest) flaw is that pro says it is necessary. Well I have to say It isn't necessary. Society could still have success without the third world. Even if they didn't have as much success (not saying they wouldn't) they still would attain success. (2) The third world is part of society, and they are not successful. That is another flaw in pro's argument. The third world people have little success but they make up a large portion of society. So why is it necessary for other countries to starve for society to gain success. Aren't they part of society too? Absolutely. (3) So you could ask this question would society be considered more successful if their was no third world? My job isn't to prove that society would attain greater success if the third world didn't exist then if it did. However that would easily prove pro's arguments wrong. I think it would be a tremendous success if third world stopped existing for society as a whole. Society in fact should concentrate on trying to improve the third world countries. The result might be that the wealthy people would not be so wealthy, but what about the starving people in these countries? I will now let my opponent post his argument for round three.
The "Third World" is a necessary evil for human society to attain success

Success: Defined as (by dictionary. com) (1) 1. the favorable or prosperous termination of attempts or endeavors. 2. the attainment of wealth, position, honors, or the like. Third World: Defined as (by thefreeonlinedictionary. com) (2) 1. The developing nations of Africa, Asia, and Latin American. As pro/for I will hold the burden of proof, my opponent will counter my arguments. Should my opponent wish to add any more definitions or clarifications, please feel free to do so in this round. (1) . http://dictionary.reference.com... (2) . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...