BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A border fence is needed along America and Mexico.

Here is my proposition specifically. A 30 foot wall made of concrete with a Iron wall in between then another layer of concrete. A 50 foot gap between the complete different wall that is exactly the same.The top of the fences are laced with 3 feet of condense barbed wire. A tower 10 feet higher than the wall every 50 yards on each wall with one or two snipers counting on area. The openings that are already in existence will be added on to but kept. Reasons for fence: P1 - You stop all illegal immigrants coming from Central and South America. Also stopping drugs. P2 - Defense against an army P3 - Jobs P1: It will be similar to that of the Berlin Wall. The Berlin wall had great success. Not many but for sure less than right now people will escape into America. Also it will decrease drug traffic because the openings are already hard to smuggle and with the new wall, more security. P2: If for any reason any army from anywhere south of the boarder unless it was another outer Continental force that already invaded Central or South America it would have a harder time getting into America compared to right now. P3: You need men to build this wall, the wall is an amazing project to jump start the economy. It takes many men to build such an epic wall many jobs will be given to the unemployed and young. It will also boost the southern economy on young men taking their families there to live while he works. Just like FDR made men build bridges and dams the wall is the next great project.Besides the builders look at upper on patrol and snipers getting jobs as well. I look forward to your argument.
Books are better than Movies

Actual arguing begins Round 2 -Burdon of proof is shared; I must show that books are better than movies, while my opponent must show that movies are better than books -8,000 character limit -Otherwise, standard rules apply Definitions: -Books: a written or printed work of fiction or nonfiction, usually on sheets of paper fastened or bound together within covers . http://dictionary.reference.com... -Literature: writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features, as poetry, novels, history, biography and essays . http://dictionary.reference.com... -superior: of higher grade or quality . http://dictionary.reference.com... -form: a particular condition, character, or mode in which something appears . http://dictionary.reference.com... -entertainment: something affording pleasure, diversion, or amusement . http://dictionary.reference.com... -motion picture: a sequence of consecutive pictures of objects photographed in motion by a specially designed camera and thrown on a screen by a projector in such rapid succession as to give the illusion of natural movement; a play, event or the like presented in this form . http://dictionary.reference.com... For simplicity, I ask that we refer to "books" and "movies" as the two mediums that we are discussing. I hope for a good debate!
Communists are hell spawn.

Since pro has not given his arguments as to why communists are "hell spawn" I automatically win by default since he has not upheld is BoP. I light of this, I will post my arguments any away, should this just be a mistake on his part. It should be noted that Pro will need to present evidence that communists are spawned from hell. There are benefits to communism, so being a communist doesn"t automatically make you a bad person, or at-least someone who isn"t spawned from hell. Communists believe in helping the poor . "Communism ensures that even the poorest of the poor get educated, have access to basic healthcare and also get food on the table. In regards to employment as well, everyone gets access to equal opportunities and communism promises jobs for all. In communism, everyone is a worker and it strives to have work for everyone at all times. Communism indeed reduces unemployment. The hire and fire system that has become a worldwide phenomenon doesn"t exist and isn"t allowed to exist in communism." [1] Communists strive for equality for everyone. "Communism does away with all class systems. No one is royalty. Everyone living in a country has equal access to food, education and health. All resources of a country are that of the state which is governed by a group of people representing the entire mass. The entire population of a country owns everything that is there, excluding what someone may own personally. The basic concept of communism ensures that everyone lives in peace without any fear of an upper class or the ruling elite. Everyone has the right to live their lives with dignity. There are no favors and there are no profit seeking capitalists. In other words, communism ensures welfare of one and all with fear or favor for none." [1] With this in mind Pro has failed to prove communists are hell spawn. [1] http://nlcatp.org...
Why kids should be able to have their own computer

Who needs video games!! Oh no! I haven't played video games in a day! The world is going to end!! The world is not going to end if you have use your moms computer for a day while your computer is getting repaired. If you have computer insurance, the repair will be free!! You can also play games on your moms computer for a day. Nobody is going to mind. So this is why kids should be able to have their own computer.
Why kids should be able to have their own computer

If you're like a lot of kids, you probably spend time sitting at the computer, doing schoolwork or playing games. But whether you're writing a report about aardvarks or zapping aliens, using a computer can be tough on your body. How? Sitting for a long time in positions that aren't natural for your body can strain your hands, wrists, back, and eyes. Over time, this can result in pain and a kind of injury called a repetitive stress injury. Sitting Square in Your Chair The way you sit is important. To sit square in your chair, put your behind in the center of the seat. Your legs should bend at the knees and rest on the floor. Most kids are too short to do this (like you), so use a footrest or find a box or a stack of books to place under your feet. Sit so your back touches the seat back the whole time. Try not to slouch or lean over the keyboard while you type. A chair that has lower-back support can help you do this. Typing Time When you type, sit so your elbows are bent at 90-degree angles (like an "L"). Your wrists should be straight, not angled up or down so your fingers rest gently on the keys of the keyboard. And if it feels like you have to stretch your fingers to reach the keyboard, move it closer to you. This website: http://kidshealth.org... gave all of this good info! SUCK IT
Why kids should be able to have their own computer

Ok, first things first. Thank you for extending this match to me :) NOW ON WITH THE DUEL But, if kids have their own computers, they might become addicted or they might find creepy/wrong/adult websites! Also, what if they drop it or break it? That would be, what, $10,000 dollars wasted. That's a LOT of cash to just lose. Therefore, I think that schools should have computer labs instead!
Forced Euthanization

Euthanization is the individual's decision. Getting rid of our weaker counterparts isn't necessary. It never was. Now I would at least be ok with something along the lines of eugenics for the sake of bettering our species. But I won't condone working backwards about it by killing off our weaker counterparts. Eugenics does it the most humane way possible, giving lower common denominators a chance to live out their life as they choose with the process of betterment still being developed. If your concerned about bettering the species than a noose and stool would be a good start.
Forced Euthanization

First off, not all senior citizens are "ticks of society." There are obviously thousands of elderly that do better for the economy than you and me. Very few of the. Are put in elderly homes. There are more independent senior citizens than there are one who need assistance. They shouldn't be alive just because they don't work? They should die because they serve no use, is what you mean I suppose. So in that case children should be euthanized. They're useless beside the fact that they might go on and be of importance. I mean I could give you every example of just useless people in modern society. They're everywhere. Not just the senior citizens. Going along with your ideology, culture infested people should also be euthanized. Hillbilly and rednecks should be euthanized as well. They don't do anything for the economy just like the elderly. They don't go on to do anything useful. They're just a tick on society. Lets euthanize them! Young gangster kids too? All they do is steel and provoke violence right? Murder is the answer? Hobos too? Anyone who loses their home or whom that is poor? They're just in the streets or living off welfare. EUTHANIZE! What about criminals? Someone steels something from a Wal-Mart, sent to jail for weeks or months. Should they too be seamlessly killed? See the human race is above sub petty acts of not dealing with problems. Euthanizing senior citizens would be a very harsh case of social Darwinism. No one wants to die just because they turn old. Think of growing up knowing that we plan on killing you the minute you were 70 or 80. It's just not sensible. Give a case of how that isn't just plain randomness and barbaric.
The United States should abolish the death penalty

As prescribed in round one, this round is only for the constructive. "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; That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men. .. " - Thomas Jefferson, in The Declaration of Independence [1]Indeed, the purpose of government and its laws is to protect the rights of its citizenry. It is because I agree with Thomas Jefferson that I affirm that the United States should abolish the death penalty. C1. Punishment in the United States ought be reformed. Let's suppose Man A kills Man B. The government, in the name of justice, then kills Man A. Man B is still dead, but now the only person able to be held liable for the damages he caused is also dead. His lost salary, the trauma to his family and all other damages Man A has inflicted are also not improved by this implementation of justice. The attention is focused on punishing the murderer, when it should be focused on returning to the victim everything possible the murderer has destroyed. For cases of theft and arson, for example, a liability system of justice is easily calculable. Instead of living in jail, where his existence actually burdens society [2], the criminal could be forced to work until the damages he caused were repaid. In the case of murder, however, it is currently impossible for the murderer to give his victim his life back. This does not free the criminal from his liability to his victim. His victim's heir would inherit the murderer's life, which may be used to alleviate damages. Because of the efficiencies of economies of scale [3], the heir might then rent the murderer's life to a commercial labor camp that handles such affairs so that the life of the murderer shall not be a burden on himself, but a permanent source of reparation for the permanent damages that have been inflicted. This liability system is superior to capital punishment and the entire present American justice system because it addresses the needs of the victims by holding the criminals liable for their crimes. C2. Capital Punishment is permanent. Should evidence later show that would find an executed man innocent, no power on earth could resurrect him. Combined factors of ineffective [4][5], corrupt [5] and abusive law enforcement [5] make wrongful execution a frequent occurrence. Posthumous exoneration is too late; the government has already committed murder. Because justice is imperfect, the government should not wager lives in its convictions. The death penalty is unjust and too often murders innocent lives; therefore, it should be abolished. Thank you. == Sources == [1] . http://www.archives.gov...[2] . http://www.lao.ca.gov...[3] . http://www.investopedia.com...[4] . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[5] . http://www.americanbar.org...
We shouldn't eat dogs.

My opponent has forfeited the round. Sahaam has not demonstrated in this debate that it is inherently wrong to eat dogs. Instead, Sahaam has described certain circumstances in which eating a dog should not be considered morally permissible(though the reasons that these circumstances fall into this category remain unsupported).I would like to apologize to my opponent for addressing them as a male, as their profile indicates that they are a female, if this offends them. However, I do not think their gender is of any relevance to the debate.Finally, I would also like to point out(if some have perceived it as such) that I was not using the Fallacy Fallacy(or argument from fallacy). I pointed out the actual flaws in the reasoning of the arguments(ergo, why it is a fallacious train of thought) and provided resources for the details of the fallacy to show it was well established. In addition, my claim was simply that it was not demonstrated in this debate that eating dogs is wrong(the burden of proof lied with Sahaam, thus I only needed to show that her arguments were invalid and/or unsound).This concludes the debate. I have nothing more to add.
We shouldn't eat dogs.

You don't eat dogs even if they don't do anything.You haven't given me a reason why.But it has been proven that dogs always to something for there owners or for themselves.Why would I care about what a dog does for itself?There are some dogs who don't work for the force and they still always stay in the front yard and protect there owners.Again, I have addressed this. This argument does not apply to non-owners or users of dogs, and dogs that are not owned or used. You have provided no reason as to why a person should not eat non-utility or non-owned dogs, or why non-users/owners should not farm or import dogs for eating.You also haven't answered my question.I said How would you feel if you helped people all your life and then got killed and eaten? you haven't answered that.I already addressed that this is an appeal to pity, and therefore invalid. But, I'll answer the question if it satisfies you. I wouldn't feel anything, because I would be dead. While I was being killed(not after/whilst being eating) if I was kill in a manner when I was concious and/or not painless otherwise, I would probably feel surprised and in a panic. That being said, killing whilst the subject of the killing is not able to feel pain is also an option.Yes some dogs don't do that much but most dogs protect us humans.Why should we eat them? Give me one good reason why we should eat them?I have not argued that we should eat dogs. I have argued that it is permissable to eat dogs. I have also pointed out in the last round that your argument does not apply to dogs that do not perform a task or utility for humans(protection falls under this category).When people want to kill the dog they kill them in a brutal way.This is just animal cruelty.Killing and eating dogs does not imply that people must kill them in a brutal fashion. You have not provided any evidence of this.How would you feel if you had a pet and then one day you realised it was gone and eaten? That would be sad.We're not arguing about whether or not it is permissable to eat a person's pet. We're arguing about whether or not it is permissable to eat dogs. Again, as I have pointed out several times at this point, your argument fails to address why someone should not eat a dog that is not owned.I will answer your question because it seems to fustrate you when they remain unanswered, although I have already pointed out that they are irrelevant:I would feel angry and sad.You have, by and large, simply repeated your talking points.
We shouldn't eat dogs.

You don't eat dogs even if they don't do anything.But it has been proven that dogs always to something for there owners or for themselves.There are some dogs who don't work for the force and they still always stay in the front yard and protect there owners. You also haven't answered my question.I said How would you feel if you helped people all your life and then got killed and eaten? you haven't answered that. Yes some dogs don't do that much but most dogs protect us humans.Why should we eat them? Give me one good reason why we should eat them? When people want to kill the dog they kill them in a brutal way.This is just animal cruelty. How would you feel if you had a pet and then one day you realised it was gone and eaten? That would be sad.
We shouldn't eat dogs.

I will be debating from the position that eating dogs is neither an inherently good or bad thing to do, and that the claim that we should not eat dogs in all cases has not been justified by arguments made within this debate. The burden of proof lies with Sahaam. That being said:Counter point 1) No criteria was provided to distinguish between which animals should or should not be eaten and why. Thus far, the criteria seems arbitrary and undefined, and thus invalid. In addition to this, Sahamm's employs an argumentum ad populum(appeal to popularity) fallacy. He asserts that becuase many people think something is true, we must conclude that it is true. It also contains an unsupported premise(1A below), which he has not provided evidence or reasoning for(making this an opinion, not an argument).His argument is as follows:1) There is a saying that dogs is man's best friend.2) Many people think dogs are man's best friend.3) Therefore the saying is true.1A) It is cruel to eat man's best friend.2A) From 3, we know dogs are man's best friend. 3A) It is cruel to eat man's best friend.Information on the fallacy is below.http://www.nizkor.org...https://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.logicalfallacies.info...Counter point 2)In the second point, Sahaam makes the claim that dogs have been generally useful or helpful to humanity. Therefore, dogs should not be eaten.There are four fundamental problems with this:1) This argument does not apply to all dogs, only dogs that provide a utility or have performed a task for humanity. Untrained dogs or dogs not capable of the same feats as other dogs which perform these tasks do not fall within the bounds of this argument. He has not provided a reason why humans should not eat these particular dogs. Further, if we chose to be efficient, we could narrow down the list of dogs that this argument finds to be unacceptable to eat, by only using dogs best capable of performing specific tasks, for those tasks. 2) It's a false dichonomy(also known as a false dilemma). It is implied that we can either eat dogs or have dogs that benefit us with their actions. He has not proven this is the case. There is no implication in the idea that eating dogs is acceptable that means we eat every dog and/or cannot have dogs that fulfill another function.https://en.wikipedia.org...http://mind.ucsd.edu...3) Finally, he makes an employs the argumentum ad misericordiam(appeal to pity) fallacy. He suggests that we should empathize with the dogs, and that in doing so, should realize that we should not eat them. No argument about the actual permissability of the act or behavior of eating dogs is made.http://mason.gmu.edu...http://www.nizkor.org...4) This argument does not apply to persons, communities, cultures, or societies do not use domesticated dogs. For those who have not yet(or those who chose not to) use domesticated dogs used for tasks or dogs that otherwise assist them, no reason has been provided that these people should not farm and/or import these dogs for consumption if these desire to eat dogs.
We shouldn't eat dogs.

Hi my name is Sahaam and I believe that we should NOT eat dogs. My 1st point is that there are some animals we can eat and some animals that we shouldn't eat, like dogs.Its just cruel, dogs are said to be mans best friends which plenty of people think is true. My 2nd point is that dogs have always been there for us.There have been plenty of cases, of dogs that have saved humans lives.For example a little girl was drowning and a dog came to the rescue, and dragged her out. Also dogs help blind people walk to places, making blind people feel more secure.Dogs also fight crime by catching burglars, and they also have a great sense of smell to catch people with drugs. So dogs have always been there for us, so who are we to kill them and eat them? Its not that nice.How would you feel if you helped people all your life and in return you get killed and eaten?
Lunatic asylums should be forced to create multiple income streams

1. So, we all earn their keep. Mental illness is random, it can strike anyone. It could have stricken you. Part of society is paying for things that don't directly help us. You pay for public school even if you have no children, you pay for roads if you don't bike, etc. These people are a given of society and should not be expected to pay for their keep. Those people do it willingly, or, if it is unwilling, such as human trafficking, it is a violation of human rights. 2. Yes, but those people who dress like that are not harming anyone. Sure they may be insulting people, but it is not near the level of distaste as it is to poke and prod a live, breathing human for kicks. 3. I'm not sure people want insane and possibly dangerous people at their parties. What about lawsuits? Finally, this idea is no different than slavery because inmates could not opt out of it and would be unable to do so. Keeping them is not slavery because they would hurt people if they were not kept in that way. Thus I may conclude my argument. Thanks brian for this humorous debate.
Lunatic asylums should be forced to create multiple income streams

Nevertheless, I am prepared to defend my position as follows: 1 - Mental patients receive food, accommodation and medication at the taxpayers' expense. They do nothing to pay for it, because they are mentally incapable of working in the conventional sense. However, there is a way they can earn their keep and that is to make themselves available to the paying public and go nuts when the visitors prod them with sticks. Yes, it's an invasion of privacy, but everybody who works in the entertainment industry sacrifices some of their privacy when they go to work: especially porn stars and strippers. 2 - It is true that there's nothing humorous about cancer sufferers but every funny farm has patients who strut about dressed like Napoleon and others who skip around with their hands in the air making whooping noises and all sorts of other weird and wonderful performers: I say if you can't laugh at them then you've got no sense of humour. 3 - I concede that some nutters are dangerous but that's why they invented straight-jackets. Thank you.
Lunatic asylums should be forced to create multiple income streams

I seriously hope you are not serious, but anyways, I look forward to an easy debate. I am arguing Con, that Lunatic Asylums should not be forced to create multiple income streams. It was clarified in the comments that con is against open days at asylums, and I will take that position. 1st. Open days are a violation of the right to privacy of the patients, and the suffering inflicted on them by cruel visitors is a definite possibility, especially if they are allowed to touch the patients. 2. Merchandise would trivialize and stigmatize mental illness, which are already heavily stigmatized. Mental illness is no different than physical illness. Let's replace "mental illness" with "cancer" I've pestered the cancer patients at St. Anne's Hospital-- This trivializes the suffering of the inmates by making it into a joke, and glorifies the suffering by making it funny. Mental illness is a serious problem and not something to joke about. 3. An inmate could hurt a visitor, which could lead to lawsuits which would defeat the purpose of these measures anyway. Finally, they destroy the compassion humans must have for each other, even for other people with visible differences.