BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mexican wall

We should not build a wall between Mexico. First of all, I am against illegal immigrants entering our country. Many jobs and economic opportunities are being wasted this way. Yet, building a wall is not exactly the brightest solution. Honestly, who's going to pay for it? "Trump promised Mexico would pay for it. All of those promises are falling apart. Trump now admits the wall might only run 700 miles or less, and it will have openings to allow border patrol to see through to the other side. And now that Mexico has made it abundantly clear that they won"t pay for it, he"s asking the American taxpayer to pony up." As we can see in this quote from AZCentral, it's not even clear who's going to pay for it. In the end, trying to fulfill his promises, Trump may even end up increasing taxes. We cannot take more money from citizens for a wall. This will cause the economy to collapse. Our future generations will be sitting around looking at the wall with NO money! We cannot let this happen! It is true. Illegal immigrants are a growing problem in America. Of course it has to be resolved! The only thing I'm saying is that building a wall is ridiculous. It is a huge waste of money and time. According to AZCentral, "The wall is a giant waste of money, and there are countless ways to better invest the tens of billio ns of dollars we would waste on a wall.Fortunately, there"s a solution. According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, we could boost our economy by $2 billion simply by hiring 1,000 new customs officers " and we could do it for a fraction of the cost of Trump's wall." This shows that there is a solution. The only thing is that we have to accept and acknowledge it. We can't continue believing that the wall is the solution to our problem. The wall costs a lot and frankly America isn't up to pay that much for it. Source: https://www.azcentral.com...
Mexican wall

The Mexican and United States border stretches 1,989 miles from the Gulf of a Mexico all the way the Pacific coast. When sharing a border anywhere in the world, you face problems. Security problems, economic problems, immigration and much more, these are issues any nation might face. A wall that ran the distance of the United States and Mexico border would very much benefit the nation of America. The government should address the issue of a wall because of the following reasons: The cost of illegal immigrants doesn't stop at the amount of money it takes for the problem of illegal immigration, it goes as far as losing more than one million jobs. A report by ABC news states that the FAIR. federation for american immigration reform reports that the united states loses over 100 billion tax dollars a year for the problem of illegal immigration. To give you an idea the two world trade center in new york city is 81 storie skyscraper that will cost 2 billion dollars so you can build fifty thousand of these buildings with the amount of how much it cost the us each year. 100 billions dollars does not come from the thin air, it comes from your pocket. The taxpayers that fairly pay their taxes for living in the united states pay for the cost of having illegal immigrants enter and pay nothing in taxes. Not only do we pay for their unknown stay but they take the jobs from our country. Jack martin the director of FAIR argues that more than half of illegal immigrants work under the table which means they pay nothing in taxes. Now the reason they are paid under the table is because it is illegal to hire illegal immigrants under the Immigration Reform and Control Act enacted in 1896. In total 8.5 million jobs are taken from us reported by www.fairus.org. {PAUSE} for example in 2016 illegal immigrants have taken 1,296,970 jobs across the state of texas and 1,887,695 jobs in CA and in the state of Pennsylvania 128,950 jobs this equals to an astounding amount of just 2,146,615 jobs meaning you can give the people of vermont a job over 3 times at once. This is a problem when over 93 million american born citizens are without a job.These are just two reasons out of many the united states should build a southern wall. The wall will stop all the chances of someone crossing the border. The wall will be over thirty feet high and over 10 feet deep. Making it virtually impossible for illegal immigration to continue to happen. The wall will most likely be funded by tax money but not nearly as much already payed by the united states on a yearly bases. Less than 30 billion dollars is the estimated amount. So stand with me on the affirmative side and let's build this wall. The american people elected donald trump with the promise of a southern wall does this not show that the american people know that they need better border security?
Best wide reciever in the nfl right now

"What if Hopkins play falls down miserably next year?" What if Brown's play falls down miserably next year? The future is purely speculative. We only have the present and past with which to judge. As stated the Houston Texans had a rotating door at the QB position, featuring four different starters during 2015: - Brian Hoyer started 9 games - Ryan Mallet started 4 - TJ Yates started 2 - Brandon Weeden started 1 - Even 5th string scrub BJ Daniels had to step in and toss a few pass attempts in Week 16. And while Antonio Brown may face double coverage from time to time, teams can't afford to focus solely on him. When they do, you end up with games like fellow Steelers WRs Martavis Bryant's 178 yards game in Week 10 and WR Markus Wheaton's 200+ yards performance in Week 12. Bryant and Wheaton take a lot of pressure off Antonio Brown. They keep teams honest and force defense's to play the majority of their day with single coverage on Brown. Meanwhile opposing defenses only need to worry about one game every week: Deandre Hopkins. When I look at Antonio Brown I see: - Better quarterback - More weapons to take the pressure off - Lesser performances against elite cornerbacks (Sherman & Peterson from Argument #2) - He's got the easier job. When I look at DeAndre Hopkins I see: - A receiver who has proven he can produce no matter who is playing QB - Relatively no fellow teammates on offense who can take the pressure off - A guy who, despite all those challenges, was still able to dominate an elite cornerback (Darrelle Revis) I get it, Antonio Brown has slightly better stats. But stats don't tell the whole story. It's time to recognize DeAndre Hopkins as the best wide receiver in the NFL right now.
Best wide reciever in the nfl right now

The last two years 2014 an 2015 they went back to the playoffs with Antonio brown as the first receiver on the team. I am not staying he deserves all credit. If you said Julio jones was the best you would have the argument. The issue with Hopkins is he does not have the experience Brown has in the Leauge. What if Hopkins play falls down miserably next year? It could happen. Comparing Browns play agianst Sherman and Peterson to Hopkins play agianst Revis are different. Brown has played agianst two of the best corners probably in the Leauge, while Darelle revis play has been declining. Revis has not played well agianst a lot of #1 wideouts this year. Just ask Sammy Watkins an he will tell you how he could match up revis. Revis is way older then Sherman and Peterson. Hopkins is a good receiver and has talent, but the experience he has compared to brown throws me off board saying he's not the best.
Best wide reciever in the nfl right now

"Before Browns emergence, Big Ben was experiencing issues with team success and trying to get to the Super Bowl." When has Ben Roethlisberger ever experienced issues with team success? He's been with the Pittsburgh Steelers since 2004 and the worst record they've ever had during that time frame is 8-8. Here's the Pittsburgh Steelers record over the last four seasons: 2012 8-8 2013 8-8 2014 11-5 2015 10-6 During this time frame the Steelers running game improved: 2012 - 26th best in the league 2013 - 27th 2014 - 16th 2015 - 16th And their pass protection improved. If you look at Roethlisberger's Sack% - aka the number of times Ben is sacked per pass attempt - you'll see steady improvement over the last several seasons: 2012 - 6.3% 2013 - 6.7% 2014 - 5.1% 2015 - 4.1% Brown has been excellent but crediting him with the entire team's collective improvement is not only unfair to the remaining 52 players on the Steelers roster, it's statistically inaccurate. But enough about Brown, let's talk about my boi Nuk. First off, that's a badass nickname: Nuk. Second of all, when I judge a wide receiver I want to know how he performed against elite cornerbacks. Antonio Brown faced off against both Richard Sherman (6 rec, 51 yards, 0 TDs) and Patrick Peterson (3 rec, 24 yards, 0 TDs). Not exactly record breaking numbers. Where exactly is AB when he's not feasting on inferior competition? Now my boi Nuk? He had the displeasure of drawing Darrelle Revis in Week 11 and completely owned Revis Island to the tune of 5 receptions, 118 yards and 2 touchdowns. While mind you, catching passes from back-up QB TJ Yates. Sources? I found all my stats on pro football reference.
Best wide reciever in the nfl right now

I do not disagree that Hopkins is a good receiver, but is he as good as Antonio? No now in my eyes. In reality, Hopkins really had his breakout year this year, he's also had games anyway where he's been shutdown during stretches of games. Antonio Brown has the experience and the elusiveness to be a legit route runner. He has Ben and other weapons that you respectfully mentioned. But he's made Ben better along with the other receivers. Before Browns emergence, Big Ben was experiencing issues with team success and trying to get to the Super Bowl. Browns emergence fixed the issues in Pittsburgh and they now can be in the discussion for the Super Bowl for seasons to come. Hopkins is just getting it going, the issue is the experience Hopkins has is not comparable to Brown's to even be considered the best in the Leauge. Antonio Brown has been breaking records this past season, his teammates of receivers Bryant and Wheaton have on fire then they seem to dim out. Without Brown, the steelers would not be where they are at. Because he draws coverage and still makes plays. Ben would not be where he's at. Because before the Steelers were dealing with issues of poor play. Despite all of the weapons Pittsburgh now has, Antonio has been able to put up the stats because he draws up double coverage but makes the plays. The other " weapons" have been inconsistent this season. Brown is the legitimate reason why Pittsburgh is better off then they were a few years ago. Hopkins still has more to prove if he wants to be the best, not enough experience throws me off board with Hopkins.
Best wide reciever in the nfl right now

I can't deny that Antonio Brown is an elite receiver. But he's also catching passes from an elite quarterback: 2-time Super Bowl champion Ben Roethlisberger, while playing in a high-powered offense surrounded by multiple weapons - LeVeon Bell, DeAngelo Williams, Martavis Bryant, Markus Wheaton. This all makes Antonio Brown's job significantly easier than my choice: DeAndre Hopkins. Hopkins took the NFL by storm this year. 111 Receptions, 1521 Yards, 11 Touchdowns. And the critics will say "oh but his stats weren't as good..." Yeah, because he was catching passes from a motley collection of Brandon Weeden, TJ Yates, Ryan Mallet and Brian Hoyer. Hoyer being the best of the lot... the same career backup journeyman Hoyer who threw 4 INTS and posted a pathetic 15.9 passer rating in the Texans 0-30 playoff loss to the Kansas City Chiefs. And who are those other weapons on the Texans roster who help take the defense's focus off Hopkins? They don't exist.
Muhammad is more influential than Henry Ford

You make some very good points on Muhammad uniting the Middle East. Although, they are all hypothetical. Even if they may be true, the Middle East would not have been shaped in the way it has today with continual disarray. In your hypothetical situation, the Balkan Powder Keg would be a regular example of neighboring countries fighting for power, but Islam shaped it so that power isn't their motive, but freedom from a political institution that the people do not want to have. Take Iran under the rule of Khomeini as an example. A belief you have is that the Middle East would have been more economically and socially balanced if Islam had not caused cultural tensions. This is proving the point that Muhammad is influential because his founding of Islam influenced the Middle East today. Without it, the Middle East would be completely different enforcing the idea that Muhammad is important in shaping the modern world. Although I am not denying the fact that Henry Ford is influential in the economic and to some extent, the cultural aspects of our world today, I argue that Muhammad is more influential because he had a broader impact on the world. Muhammad impacted economics by stimulating the minds of economic theorists to come up with commercial ideas such as supply and demand as well as capitalism, which allowed for Ford to have whatever influence you have stated. Muhammad also influenced cultural aspects like other religions, as well as serving as a political ideology for the Caliphates. Islam affected art, music, and even handwriting because of its sponsoring of education, which led to Muslims in Baghdad and Damascus (centers of learning that served as the capitals of the Islamic Empires) preserving Greek and Roman culture. This preservation allowed for the Renaissance to take place. These centers of learning attracted many intellectual thinkers and diversified science into fields such as chemistry and zoology. It was in these centers that distillation to create stronger alcoholic drinks was discovered. One might believe that all of Islamic ideals are not solely due to Muhammad, but the reality is that all these beliefs sprung form his founding of Islam. To sum up, Henry Ford's impact is not as large as Muhammad's impact.
Muhammad is more influential than Henry Ford

Although I accept Muhammed united the Middle East, if it was broken into smaller nations though there would be border disputes, a split Middle East would benefit with multiple cultures, each with its own government, Religion, policies and ideas, resulting in a Middle East far more economically and socially balanced than it is today. By the modern day these warring nations would probably democratic due to European influence. Also, if they were split into different nations, the Balkan Powder Keg would have 'exploded' long ago because there would be no Islam to stop it and force it to bulge even more. Henry Ford however, not only made a car, he made the first mass produced, affordable, smooth driving car which increased the popularity of automobiles as a whole, and made people all over the US and Great Britain see horses more like the sporting animals and pets as we see them today. Without Henry Ford and his ingenious invention. Automobiles now would have looked more likes we had in the sixties and early seventies, not the efficient, sleek vehicles we have today. And pollution would be skyrocketing, ripping holes through the ozone layer. There would also be the leaded fuel of yesteryear, causing thousands of deaths a year.
Muhammad is more influential than Henry Ford

I opine that Muhammad is more influential than Henry Ford. Muhammad is a religious and secular leader who united the Bedouin tribes in the Middle East. He shaped the way we look at the Middle East today as a hodgepodge of different cultures and tensions because he founded the second-most practiced religion in the world: Islam. With the inception of Islam, there was a booming economy as a result of more trade in the Middle East and North Africa. Because Muslims wanted to follow Muhammad's example, there were more merchants and traders than ever before because Muhammad himself was a trade. More trade led to the development of better roads and more trade routes that facilitated the Mongols in the 13th century to establish the Pax Mongolica. The increased trade also caused more theorists to study the science behind the economy, which spread to Europe during the Enlightenment, giving birth to capitalism and Adam Smith's ideas of supply and demand. Islam became a strong unifying force for the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates and the Ottoman Empire. The tax system of the Umayyad and Abbasid states was based on whether the citizens were Arab Muslims, non-Arab Muslims, or "people of the book" such as Jews and Christians. Islam was also important to these political institutions in that it provided motive for expansion. The Umayyad expanded across the Middle East conquering their Persian neighbor to the North while spreading across North Africa. This caused a bunch of diverse cultures that haven't converted to Islam to be a part of a political roof that they did not want to support. This has contributed to the tensions found in the Balkan Powder Keg and the violence in the Middle East today. The expansion of Islam into Africa and the Middle East has influenced languages being spoken today such as Swahili, Farsi, and Urdu. Furthermore, the Arabic language was used more after Muhammad recited the Koran because the Koran was written down in Arabic and disseminated across the Islamic Caliphates. As a result, calligraphy emerged from Arabic writing. All of these effects of Islam can be traced back to Muhammad because Islamic culture was founded by Muhammad. Meanwhile, Henry Ford made a car. Who do you think has more influence on our world? It is evident that Muhammad has had more of an impact than Henry Ford.
Death Penalty

The death penalty is designed to be a punishment for heinous crimes and represents somewhat of an "eye for an eye" approach to sentencing. In theory, this seems fair at the outset but if we really address the goal of punishment, I maintain that the death penalty is not effective in reaching this goal and instead represents one of the greatest potential injustices that could occur. The goals of punishment are primarily a) to impose some responsibilty for someone's actions upon them (the criminal) and b) to deter future similar action from that person and from other members of society. The death penalty does address the first point. The person who presumably killed multiple people will then bear the responsibility of dying for their actions. But, do they really pay a price? Often, these are people who may have had no real desire to live in the first place. More important is the second point. Those people that are willing to commit a heinous crime are not afraid to die. Killing them really does not cause them to suffer nearly as much as a lifetime in prison might. Thus, the idea of a death penalty for their actions is probably not enough to deter people that commit heinous crimes from committing heinous crimes. This brings me to the greatest injustice that could possibly happen because of the death penalty: the execution of an innocent person. The sole reason the death penalty should not exist is because there is the possibility we may be executing an innocent person. Juries have absolutely made this mistake before. The execution of even one innocent person, no matter how many people were guilty that were executed, would represent the greatest tragedy we could have our government bestow upon its own people. People are not infallible enough to be making such judgments upon other human beings. And, I think if you have ever done jury duty, you will immediately doubt how well trained our jurors are to be making such life and death decisions. In summation, the death penalty is fair in terms of retribution, but it does not deter capital offenses and it is far too risky because of the potential for human error.
Life has more meaning without god

To conclude my arguments can be finalized as follows:Without an objectively meaningful reality the atheist uses his own goals to create a sense of meaning. These goals have to stand up against the theists reality which yields objective significance. The theists objective significance has infinite value. The atheists subjective significance cannot have infinite value.The atheist further has to contend with the fact that he has to ignore the objective reality that life is meaningless. Some may have no problem doing that. Others may. That decision is up to each individual.I would like to thank my opponent for an outstanding debate. As a result of it, I am able to better understand and articulate both positions on the matter. That is what a successful debate is all about and I hope you have found it as productive as I have.
Life has more meaning without god

So, to sum up my arguments: If there is no god, there is no objective purpose. Without an objective purpose, any subjective purpose would have the same significance, just like without objective morality, the moral standards of a society, even if subjective, would still be significant. Furthermore, life is more significant without god because there is no eternal existence and life is equal to out existence. I would like to thank my opponent for a wonderful debate. I enjoyed reading your arguments and debating this.
Life has more meaning without god

1) It's true every action impacts his eternal existence. So, any theist has to be very careful and respect certain rules his entire life. Doesn't that in a way affect the meaning of his life? His whole life, a theist must please a god he worships, live by the rules of that god and so on. The whole life of a theist is dictated by a supreme being, while an atheist is free to do anything he wants. I'm not talking about murder or any illegal action, I'm talking about sex before marriage, fasting etc. Every religion has strict rules, and a theist must obey them (or he will suffer for eternity), meaning his life is controlled by a deity. A theist doesn't live his life the way he wants to, he lives his life they way god wants to. 2) Life is also a byproduct. We just give it more significance, but it's nothing more. If god exists, the life of a single individual is a part of god's infinite creation and it isn't significant at all, because a life is nothing compare to the entire universe, created by the same god If god doesn't exist, the life of a single individual is the result of billions of years on changes than allowed him to exist. It still doesn't mean anything compare to the universe. Life is a byproduct, either a byproduct of god's creation, or a byproduct of the universe. From an objective perspective, life is insignificant both ways, but looking at it subjectively, for an atheist life is more significant, because he wasn't created and he doesn't have to live a certain way. An atheist is aware his existence is limited, he knows his existence is insignificant and understands it's up to his to give his life meaning and purpose. 3)purpose = the reason why something is done[1] Theists have a very clear purpose : they respect certain rules in order to be allowed to stay in paradise after they die. A theist has a single purpose for his life. An atheist is not limited by that. He can live his life however he wants and can decide the purpose of his life on his own. His purpose of life could be visiting every single country in the world. His existence is limited and it's up to him to decide what he wants to do and why he wants to do it. Just because a theist's existence is longer than the atheist's, it doesn't mean it has more meaning. [1]http://www.merriam-webster.com...