BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Immigrants have the same rights as a citizen of the country

Immigrants should not be given the right to vote, remain within the country or receive the protection of a minimum wage if they are not at the very least naturalized[1] citizens of the country. Pro has argued that immigrants should be granted all three of these rights. An immigrant is "a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence." [2] Immigrants do not need to be naturalized citizens of the country in which they attempt to take up permanent residence.[3] To the extent that they are not naturalized, immigrants, as non-citizens, are not subject to the same social responsibilities of citizens, including taxation. This results in higher costs to the citizens of the nation being immigrated to. [3] Therefore, illegal immigrants (illegals) act as parasites of sorts, weakening the host society (the host) they invade and harming its citizens (the members) thereby. In addition to the detrimental aspects of illegal immigration, illegals, being non-citizens, have no duty to defend the host nor to support its social institutions. The social contract creating the rights Pro would have extend to the illegals is not only between the individual members of the host, but also between the members and the host itself. The rights and privileges of the host extend to its members because its members accept the responsibility of supporting the host. The illegals have no such covenant with the host, and are therefore rightly excluded from the scope of its protection. As with any contract, without consideration, there is no agreement. [5] Illegals have given nothing up for which the host would owe them an obligation of protection. Therefore, because illegals are engaged in parasitic, rather than symbiotic, balance with the host, the host may rationally exclude them from receiving its protection and desire their removal. Furthermore, illegals, having provided no consideration by which the rights due under the social contract would inure to them, have no claim against the host to provide such consideration under the social contract. Illegals being a subset of the set 'immigrants', my opponent's contention that "anyone in a country ... should be given a minimum wage, the right to vote and the right to stay in that country" is proven invalid. The resolution is negated. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.bizjournals.com... [5]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Democracy(Pro) vs Republic(Con)

I am not talking about a modern day version of a democracy, nor about democrats or republican. The Democracy that I'll be talking about will be A Grecian Democracy, based on a similar version of Democritus' ideals. To begin a Ancient Grecian Democracy is when there is a council that makes, interprets, and defines the laws, the laws are decided by the people instead of the council, but before it is set in motion the King (Yes there would be a royal family) would have to approve, whether it will help or not help, although it can be overridden by the council, it is not a Constitutional Republic Like the US, it would be a mix of a Constitutional Republic and a Parliamentary Monarchy (Except with the Monarch with more power), in my ideals a regular democracy, Grecian that is, is much more effective than a Republic
Cutting Diplomatic Ties Resolves Nothing: Unconditional diplomacy is best.

As Pro, I am going to argue that unconditional diplomacy and negotiations with opposing states are better policies than cutting diplomatic ties with them to talk only when a state meets certain conditions. As Con, you argue the opposite. Define 'opposing state' as a state - at peace - that presents an economic or security threat to America or an ally. Good luck! Unconditional diplomacy is much more likely to achieve favorable results whereas conditional diplomacy is not. When you demand a state to meet certain conditions - change a policy or submit in some way before diplomacy commences - they remain with different options to pursue to continue opposition and gain advantage. Iran and the United States, for example, are not pursuing official talks until Iran ceases its nuclear program. Iran's nuclear program has been known about since 2003 and diplomatic ties have been cut since 1979. The option for conditional talks has been on the table since May 2006. Its been two years, three rounds of UN sanctions, and multiple attempts by the Iranian government to hold talks later - but still nothing has changed. The program is being defended by Iran as a peaceful energy program. Ending the program for conditional talks puts Iran at a disadvantage, and thus is not a strategic option for them. Unconditional diplomacy gives the opposing country a strategic option to pursue, while simultaneously fulfilling our own goals. The Cuban Missile Crisis is a good example of this. When the Soviet Union brought nukes to Cuba the USA went to diplomacy to resolve the issue instead of bombing Cuba. Diplomacy worked because the USA offered to remove Nukes from Turkey in exchange for the removal of Cuban nukes. This was resolved in thirteen days. This negotiation gave the Soviet Union a strategic offer - something to gain - from benefiting us by removing the nukes. Otherwise, the Soviet Union would have had nothing to gain by removing those nukes and would have kept them there.
Rap battle

I gave you a chance, told you not to say sh*t Warned you in advance now you testing my patience Shoulda asked them other dumbasses who tried to test my greatness And I ain't no astronaut but now I got to set a course for your anus I go hard when it come to bars My flow is a prison cell See where you f*cked up Danielle? F*cking retard You should wear a helmet like you in the NFL You don't know what you got yourself into what if you challenged someone who happens to be mental? WHAT IF I START SCREAMING AND SH*T LIKE I'M ON COCAINE? HAVE YOU EVER THOUGHT THAT YOU WOULD GET CAUGHT BATTLING A MOTHAFUCKA THAT'S INSANE? HIDING IN THE SHADOWS, I'M BRUCE WAYNE MIXED WITH SADDAM HUSSEIN JUDGING BY THE NUMBER OF RAPPERS I'VE SLAIN WITH VERSES,IT'S ALMOST INHUMANE and you cant F*ck with my campaign To maintain My rightful place on top the food chain. This battle is now a war,I'm declaring it Not a feminist but I'll burn your bra while you still wearing it. Still think you can take me? Chick, good luck And here's 5 bucks cause you just got f*cked
Rap battle

Okay, you'll never out-do my articulate eloquenceMy presence is huge like a room full of elephantsCan't surpass me cuz I keep it classy with eleganceBattled way back - they kiss my a$s ever since Yeah I've been bred a prodigy - I give no apologiesI get to your head like cognitive psychology And your valiant attempt to get rid of me? Fvck itIf you want talent present, I'm the epitome of it Your flow's mediocore - you're as pu$sy as a periodI call you the Joker cuz I know you ain't serious Try to put me down, I rebound like LeBron JamesIn your lame story I found you used the wrong names You tried to diss me cuz I'm busy and I've got aspirations My time is money dude - better make reservationsI've been the needle in the haystack since way back I run circles around you like a race trackTrack you like a trace map, then smack you like a face slapI'll put your a$s down like a plate on a place matYou're played out like an 8-track, acting foul like a face mask * I'm the sh!t when I spit - it gets you high like it's laced crackAnd your flow is scary bad but I have no trouble with monstersYou better know that I'm clever like a double entendreI'll play you out just for sport - that is my mantra You'll need some support - why don't you go call a sponsorSee I'm the boss cuz I'm fast with the way that I work Your loss - I'll kill you like it's your last day on earthSo if you wanna win this battle, you'll hafta hit me moreCuz right now I own you like it's 1854 * Refers to the NFL's face mask foul
Rap battle

I suggest you forfeit the next rounds, Claim that you're busy Because I'm going to win hands down Lets end this sh1t quickly This is domestic violence The kind of beating that gets mentioned accidentally Followed by an akward silence Don't even reply, don't even try to fight it Open up your mind against me, I'm going to get inside it. But spread your legs for me And ill go easy on you. Otherwise you Rihanna And I'm Chris Breezy on you. F*ck it I'll go further, We'll be Mr. And Mrs Turner. I just killed this f*cking verse Domestic violence just turned to murder.
Rap battle

In every single verse of this battle you talked about fvcking me!Try to diss me and yet you still wanna hook up with me!Obsessed but you'll never get me undressed in reality If I'm an ape then I guess you're into beastialityI'm like a pinata - the more that you beat it outta meI'll explode, and you'll be sorry that you ever doubted meIf I'm allowed to be the lyrical beast that I am proud to be I'll burn you up like Dwayne Wade cuz I'm about the Heat My flow's the torch so I'll scorch you and give you a scalding You shoulda forfeit – I've got more wit and ball like a Spalding It's appalling and sick this guy keeps talking 'bout rapeOn some Hawaii sh!t – can't get laid any other way *But I'm on fire like butane - and you claim to be Bruce WayneYou pu$sy - Catwoman should be your new name Some flavor should save ya cuz your raps are just too plain B!tch I'm about a dollar, and you're just some loose changeSo don't bother to hollar - here's your two cents backYou're a nuisance about to get sent backTo the psych ward or zoo or wherever you come fromCuz I've got this battle with you on lockdown like a dungeon And you're damn right I talk sh!t - I make it flow diarrheaIt's cuz of the sounds that my words make - onomatopoeiaSupercallifragilisticexpialidocious Your flow's all ballistic and if you ask me it's atrocious So to get ahead of this veteran you'll need to try harderI'm the best there's ever been, let's hope you're a better fatherThan you are at (w)rapping - save it for Christmas timeCuz you'll never out-wit our out-diss a miss this fine All you do is talk about sex because of my genderFvcking unoriginal clown - prepare to surrender You're a weak b!tch too - I get a thrill to come on strongYour wish came true - I just killed you with my swan song* He lives in Hawaii; can only get laid with flowers
Rap battle

Haha I understand what you did. Only a true piece of sh*t Would resort to insulting a kid. I ain't mad though. It is what it is Maybe if you were a better rapper you could harm me But as it stands you could get an army And tattoo your raps on my back and still wouldn't have nothing on me You write a lot, your verses stay long But get crumbled under mine, my sh*t stay strong And your rhymes simple like a sing-A-long So go ahead and spit your next verse, your swan song. But you got one thing right I'm a nightmare Or better yet a Dark Knight But I still light you up like Times Square So I guess you really shouldn't fight fair Up against me, you really can't compare I'm way the F*ck above you Get on my level This is Mr.Hyde speaking ,F*ck Dr.Jekyll Ive been on YouTube decapitatating rappers Taking heads of on camera like Iraqi kidnappers So what the F*ck can you do to me? I've battles fakes Mc's before So insulting my son ain't new to me It's almost a chore When they realize they can't get through to me But I don't get pissed, I just stay ice cold She talks a lot of sh*t Guess that makes her mouth an assh*le. Too bad her brain is constipated Otherwise she would realize I've already dominated But ill continue to school this lady-ape With my words surrounding her, lyrical gang rape And this was just supposed to be a blind date Now I have to F*ck her so hard she won't be able to stand straight Verse 1 choking her out, she cant breath! And now verse 2 done forced her to her knees! Verse 3 have mercy! Please! But verse 3 is like "F*ck that I don't want an STD" "I'll just have to settle for shattering hopes and dreams." Cause she was stupid enough to pick a fight with Marquis And anybody reading this gotta see my expertise But we can run this sh*t back You want a rematch? But you should just call it off Spitting before but now you falling off And I'm on fire like a molotov Cocktail and my rhymes cause crimes like the holocaust Got your head in the clouds like you won't get rolled over I bring her back down to earth like air traffic controllers So aim low cause you can't hit high Sing your swan song. It's over. Goodbye
Rap battle

When it comes to ripping bars I'm a fvcking alcoholicThey eat my sh!t up like a fat kid with chocolateYour loss on the horizon - you should just forfeitAnd when I win I'm Verizon with the way that I called itCuz I nailed it, I mauled it - Can't help but applaud it I should audit your bored sh!t but I can't afford itI said time is money and you're not being rewarded By the way your kid's ugly - shoulda thought to abort it Yeah that seems a low blow but I don't care to fight fairI'm the girl of your dreams and you're a scary nightmare So you bring up the NFL cuz I'm kicking mad gameI excel so they wanna give Danielle their last nameBut I E-Z Pass through your flow like I'm in the fast lane *Then swallow it whole like a glass of champagne And it's a damn shame that you ain't much of a challengeI'm a ten with the pen - I came with such an advantage I'm the boss of this round cuz of course you can't manageSo sit your a$s down while I force you to stand itYou can't help but adore me with a sh!t eating grinJust keep telling your story with the misleading spin Say that you toy with me - reign supreme in this battleBut b!tch I am royalty - the king AND queen of this castle Now that's something to tattle - so go and tell mommyThat lady who's on me with an a$s like a donkeyOr is that your wifey? About to go dykeyThey all wanna try me - I can't help that they like meSo you're Saddam Hussein? Well he got annihilatedFor sure wrong again - another weak guy I hatedAnd apparently you're also some kinda druggieMad at me cuz I'm phat in combat like I'm chubbySo I don't blame you for trying to pay me cuz I'm lovely I explained that I know it's the ONLY way you get lucky* Refers to E Z Pass for motor vehicles
As long as clothes are cheap, Americans are blind to garment working conditions.

Agreed. Consumers are all hypocrites. We pretend to care about human rights when it's convenient but not when it matters. I suggest you watch Jon Oliver's Last Week Tonight segment (free on youtube). A lot of research goes into each segment along with tongue and cheek comedy, informative and funny. Do not discount research because the researchers' primary function is comedy, that's ignorant. You made my point for me, USA consumers do not care period. Didn't you take the counter argument?
As long as clothes are cheap, Americans are blind to garment working conditions.

I would like to make a few comments on the above statement. 1st of all, America is a continent, not a country. Second of all, Jon Oliver is a comedian, I doubt he has a lot of knowledge of economics, sociology or any related topics. Also note that his 'review' is comedy based. Opening Statement: As for the topic that "As long as clothes are cheap, 'Americans' are blind to garment working conditions", I would strongly have to disagree with the statement. The way the economy is working right now, it is cheaper to outsource any product, thus this is done. And not just with 'cheap' products. My new Adidas shirt for about US$40, made in Vietnam. My US$400 jacket, made in China. Price doesn't matter. It's all produced as cheap as possible and no one cares. Apple products are by no means cheap, yet they came under criticism for exactly the same issue you connect to 'cheap' products. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk...). Just as another example, the Mercedes S-Class, a vehicle starting at US$94000. Assembled in Vietnam and Thailand. ( "Mercedes-Benz Vietnam Company Overview". mercedes-benz.com.vn. Daimler AG. 2010. Archived from the original"; "Thonburi Group:Serving the Thai market for more than six decades"). Now, do you think consumers care that these expensive things are made under those conditions? They probably don't even know, nor care. Western Society is build on the premise that 'lower' people are exploited in order to make the greatest profit. Doesn't matter if the end product is cheap or not, someone was exploited on the way. Thus concluding, it does not matter if the product is cheap or not, someone worked 'sweatshop' labour for it either way, and nobody cares. This is the way society has, is and will be for the rest of its existence. Why is Jon Oliver not talking about that? About his Mercedes and his designer clothes.. Oh wait, that would make him a hypocrite.
As long as clothes are cheap, Americans are blind to garment working conditions.

Only 2% of clothes manufactured are made in America because the USA has the most burdensome and expensive labor costs in the world. Several USA brands have their manufacturing hubs in Asia and various other non-regulated regions allowing for 'cheap' labor costs and therefore cheap clothing. Several retail stores that sell 'cheap' clothes have been caught exploiting sweatshop child labor including Gap, Joe Fresh, Children's Corner, Old Navy, Walmart, etc. Also, a few of the manufacturing buildings have collapsed killing thousands of garment workers. Americans don't care where their cheap clothes come from as long as they remain cheap because cheap is more important than garment workers well-being and safety. see jon oliver's review of the fashion industry then comment
As long as clothes are cheap, Americans are blind to garment working conditions.

As Con has proven and Pro has agreed, 'Americans' do not care about working conditions for the workers of any industry, whether the products are expensive or cheap. I would like to thank Pro for the opportunity to debate, and hope we can debate again, in a better setting next time, hopefully. But never mind, welcome to formal debating. It's just like non formal debating. The goal is the same. The technique might be a little different, but you'll get the hang of it quite quickly, especially judging by the other debates you are having. I hope this did not come across as too harsh, as a law student I just very carefully analyse the linguistic as well as the factual statement, which by the way is a very good way to win any debate, whether formal or informal.
As long as clothes are cheap, Americans are blind to garment working conditions.

Just as for the statement that I represent the Counter Argument, yes I do. The topic is "As long as clothes are cheap, Americans are blind to garment working conditions". If you are Pro you agree with this. Con does not. If I analyse the topic statement linguistically I get the following: 'As long as', possibly meaning 'because', concluding that 'Americans' are blind to working conditions because their clothes are cheap. Jon Oliver's report was based on this premise. However, as Con, I was debating against the 'as long as' or because, while you are debating that if clothes were expensive, Americans would care about working conditions. If the topic was 'Americans don't care about working conditions of makers of cheap clothes ' you would have been correct in your assumption that I represented the wrong side. However, the inclusion of 'as long as' makes a different statement, and thus different pro and con sides. In your above statement you agreed with me as to the evidence that I provided that even when products are expensive, Americans do not care about working conditions of any products. Your pro side however was based on the premise that they did not care about working conditions because the product is cheap. Furthermore I can switch, due to the 'As long as', the statement around and still retain the original pro and con sides, while this is not possible with statements such as 'I don't care', it is with statements like this. The solution is the following: 'If clothes were expensive, Americans would care about garment working conditions'. You would be Pro for this, I would be Con. I negated that statement in my previous round, thus rendering that you did not linguistically understand the topic you created. Also, Jon Oliver does not make those reports, they are made by journalists. He just presents them in a comical way. I normally do not think of comedy as scientific or sociological evidence, as the focus of comedy is, well, comedy, and not science or sociology.
Gay Marriage should be 100% legal

We hold these truths to be self evident, THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, that they are endowed by their creator with CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, that among these are life, LIBERTY, and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS." Yes, you will complain that that is the declaration of independence, not the constitution. Here's some news for you. The country was founded on the declaration of independence, and the constitution didn't come for some years later. Actually we were more like the EU for the first few years. But enough of U.S. history. If all men are created equal, doesn't that mean that we shouldn't judge based on things such as sexual orientation? Our certain unalienable rights (or "natural rights"), the three major ones listed above, may not be tampered with (hence the "unalienable"). Liberty is obviously a blanket category for many things, but you should have the liberty to marry who you want. The strongest point, however, is the pursuit of happiness. Now, obviously, it has a few restrictions. Obviously if it makes you happy to inject a shot of heroin three times a day and then go out and rape a few people, that is kind of a no-no. But the difference of one chromosome really doesn't seem like such a big deal. I'm pretty sure I've heard all the arguments, but maybe you will surprise me. I will try and start strong and address the points I know of. 1) People will start wanting to marry more than one person. Or animals. Or inanimate objects. Or little children. Well, technically yes, and technically I could care less about the first three. The people may be wackos, but this is America. We have Michael Jackson. Wackos are allowed. The fourth, marry a small child, that is different, because of the age of consent (again, I am fairly against that as well, but that is a different debate). 2) The Bible (aka the law book of America... Wait... that's not right) says it's a big no-no. As I said, the Bible is a religious thing. America enjoys a separation of Church and state. 3) Well yes, the bible is a religious thing, but marriage is a religious ceremony. Usually, but not always. I am atheist. Does that mean I can't get married? I'm technically also Jewish. Does that mean I could have a gay marriage if I wanted one (not that I do). 4) Marriage is only for children. Well, this is the only one that makes any sense to me; however, does that mean that infertile people should not be able to marry? And birth control and condoms can go away. First of all, teen pregnancies would go through the roof. Back to the topic, you can't single out one group, and when you include everyone applicable, it doesn't always seem like such a good idea. Sorry. I myself am not gay, but I would like to see gays have rights, liberties, and the same opportunity as we heterosexuals do to pursue happiness. I am looking forward to the rebuttal! *Just a side note, Civil unions are pointless. What's the difference (one chromosome), and see above arguments.