BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is Europe allowing its compassion to sacrifice its security by allowing refugees to stay.

Hi, I just want to mention quickly that I am British, living in England, so I may refer to "our" involvement, in relation to the UK's actions. I agree that the priority should be people who we can certify, right off the bat, are refugees, as you said, from Syrian, Libyan or Iranian camps. This is the safest and most logical option. I also agree that we are risking our safety as a continent, and upon re reading your argument and my response I do seemed to have glossed over it. I apologize. In my opinion, we risk more by sending them back, or leaving them on one part of European soil; they need to be accounted for and then dispersed throughout the EU. If they are divided, they are possibly conquered. But if they are kept together; they could pose a larger threat. The last thing we want is to be dragged into full scale war; it was one of the largest mistakes of our last Labour government when we joined the US in the invasion of Afghanistan. But this, potentially could be what we will have to face in the future if the Middle Eastern situation continues to worsen. I think the risks we are taking are, perhaps, not out of human compassion as we are debating, but a more selfish reason; we won't have to spend money war AND taking in refugees. We are already involved with airstrikes against IS, but should any other country wish to get involved on ground level, and drag us in with them; we can play the peacekeeper role. It may be a somewhat ludicrous idea, but it might not be far wrong. I think in this situation, we should, as you say, be prioritizing refugees over economic migrants (for the most part). But this is bitingly hard to do during such a large influx; we are playing catch up constantly. I think that the flow of migrants needs to be stemmed; taking them from the camps is probably the best way to do this, as you mentioned. But my argument is; they are still here. But if we end up taking our eye off the refugees already here; they could indeed turn out to be a threat, be it terrorist or otherwise. So while I agree there is a potential security threat, and there are ways the situation could have been handled better, but we have taken the risk now, and just have to hope its paid off.
Is Europe allowing its compassion to sacrifice its security by allowing refugees to stay.

hi there, thanks for taking the challenge, I look forward to hearing more of your views :) Firstly, I want to clarify if it wasn't already clear before, I'm not anti-refugee. I'm completely in favour of rich western country taking people who are in compliance with the UNHCR definition of a refugee. "a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster." The points I'm making and one you seemed to just gloss over is that we don't know who these people are, which in fairness you addressed with a reasonably logical argument however, I would ask you why would increase the risk to our selves as a country and as continent? Why not just find out who the people in the camps in Syria/Libya/Iran (which is what UK government is doing by only taking people from aforementioned camps) to reduce the risk of a mistake being made on a our soil, hence why the UK and other European countries have now been elevated to a state of "Moderate risk of terror attacks". Which whilst I understand sounds like a long shot we should be prepared for all eventualities. Now back to the definition a Refugee. "Escape war, persecution or natural disaster" How do we know these people are doing that? The people in the refugee camps of Syria/Libya/Iran are all refugees and I would support any bid to help them but these people that have swamped the Hungarian police for in the past week could be anyone? Economic migrants, who are simply looking for a better life, is it fair that we let people who could be anyone from anywhere take the spot of a person who is in genuine need of help like the people in the camps in aforementioned countries. The European union has been taken under the grip of madness initiated by the photos that have circulated recently and Germany couldn't have been less reactionary. Just like many of the European leaders I feel that pressure from the uninformed electorate about the actual situation Europe is could potentially cause untold damage. Like you said this is a fairly regular happening, but this time, we don't know who these people are, where they come from and there is a lot of them on the move.
Is Europe allowing its compassion to sacrifice its security by allowing refugees to stay.

Migrants are not a threat. Yet. The way we handle their entrance to Europe could prove to be the problem. I am not here to propose a solution, merely to dissipate the idea that these refugees pose a security threat to Europe. This scale of migration of refugees is largely unprecedented, and therefore there are few protocols in place to deal effectively with it. The main line of argument seems to be that refugees must seek asylum in the first EU member state they reach. (1) This is a fairly regular happening, only this time, there's an awful lot of them, and they are on the move. We have seen scenes of chaos; refugees in Hungary breaking out into violence, and tensions on Lesvos have reached peak point. But these are common scenes when large parties become disgruntled or wrongly treated; in the London riots of 2011 or the Brixton riots in 1981. We have recovered from these sorts of things, as we will do now. So as far as the immediate threat goes, there seems to be no pressing danger. Now for a more pressing matter; should the migrants be here in the first place? There have been concerns over the legitimacy of asylum claims, with some suggesting this is an IS plot to infiltrate Europe. (2) In my opinion, this is dangerous, a total scaremongering tactic and an unfair accusation to stamp on people who have had their sons and daughters washed up on beaches in the name of refuge. But if we put that aside, and somehow entertain the idea that this bizarre notion held a kernel of truth, then it is a rather frightening concept. But they're here now. And they're not leaving. So all the while we ignore them, or try to give them to another state, we don't know who they are or where they are. So surely, logic screams at us to identify them, help them, give them refuge, because if we know who and where they are, and they do turn out to be militants; we can secure a conviction, approval to imprison or deport them. So they only pose a security threat if we allow this situation to continue unrecorded. Now onto the idea of compassion. The best examples of this can be seen at the German border; people welcoming the refugees with open arms, food, and blankets. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has been the voice of calm, confident welcoming, offering up to 500,000 refugees asylum a year. (3) Compassion is something the world needs yet cannot afford. The world also seems to be obsessed with the idea that kindness and diplomacy are two mutually exclusive events. They are not. Germany is not scared, nor under threat. Angela Merkel is not scared, and her idea of structural kindness should be the aim of every EU member state, not least the UK. If Germany, with her influx of migrants, can go forth so confidently, what are the rest of Europe so scared of? 1. http://ec.europa.eu... 2.http://www.dailymail.co.uk... 3.http://www.bbc.co.uk...
Is Europe allowing its compassion to sacrifice its security by allowing refugees to stay.

It was only in February last year that ISIL threatened to send 500,000 soldiers into Europe via illegal immigration routes like the med. I'm seriously concerned that by allowing untold masses of refugees into Europe that we are letting our compassion (or guilt in Britain's case) jeopardise our security. We have no idea who these people are, where they could come from or what there intentions are. While I'm in full support of countries accepting refugees, especially in areas where European influence could be to blame, I'm completely astonished that the European leaders (especially Germany) have allowed their judgement to be clouded by some of the photos that have arisen in the past few days. While heart wrenching and saddening these images may be, I believe that allowing these refugees to enter into Europe and stay here is a grave error, and call for stricter border control, stricter asylum procedure and a detailed investigation into the refugees all ready present with in Europe. type in the comments if you would like to debate :)
cohabitation

many people I know chose to live together first out of a desire to avoid divorce. However, the message that you and your boyfriend or girlfriend send to one another when you set up house before a wedding is that marriage isn't that important as to be worth waiting for. When you cohabitate, you're implicitly saying that your future marriage isn't valuable enough to be worth tough sacrifices -- and that sets a dangerous precedent for when you do take the next step in your relationship. Combine that with point #1 about drifting toward engagement by default, and it puts a crack in the foundation of your relationship that could take years to fix, if it doesn't spread and get worse over time.
cohabitation

Cohabitation does not mean you are entering it think oh well if it doesn't work out we'll break up, moving into together is a choice you have made with your partner because you both think you are ready to take the next step in the relationship. Neither party ever thinks ok if this doesn't work out we'll just break up. A lot will stay together even if there are problems because they choose to want to work on it rather than feeling forced to have to work on it because they got married to soon. Moving in together actually requires a lot of responsibility. Also a lot more couples get married after cohabitation together rather than before. Also you are saying that the couples get used to each other living together when they are married which is the exact same thing as moving in together before they get married they feel each other out start getting use to each other around all the time and finding out each others bad habits and then moving past them because they have made that choice because they want it to work rather than feeling forced they have to make it work for the sake of a marriage.
cohabitation

If they wish to move in with every partner they have people are more than welcome to do that. Also just because you marry someone doesn't always mean they are your real partner. Everyone is different. But to live together before you get married is a key step in any relationship and will see if you can actually stand living with each other. I have heard many stories of people breaking up after they have moved in together because they couldn't stand living with each other and realized they didn't actually work out together, imagine if they had gotten married first. The second partner doesn't have to solve this problem if in the end they are both happy, you don't have to get married to prove you love someone nor do you have to get married just to live with the other person. Couples have the right to move in together before marriage and in the end it will always be the better choice than not living together then jumping straight into marriage.
cohabitation

If they could not get accustomed to their habits, if they broke their relationships, they should try with every partner until they find thier real partners? Also, may be one of the partners is happy just living together, without marriage. How the second partner should solve this problem? Also it takes experiment after getting marriage. And the last point, the couple might have religious problems, for instance, if one of them is not going to have sex before marriage. Some religions are very strict about it.
cohabitation

You say you can give dozens of examples of young couples breaking up after living together. Well that's a huge shocker that some couples broke up after living together. Cohabitation before marriage is one of the stepping stones to knowing if you should get married. If you don't live together but have been together for awhile and then get married and then move in together then you learn about each others bad habits it will put an instant strain on the marriage. Also a girl is free to live with whoever she wants to live with same with anybody, it's called free will.
Prisoners should be allowed to publish full details of their crimes.

I greatly apologize for the forfeit. I was away unexpectedly and had no Internet. You have not talked about the disgusting and bloody detail. Do you honestly think that anyone wants their children to be reading 'And I ripped his intestines out, drank his blood, cut his throat and watched the blood drip all over my dinner, which I ate. The blood was so nice.'? Also, the fact that it will glamorize crime is another bad point. For example, the French fraudster Christophe Rocancourt cheated many celebrities, including Mickey Rourke. He published a book and attacked them for their 'stupidity'. Only a fool would believe that Mickey Rourke, or anyone else, would like to be laughed at for their kindness.
Prisoners should be allowed to publish full details of their crimes.

YOU FORFEITED YOUR OWN ROUND AND SAID NO FORFEITS!!!!!!!! Many prisoners should be able to publish full detail of their crime because there are accounts that do not have accurate information. Also, these people could stand up for their freedom in court if their full detail does indeed match the information on the crime earlier from the police and surveillance cameras, along with witnesses. This could help the innocent get out of prison when they are not guilty and feel that their punishment was not right. This could also help others who may be wanting to warn others about how the police are using their technology and how being in the court is. How you may feel in the court, how you can get out of the court if you are innocent, and other things like that may help people who are being accused of crimes but are innocent. Again, this could help people who are innocent, but were actually accused of their crime to get OUT of their crime.
The title of this debate has exactly 7 "periods".......

Con said: "I think Con misunderstood my intentions, as I was not begging for votes, but merely stating the reasons why I should win this debate, which is essential for the voters to know if they want to vote fairly. Therefore, I also extend"Extend what, exactly?Pro has yet to provide any proof for his stance on this debate, and has brought forth a question of morals and fairness. While these might be the topics of other debates, it is not the topic of this debate. Pro has not been debating the case they chose to side with, which is "there are 7 "periods" in the title of this debate", and instead says that they should win because I am not being fair, although they are the one that chose to accept the debate and take his stance. If I had forced Pro to do so via violence, blackmail, or slander it would be unmoral and thus unfair. Since I have not done any of those things, and Pro is here on his own free will, I request that they argue for their case next round, as I have done so in my previous rounds; I wanted a debate, not an accusation. In fact, the only thing worth mentioning that Pro has given for his stance is a definition, which he didn't even bother to source. http://www.debate.org...
The title of this debate has exactly 7 "periods".......

Well, I knew when I got into this debate that Con would be a tricky little fellow, and quite silly at that, and I applaud thee my dearest friend. That was certainly "clever", hahaha. But voters, please see that my friend here, in not laying out the fact that he was referring to the idea of the term "periods" rather than the period itself, has unfairly prejudiced the voters, and unfairly presented a case that was established for me to lose unwittingly. So for your cunning and deceit, I am humbled, but for your malicious intent and your lack of clearly defining the terms of the debate, thus unfairly causing me to lose, should be just cause for the voters to correctly vote Pro. Thank you. :)
Gay "Safe Sex" A Penicious Lie

My opponent is from the Philip Seymour Hoffman School of denial:"Shooting up heroin doesn't always result in an overdose, therefore, shooting up heroin is safe."Let's explore my opponent's motivation: Male-to-male anal sex is the sine qua non of male homosexuality. It is to male homosexuality what vaginal-penal sex is to heterosexuality. In other words, the notion that male-to-male anal sex is unsafe is evidence male homosexuality is a behavior no one should be engaging in. When people go into denial they rationalize. Hoffman was a brilliant young actor. He knew putting a needle in his arm could kill him. He rationalized just like my opponent is doing and paid for this rationalization with his life.But as far as I know, Hoffman never went into the schools and tell children shooting up heroin was safe. He never sank to that low and despicable level. The reason why young gay men are 72.% of all new HIV cases is because people like my opponent are in the schools teaching young boys anal sex is safe if "Condoms and Lubricant, Negotiated Safety, Strategic Positioning, Withdrawing, Serosorting, and Undetectable Viral Loads." "Serosorting..." ?What the hell is a kid supposed to make of that?People like my opponent call that "safe-sex" education, but the message of real safe sex education is "anal sex can kill you -- don't do it!"We've had 40 years of my opponent's chicanery, 40 years of his dishonest and misleading safe-sex education and gay men are still dropping like flies. My opponent will argue this is because the message has not got out. I argue it's my opponent's message that's killing kids. Remember that Jeff Goldberg scene from Jurassic Park where he explains "Chaos Theory" then links it to animal reproduction? Species find a way, he cautions. No matter what barriers are placed in their way the dinosaurs will find a way to reproduce the types they're not supposed to."The virus finds a way" -- isn't that the lesson we've learned from 40 years of battling it? That no matter what precautions we take -- no matter how much Serosorting we do -- anal sex continues to be the main vector?"Condoms and Lubricant, Negotiated Safety, Strategic Positioning, Withdrawing, Serosorting, and Undetectable Viral Loads." Does my opponent really expect kids to walk around with this check list and check it off before engaging in anal sex? It will never happen -- we've got 40 years of CDC stats to show it isn't happening. Serosorting is complete BS, not "safe sex" education. People like my opponent need to admit it -- until they do, young men will continue dying from male-to-male anal sex. Finally, I put this question to my opponent: what evidence must be presented to you to convince you male-to-male sex is a morbidly unsafe behavior?
Gay "Safe Sex" A Penicious Lie

Unfortunately my contender has admitted to being a Homophobe how can you take serious information about something that a person hates or fears? My contender is confusing what I am saying by safe anal sex. There are steps before and during safe sex which I mentioned in my previous argument "Condoms and Lubricant, Negotiated Safety, Strategic Positioning, Withdrawing, Serosorting, and Undetectable Viral Loads." I urge you sir to educate yourself on these ways to have safe anal sex. Another way for gays to have safe anal sex is by waiting with their partner and both being tested before they have sex and to find a partner without HIV. If the gay community takes the time to do all these they can have what i believe to be safe sex. Thank you.
Gay "Safe Sex" A Penicious Lie

In his last response, my opponent gave us this amazing statement:======================================================================" If the facts show that by having safe anal sex your chances of contracting HIV is extremely lowered than how does that prove it is not safe?"====================================================================== Of course a thing is either safe or it isn't. My opponent wants us to believe because condoms reduce the risk of HIV, male-to-male anal sex is safe. Ridiculous, of course, but such is the lopsided thinking we get from the gay community on almost every issue they're challanged on. "Since a parachute makes jumping off the Empire State Building safe, jumping off the Empire State building is safe."The problem of course is that gay activists are in our schools preaching this same gospel of ignorance. They're telling young boys male-to-male anal sex is safe. Nothing else expains why young males are 72.% of all new HIV cases -- they've been told anal sex is safe and believe it.http://www.catholiceducation.org...
Gay "Safe Sex" A Penicious Lie

I did not see the new HIV part in your original argument. I apologize for that. If the facts show that by having safe anal sex your chances of contracting HIV is extremely lowered than how does that prove it is not safe? if i get shot in the bullet proof vest i have a great chance of living. Otherwise why would they create such a thing if it did not do its job? the same goes for Safe anal sex and preparation for anal sex. it doesnt make it 100% safe but it sure makes it a hell of a lot safer compared to nothing. As for your statement that "400,000 gay males are dead because they engaged in it" I cannot find any information which supports that on a global scale but it is probable since HIV has been around for a little more than 100 years(http://www.nytimes.com...) and in the United States "Since the epidemic began, an estimated 302,148 MSM with an AIDS diagnosis have died" now although those numbers are huge thats over a 100 year period. Again I can find no facts that supports that 1 million gay men are living with HIV on a global scale but it is highly probable considering the fact that "As of 2008, 33.4 million people were living with HIV/AIDS worldwide.(http://greaterthanone.org...)" So on a ratio proportion thats 1 million gay men /33 million people thats a pretty good statistic and maybe should push you to look at others then just gays. As for on a U.S. scale "At the end of 2010, of the estimated 872,990 persons living with an HIV diagnosis, 440,408 (50%) were MSM.(http://www.cdc.gov...)" Many of your accusations were not backed up by facts nor were they statistically accurate. I urge you sir to expand your view on the dangers of anal sex for men past gays and look at others to. You are trying to take a stab at gays when yes they are the majority who are affected in the U.S., but maybe there are other reasons of which you should educate yourself on before assuming every time they have sex with each other they are automatically screwed.
Gay "Safe Sex" A Penicious Lie

According to the CDC, 72.1% of all new HIV infections among youths were attributed to male-to-male sexual contact:http://www.cdc.gov...(see second paragraph under "Results."And successfully arguing that there are safe ways to engage in male-to-male anal sex is not evidence this sex is safe -- no more than wearing a bullet-proof vest makes being shot at safe. Unprotected anal sex can kill you, 400,000 gay males are dead because they engaged in it, and about a million more are living with HIV because of it. If this isn't evidence male-to-male anal sex is morbidly unhealthy, I don't know what is.Honestly, sir, what do you think you accomplish by saying male-to-male anal sex is safe when it so clearly isn't?