BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
banning muslims from entering the country is unconstitutional

First off I would like to apologize for forfeiting I completely forgot I had this debate going. hold on now in the 2nd round you said " Pro has given us a declaration of religious freedoms that are given to Americans. The problem is...foreigners are not Americans, nor do they have American rights." You don't have to be an American to have religious freedom in America you still have rights just not some like the right to vote. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." That is the first amendment which clearly states no laws will be made to restrict religion. https://en.wikipedia.org... You then say all of the unconstitutional things the Quran and Sharia law contain which I agree are bad but the bible contains similar violations such as That women should be submissive and beaten if they try to take authority over men. 1 Timothy 2:11-15 also that unbelievers should be stoned to death Deuteronomy 17 Or Deuteronomy 13 also to rape murder and pillage if the lord says so: Numbers 31:7-18, Judges 21:10-24, Deuteronomy 20:10-14,Deuteronomy 22:28-29,Deuteronomy 22:23-24, 2 Samuel 12:11-14 , Deuteronomy 21:10-14, Judges 5:30, Exodus 21:7-11, and Zechariah 14:1-2 So is this not also a threat? should we ban Christians from the country too? no only extremist groups would follow such rules and laws like Isis but we should not ban a group of people only those that directly break the law.
banning muslims from entering the country is unconstitutional

In 1979, President Jimmy Carter banned Iranians fromcoming to the U.S. during the hostage crisis. Carter expelled Iranians from the country during the extended hostage crisis that was caused by the Islamic takeover of the U.S. embassy in Tehran. Why? National security. Constitutional? Yes. http://www.frontpagemag.com... http://www.breitbart.com... In December of that year, a U.S. Appeals Court allowed for the deportation of over 7,000 Iranian students who were found to have visa violations. About 15,000 Iranians were told to leave the United States. And on an added note, Iranians entering the United States were forced to submit to extra border screening, and many Iranians’ existing visas were cancelled. Also, U.S. officials said they would consider a person’s religion when granting or denying visas to individual Iranians, according to the Washington Post report. * Under U.S. Code, the president does have the statutory authority to keep anyone out of the country, for any reason he thinks best. Per 8 USC S1182 http://www.mintpressnews.com... * -Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. http://www.mintpressnews.com... * Yes, the president has the authority to do exactly what Donald Trump has described. And interestingly enough, this kind of thing has happened before. * In the late 1800s, Congress passed legislation broadly aimed at halting the immigration of Chinese laborers. Those were not fully repealed until 1943. Quotas limiting immigration based on race and national origin were also enacted in the early 1900s. Racial quotas were repealed in 1952, and those limiting people based on national origin were eliminated in 1965. http://www.mintpressnews.com...
banning muslims from entering the country is unconstitutional

Ok first off most people that argue your point would say, that Terrorist are mixed in with them and it would just be better if none of them were let in. Here is the problem with that, the first amendment clearly states that anyone within the united states has freedom of religion. You can not discriminate and kick someone out because of their religion. A lot of people that want Muslims out defend the second amendment saying is absurd that people would consider to change it. And why they do this they forget the first amendment that gives everyone basic freedoms like freedom of religion yet they argue to keep Muslims out.
The Riddle Debate # 1

Ok so this round I get to ask 3 questions right? Ok I gotta few of those... Question #1: The victum died of blunt force truma (I think.) So what part of the body was it that "broke" and really killed him. On the head? Busted up ribs that prieced his heart or something? (Little more detail please) Question #2: What is the white powder? Question #3: What does synthetic mean? XD That is all... Next round I try to solve right?
The Riddle Debate # 1

All right. Let's make this quick so please stay on.Mystery One: Average Detective Finn and the Murder at theMansion Detective Finn got out of his car inawe as he stared at the large mansion. Without all of the police cars,ambulances, and media vans, this would have been a very nice place to live in.But he knew he was not here to visit. He was here to solve a mystery. “Hey, over here,” Officer Jenkinscalled, “I’ll take you to the living room.” Detective Finn nodded his head asOfficer Jenkins started to escort him into the building. “Hey, what happened here?” Detective Finnasked. “Kevin Lee Harper. Age 25. Died ofblunt trauma. Multiple wounds to the chest. No signs of struggle.” OfficerJenkins said. “Can you show me the suspects?”Detective Finn asked. Officer Jenkins nodded his head as hebrought Finn into a large library. Sitting on the couch, were the threesuspects. One suspect was a man name Jerry Barnes. He was 5’ 3” and had jerrycurls. He was a famous baseball player. The suspect in the middle was namedBaldwin Lewis. He was bald, 6’ 3”, and played basketball. The last suspect wasnamed Lockhart J Humphrey. He had dread locks, was 5’ 11”, and played football.They were all rather nervous. In fact, Jerry was biting his nails, Baldwin wasscratching his head, and Lockhart was, surprisingly, sucking his thumb. “Man, I need to go.” Baldwin said, scratchinghis head ferociously. “Yeah, me too.” Jerry said. “I got to go.” Lockhart mumbled with his thumbin his mouth. “Can you take me to where the bodyis?” Finn asked. Jenkins nodded as he walked him to the back ofthe back of the library. He started to examine the body. “It looks like he was beaten by a cylindricalobject. Possibly a baseball bat.” Finn said. He turns his head and sees abaseball bat splattered with blood in the corner. “Well, that could mean Jerry killedKevin.” Officer Jenkins said. “Not necessarily.” Finn replied. Ashe looked closer, he saw a large tuft of hair. It looked like Jerry’s jerrycurls. “Do you think Jerry did it?” Jenkins asked. “Nope,” Finn replied, “In fact, I think he isinnocent. This hair is synthetic.” “So, that means the dude wearsweave.” Jenkins replied. “I don’t think so.” Finn said as hepeered on the hair a lot longer. It emitted a white powder. He decided to putdown the hair. Suddenly, his fingertips started to itch. Then it dawned on him. “I know who murdered Kevin.” Detective Finnsaid.Who killed Kevin?
The Riddle Debate # 1

Hey guys, I came up with a new type of debate. The MysteryDebates. Here are the rules: Round One is acceptance. Round two is where I post a mystery. These mysteries areoriginal, so any critique to better the mystery is greatly encouraged. In thesecond round, Con can ask me any questions that will help them solve themysteries (up to three- use wisely). *Note* You can’t ask me who committed thecrime. Round three is where I answer the questions and Con will tryto solve the mystery. In round four, I will post the end of the mystery and tellCon if he/she got it right. Voting If Con guesses right, Con gets all 7 points. If Con gets stumped, then I will get all seven points. If Con asks 4 or more questions, then I get the moreconvincing point. If Con asks me who committed the crime, that is an automaticforfeit and I get all seven points. Let the mystery begin and don’t get stumped by The_Master_Riddler!
The Riddle Debate # 1

Good job! You were right! “I know who murdered Kevin.”Detective Finn said. He turned around and looked at Jerry and Lockhart stillsitting on the couch. “Where is Baldwin?” Finn asked. “He just left. He had an allergicreaction with sores on his head.” Jerry said. “No, wait, we must catch him. He isthe murderer. Look, here is what happened. He tried to frame the murder onJerry by using his bat and using a wig with jerry curls. But then, he putitching powder in the wig so it can look like he had an allergic reaction tosomething he ate. He would then try to get away claiming he is sick, but he iswell. We must catch him.” Finn said, frantically. “That’s okay. I’ll go get him.”Jenkins replied and he ran off. A few minutes later, he comes back with Baldwinin handcuffs. Finn smiled. All in a day’s work. I lost this time, but I'll stump somebody next time.
Batman (Pro) vs. Black Panther (Con)

I apparently have a few clarifications to make before proceeding. First, I at no point in my argument pitted Black Panther and Batman against one another, as my opponent implies. Whether he has made this remark as a note to himself or as some sort of attack, the voters must understand that this case was never made. Secondly, and I cannot stress this enough, OF COURSE Pro can disprove my points, that's half of the debate. I am simply stating that my opponent must provide evidence that Batman is the better superhero, which he completely failed to do in round two. 1: Influence - My opponent is missing one key difference between these two characters in his argument. The Black Panther is a transitioning position, it is held by the King, whoever that may be. This is not uncommon knowledge in the MU, and the idea that there are two identities of T'Challa is entirely false. Pro's case is, to use a metaphor, stating that the President of the United States cannot also serve as Commander in Chief. These responsibilities come as one, and their influence can be taken as that of an individual. Batman, conversely, lives as two different individuals. Bruce Wayne is not known as Batman by the masses in the DCU, so the influences of Batman and Bruce Wayne must be separated. T'Challa and the Black Panther exist as the same person in the eyes of the MU, and Bruce Wayne and Batman do not do so in the eyes of those in the DCU. 2: Resources and Usage - Agreed, Batman has overcome much...within his limits. As has the Black Panther, but Pro misses the point of this argument. The question is not in accomplishments, it is in the LIMITATIONS of their accomplishments. With more advanced technology, the Black Panther can sustain stronger assaults, and therein battle stronger opponents. My opponent has yet to provide any evidence pointing toward Batman as the stronger of these two characters. In addition, his defenses of my attacks were flawed. If he hopes to fulfill the criteria of this debate and win in the end, he MUST successfully do both in the coming rounds.
Batman (Pro) vs. Black Panther (Con)

Since my opponent has decided to take two arguments in round one, I will honor my agreement by talking about two myself. The essential argument here is who is better overall. Not necessarily who would win in a battle, because unfortunately for my own case, black panther would defeat batman in a random encounter between them with no planning. Thanks to Con himself, since he stated himself that "This is not a debate over which would win in a conflict", he cannot argue this as an advantage without contradicting his own debate. My first category will be the same as my opponents, Influence. I do not accept what Con said about Batman, in that having influence over a single city does not compare to an entire country. My opponent stated that "His influence as Batman as a singular character is not the same as Bruce Wayne's influence or the influence of the Justice League. " If these are his guidelines about Batman, than he must also believes that T'Challa's influence is not the same as Black Panther's influence. In the comics, and in the simple history of Wakanda, T'Challa is the king of the country, not Black Panther. While he is known by all of the citizens their as Black Panther, and the Black Panther is regarded as the king of the country, T'Challa is the technical king, so any argument made about being the king of a country would be an invalid argument, just like anything about Bruce Wayne and his company on my side of the case would be invalid as well. I know that my opponent has made it clear that I need to prove mine, not disprove his. Yet I find that their are many problems with his arguments, and I feel that his points should be valid if I should not be allowed to disprove them. Con makes it clear that he believes that since the Black Panther has access to extremely powerful and advanced resources like vibranium and adamantium, both of which are two of the strongest metals in MU, that that puts him above Batman. Does having access to overpowered metals that make it incredibly difficult to fight against make you better? Batman has defeated some of the strongest Heroes and Villains in the DC universe, in a simple Kevlar suit. I fail to see how better armor and better resources makes you better. Since I have already exceeded my opponents limit in argument, I will stop here.
Batman (Pro) vs. Black Panther (Con)

In accordance with a request by my opponent outside of the debate, I will keep my arguments brief throughout this debate. I ask that my opponent also argue while abiding by this request, since a small argument on one side and a large argument on the other may falsely influence the opinions of the voters. This is amplified by the fact that my opponent directly asked me *not* to make extended arguments. Seeing that there is no true "accepted" response to this question, both my opponent and I must prove our arguments, not simply disprove those of our opponent. Marvel's Black Panther exceeds DC's Batman in two main categories. These categories will be the primary focus of my argument in this round. More are likely to arise in the later rounds, but I intend to play by my opponent's rules. Influence: The Black Panther holds massive influence over the Marvel Universe. His position as King of Wakanda, a massively wealthy and industrialized society, gives Black Panther power not only over the people of his nation, as well as influence around the MU. This was done solely by the Black Panther, without the assistance of the Avengers, or other organizations. By contrast, Batman operates primarily in a single city while without the assistance of the Justice League. His influence as Batman as a singular character is not the same as Bruce Wayne's influence or the influence of the Justice League. Batman's effect on his single city does not match Black Panther's effect on a much larger scale. Availability and Usage of Resources: Batman's resources come primarily from his company. This income and production is dwarfed by Black Panther's vibranium-rich nation. The dependence of other powers allows Wakanda and its king to acquire massive wealth. The usage of these resources within the nation makes it a highly advanced industrial society. The innovations provide the Black Panther with greatly advanced technology, which he uses to defend his people and others.
Batman (Pro) vs. Black Panther (Con)

This is not a debate over which would win in a conflict. Although personal preference is subjective, as it is in any debate, my opponent and I will be debating which superhero is "better". I will be arguing for Marvel's Black Panther, and my opponent will argue for DC's Batman. These two were chosen in particular due to their similarities. Both lost parents to an evil beyond their ability to combat at the time. This provided a driving force into "good" later in life. This, coupled with a desire for revenge, inheritance of a massive fortune, exceptional education, expertise in many fields, including combat, use of gadgets in their fighting. .. the list goes on. But there *are* differences and advantages to each. The goals of my opponent and myself consist of the following: - evidence that the chosen individual holds greater advantage over the other - evidence that the other individual does not hold a great advantage over the other The debate will run through four rounds, not including this informational round. When accepting this debate, my opponent should not use this round to begin their argument. A simple notice of acceptance, or a brief informational section similar to my own are acceptable.
Build a Wall V's Don't Build a Wall

There are many reasons a wall is a fairly ineffective solution to a problem that is at best minor. 1. The government has to take away a significant amount of private land to build its wall. 2. The number of illegal immigrants in the US has declined over the past decade. This is largely because there are more people LEAVING the US TO Mexico than the other way around. Putting up a wall may in fact keep more immigrants here than it keeps out. 3. If 400k people were detained at the border, It seems border patrol is getting the job done with no wall. 4. A wall is not the way the majority of immigrants get into this country illegally. Most overstay visas. IE they come on airplanes. Airplanes have been known to fly over walls. 5. Walls can be climbed over. 10 foot walls only increase the market for 11 foot ladders. Underground tunnels can be made. Boats can be taken around them. 6. The yearly maintenance cost on top of the building cost itself may be greater than any cost illegal immigrants cost us. 7. Illegal immigrants fuel the economy in some ways and commit less crime than native citizens (barring the "illegal" nature of their entry). There's a question of why we're trying to keep them out in the first place. There are short term costs and long term benefits associated with immigrants in general, And illegals in particular. To conclude, The wall costs a lot. The wall will not effect most illegal immigration. The number of illegals in the US has declined without it already. There isn't a reason to think they won't scale over it or dig under it anyway. There is a high likelihood the maintenance costs will be greater than the cost of the illegals in the first place. The border patrol seems to be fairly effective already, And there seems to be little reason to keep immigrants out in the first place. I agree with border security. There is no reason to think the wall is a significant boon to our security. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht Sources in Comments
Build a Wall V's Don't Build a Wall

Hello everyone this is a friendly non judgemental debate about whether or not we should build a wall. For winning conditions will be on most interesting arguments that can appeal to emotions or just facts it is up to the debaters. We will let the voters decide. First round is opening arguments and our stance and position only on the matter and subsequent rounds will address points our opponents have made and rebuttals. Let us began. I think we should build a wall but it doesn't have to be steel wall or even a brick wall could even be a virtual wall with advance sensor's on the ground and few miles out. But there must be a Wall. Barb wire on the ground and under the wall that is hidden and Barb wire above the wall shall prevent majority of mass illegals from entering. Let's make one thing clear We will never stop illegals from entering completely but in 2018 alone 300, 000Plus was apphrended at the border that was actually caught who knows how many wasn't caught. So a wall will never prevent anything 100percent but it will cut down mass amount from entering all at once. A few may get through but the total amount will be reduced considerably. Similar to how many prisoners escape pass the walls of the prison is extremely low only a select few manage to make it past. I have much to say but this is the surface level extent of my argument. I pass the baton to con
Rape should not be a ground for divorce

||Introduction|| While I don't think what Mr. Schitter did is moral, I am not playing the devils advocate by disagreeing with the resolution. Also, Good luck, Brian! ||Definitions|| All definitions are from Dictionary.com Rape: "the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse." Should: "must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): You should not do that." Divorce: "any formal separation of husband and wife according to established custom." ||Arguments|| o Rights This is an important argument since it improves (more or less) the other argument. 1. Marriage is a right every individual(s) has. 2. Just like with the right of having food to eat, we can disagree with how these rights are used but unless what they're doing is illegal, we don't have a right to do more than advice and rebuke. 3. Divorce is legal o Faulty example The resolution is "Rape should not be a ground for divorce" and not "Rape in this instance should not be a ground for divorce". What does tis mean? This means that my opponent has to argue that one should stay married to a rapists even if the victim is you! 1. Marriage involves having a healthy relationship. 2. Marriage with a rapist isn't healthy. 3. Hence, it is reasonable and admirable to divorce.
Rape should not be a ground for divorce

Mr. Schitter arrived home from work at 7p.m. as usual, but unusually, his wife was not waiting at the door to greet him with a kiss. Furious, Mr Schitter let himself in, cursing his wife for not being there to hang up his coat and to pour him a drink and for not having his dinner on the table. Seething with rage, Mr Schitter phoned his wife's mobile ‘phone to demand an explanation, but there was no reply. Just then, there was a knock at the door and Mr Schitter answered it to find a policeman standing on the doorstep. "Mr Schitter?" asked the policeman. "Yes, what do you want?" replied Mr Schitter. "I'm afraid I have some bad news. How can I put this? Your wife went out into the street to give some poor little doggy a bone, but as she bent down, a nonce came around and gave her a bone of his own." "What, you mean she was raped?" "Yes, I'm afraid so sir, she's currently making a statement down at the police station. The good news is that we caught the perpetrator: one of your neighbours witnessed the incident and called us but, unfortunately, by time we arrived on the scene the culprit was on his vinegar strokes and it was too late to stop him spending his wad. Sorry." "Oh no! She was a still virgin when we got married and she's been a one-pr1ck princess ever since. Now she's gone and got herself raped she's ruined as far as I'm concerned." "But surely, sir, she's hardly going to have a minge like a wizard's sleeve just because of that one incident, is she?" "No, but I can't put my pecker where some other man's spunk-encrusted todger's been, can I?" The very thought makes me want to retch. No, I'll have to divorce her – I can't live with her now that she's been got at by another man. Now, if you'll excuse me, officer, I have to phone my lawyer." Mr Schitter's not a very nice man, is he boys and girls? You'd think he'd be more concerned about his wife's welfare, wouldn't you? But, he is entitled to kick her out and get a divorce because he can prove that his spouse has had sexual intercourse with another person of the opposite sex and state that he finds it intolerable to live with his spouse as a result. [1] However, I think that's a bit harsh on the woman, who is, after all, merely the innocent victim of a serious sexual assault, and that's why I believe that rape should not be a ground for divorce. Thank you. [1] http://www.lawpack.co.uk...