BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
are vampires real

I am very sad that my opponent forfeited the second round. But as I am a new member, I will argue alone, for the sake of practice. I would like to use this second round to address the argument that "people just don't get and idea from mid air". Although I think it is indeed possible for ideas to flourish without a physical fact to nourish them, I would rather show some existent and medically understood conditions that may, in the past, have accounted for early reports of vampires. [1] The first candidate for "vampire-disease" is Porphyria[2]. It actually refers to a group of rare conditions that affect the blood and that may cause various "vampire" symptoms. For example, people with this condition may be sensitive to sunlight, having to go out only at night, and are normally very pale. Also, it is believed that this disease used to be treated by drinking blood (which didn't help the patients, as the blood proteins did not survive digestion). Finally, it may cause hallucinations and paranoia, resulting in an "erratic behavior". Another candidate is catalepsy [3]. It is a condition associated with central nervous system diseases, such as epilepsy and schizophrenia. During a cataleptic episode, a person essentially freezes up: The muscles become rigid, so that the body is very stiff, and the heart rate and respiration slow down. Someone suffering from acute catalepsy could very well be mistaken for a corpse. It is believed that many "undead" myths might have origin in this condition, for catalepsy episodes may last many hours, even days, which would allow enough time for a burial. When the person came to, he or she might have been able to dig themselves out and wander around as "resurrected". I hope PRO will return for the next rounds of this debate, otherwise I really can't see why he started it in the first place, and present some better arguments on why would vampires be real. References: [1] http://science.howstuffworks.com... [2] http://www.porphyriafoundation.com... [3] http://www.medterms.com...
God Probably Does Not Exist

I accept your challenge. Alright, so. How was the Earth created? Tell me. The Big Bang Theory? That's just a theory. God is real. He created out world. How is the Earth so perfect? It has water, soil, and other things to grow food and get resources from. How could the Big Bang Theory do all that! What about heaven? Heaven wasn't just something made up. It's obviously real. How do you explain Jesus?
Grand Theft Auto Five

Adults being able to buy something and children not being able to are two different things. What you're presumably proposing is a ban (by the government or retailer) on the purchase of certain items by people under 18. This means you are endorsing infringing on the rights of people and businesses to conduct transactions in any manner they see fit. This is why my previous argument (which you have not responded to) is important. It would be over-regulation bordering on fascism.
Grand Theft Auto Five

There should not be a ban on buying GTAV for anyone. If you want to keep children from buying the game, this should be left of up to the parents, not retailers or government. It is essential to a free society that anyone should be able to buy or sell anything to anyone. If we limit what can be sold to people based on what might harm them, people wouldn't be able to buy basic household items like scissors. Would destroy personal freedom and the economy of whatever society uses this ban.
Free People Should Cross Free Boarders Freely

First of all, your philosophy on welfare is twisted, it is not a "I suffered so should you policy", although it would be with your plan, but rather, a "I suffered, and don't want to put you through the same misery." Also, I don't see how Social Security can be "wrong", it is a good policy, which helps those who have worked hard all their lives, but grown to old to work, and those who payed the fees, should receive the benefits. Also, your argument on getting along fine before schools, and income tax, but we have always had schools, and have always had certain forms of taxes. You continue to resist the fact that not all crimes are drug related, and by legalizing drugs, you will just fill the hospitals rather than the jails, DRUGS CAUSE ACCIDENTS, legal or not they will cause accidents. "Your right I don't want to teach them I want people who job it is to teach them, teach them" here you state that you don't want to teach them, but that SOMEONE should, the government has to be that someone. Also you say all they should do is defend the country, you are correct, they should defend the country, but that must be taken with a grain of salt. Consider the cold war, though many do not know it, the United States destroyed the USSR, by destroying there economy, they did this by increasing our military, so the USSR spent all their money trying to keep up, and went bankrupt, it was a simple economic war, played out behind the curtains, also, think of Germany after WW1, their economy was also destroyed, in an attempt to stop them from ever causing another world war, it failed, but it sill crippled there economy, with the United States' economy already in trouble, and the worth of the dollar going down, we cannot have this happen. You say that the money stays in the US, but you are wrong, when the money is made here, but sent to Mexico, the services it is spent on DO NOT help the US economy, and they do hurt the US job market. Also, saying they worked for their money, and do what they please with it is WRONG, they work illegally, and they are waging the same economic war we did to the USSR, and the common defense doesn't say we need to defend the enemy, we need to defend ourselves, from the illegal immigrants, who take well paying jobs, take money out of our economy, cause crime, and cost money in social services, to believe that the government will simply abolish all social services for the good of the illegal immigrants is insane, and illogical, many people survive on these things, because a Mexican, or Canadian, or Russian took their job at a lower price, and until we must stop this economic war!
Free People Should Cross Free Boarders Freely

Well of course we shouldn't just up and eliminate it it should be gradual the same with welfare like let there be restrictions on it like first at the most 2 years than 1 then 6 months and so on. Just because they have been paying for it all their life dosen't make it right. Neither is the fact that I had to suffer so should you. And yes you are correct in saying that the current governement to this is insane the only way to achieve it is to amend the constitution or to have a state secede. Your right I don't want to teach them I want people who job it is to teach them, teach them. We got by fine (some may aruge better) for over 100 years without an income tax socialized medicine, schools and everything else. Now the whole issuse with them pay for it most people in this world want a education meaning through the market prices will go down and availbilty will go up. The poor people will pay just like they pay for college. Through scholhships grants and private charities. Now college today is very expensive today because of government subsidizing the market mind you it is less than other market but its there. The issuse with jobs is this if they send the money back to help their family it dosen't matter 1. Its thier money they can do what ever they want with it they worked for it and 2.They are still working here helping the job market. The arugment with jobs is the same exact arugment that was talked about in the early 1900's that immigrants looking for work will take jobs away from americans but where all fine and the unemployment rate has been pretty steady at 5% for the last 60 years. I think you misunderstood me when I was talking about ending the war on drugs I'm not talking about winning it I'm talking about getting rid of it making all drugs legal so we don't have armed thugs dealing drugs on the black market through over inflated proces. We have business men dealing them the same way we have business men dealing asprin,alcohol,and tobacco. The government cause the high crime rate by making things that are not really crimes crimes. When you outlaw something only outlaws do it. The government cause you having to take spanish is 100% their fault its there schools they make the rules. Now in my highschool you don't have to take spanish you just have to take a foregin laugage but thats beside the point. The goverenment is in fault for all that lose money because thier governemnt that what they do lose money and by having those programs. Now I don't know what the solutions you have though of to limit immigration so ill use a setero type my solution is getting rid of the bowl of milk for there stry cats their solution is shooting all the cats. Now I knid of got the feeling that you were alittle made when I advocated a small constitutional government restrained to it proper function defined by the declaration of independence. Thats what where suppose to have remember. When goverenment does one thing for one person it must steal from another to do so. In the process it gains control over both in the process
Free People Should Cross Free Boarders Freely

So, what you are saying is that you would like to abolish the Social Security that people have been paying into for years, and that the government should have no control over education, or health care, or Medicaid, or Medicare that people have been relying on and paying for all their lives, and that the government should just run the military and nothing else. To expect the government to do this is insane, and a completely illogical argument, also, blaming the government for issues caused by illegal immigration is unpatriotic, and illegitimate. You say that "I don't see how there would be a need to teach Americans spanish. If anything there would be a higher need to teach english to immigrants." but yet, you don't want to educate them??? How is that supposed to work? Do you expect these poor immigrants to pay for schooling to learn English? They will not, they do not now, and will not in the future. Second, to assume that them taking jobs will also create jobs is not true, because they simply send their earnings back to Mexico, or the country that they came from, also, it is not only the fact that they take jobs, but when they do, they aren't paying Social Security. Moving on to your argument about "Ending the war on drugs" even if we did end the war on drugs, drug related crimes are only a small portion of crimes committed by illegal immigrants, and winning this war would not stop the crime rate, although it could lower it. You even stated, and I quote "Currently you are correct. With the situation that we have now they do have a negative effect. But if we had a stronger economy they would be a welcome asset to the economy" saying that without an economic boost, they do, and continue to cause a problem, but yet, in no way do you plan to create this economic boost, but you would rather hurt the economy, by allowing illegal immigrants to run free, and pinning the blame on the government. So I ask you, how does the government cause the crime rate? How does the government lead to me having to take a spanish class TO GRADUATE HIGHSCHOOL? How does the government lead to the money we lose to illegal immigrants in terms of Social Security, and other social services?
Free People Should Cross Free Boarders Freely

I don't see how there would be a need to teach Americans spanish. If anything there would be a higher need to teach english to immigrants. Did Americans have to learn Italian,Polish,Czech and every other launage when they mass immigrated here? No its natural process. My grandfather came over on a boat he spoke Italian and he learned english. I don't speak Italian even though he spoke it to me and around me. When people come over to a place with a natural language they want to learn it. Now yes a lack of education leads to a lack of crime but also you must again bring the fact of the war on drugs. Like I have said before it brings on this incentive to people that selling drugs is better than completeing school and getting a job which pays less that dealing drugs. Again I repate myself every problem brought up against Illegal immigrants is a government caused problem. Now when I was advacting elimating those three things thats not it theres alot of other programs that is causing this problem. Basically what I'm advacting is getting rid of government in all aspects except protecting our rights. Now the whole thing with taking jobs is overblow at the least. The more people who come here means more people who need foods, more people who need houses and so on. There is no finite amount of jobs the more people who come the jobs will be created. The only that cannot happen is if the government gets in the way. Currently you are correct. With the sitution that we have now they do have a negative effect. But if we had a stronger economy they would be a welcome asset to the economy and bussiness more people meaning more goods can be produced thus lower the prices of goods, and help there being more advancment in techonolgy. It also means cheaper labor meaning that the prices of the goods will again fall
Free People Should Cross Free Boarders Freely

Welcome to the site, I messed up my first argument so don't feel bad. Ok from now on we are debating: Would illegal immigrants be a problem if we eliminated schools that must take everybody, we eliminate the law that says hospitals take everybody who walks in and if we eliminate the war on drugs. With the accepted, and combined definition of what a law needs to be good. Yes, they would be a problem, if we eliminated the things you wish to eliminate. There would be a higher need to teach Americans spanish, since Mexicans weren't learning english, and, also it is proven that lack of education leads to crime, and since these people cannot pay for education, they will be statistically more likely to commit more crime. Although not accepting them in hospitals MAY help the economy, it would not be significant enough to make up for the negative effects they have. When people think of illegal immigrants and what they cost the government, it is easy for them to look up statistics that the immigrants do not cause the government to SPEND money on them, but they always seem to overlook one thing, the illegal immigrants don't pay social security, they don't pay taxes, and they DO take jobs. Sure, the Mexican illegal immigrants may not take jobs, but that is because they are uneducated, and do not have the skills required to make it in the workforce. We must also take into consideration, Canadian, and Russian illegal immigrants who ARE educated, and DO have the skills to take our well paying jobs, without paying social security, income tax, etc. This obviously causes major problems, as Social Security is the United States' biggest expense, and every bit of funding is needed, especially with the baby-boomers beginning to draw Social Security, now, I ask you to tell me what POSITIVE impacts ILLEGAL immigrants have on our economy, or society as a whole.
Free People Should Cross Free Boarders Freely

First let me say I'm sorry this is my first post on here I'm still getting adjusted to the layout. But anyway thats irrelevant. Well I agree with you to a point that yes bad laws could include that but it must include personal liberty. The nation could be spurred to great heights through that law but it oppressed I say its bad but moving on. All the problem you gave are government created problem. If we didn't have a flat currency our economy you be alot more stronger than it is. If we didnt have the government providing a school that everybody is entitled to that would not be a problem. If we didn't have the government telling hospitals through the barrel of a gun that they have to take in everybody who walks through the doors. The criminal aspect is definitely a government cause problem the majority (if not all) of the "illegal" immigrants are for better or less words poor. The war on drugs allows criminals or anybody who wants to take the chance to rake in huge amounts of profit. I can earn minimum wage by working at a entry level job, or i could be a lookout for a drug dealer and get a pretty good share of the pay. So my question to you is how would you feel about immigrants if we eliminated schools that must take everybody, we elimate the law that says hospitals take everybody who walks in and if we elimate the war on drugs.
Free People Should Cross Free Boarders Freely

Ok, since you are correct in the fact that debating the whole time over the definition of bad, let us assume that "bad laws" are laws which have a negative effect on the economy, or welfare of the nation, or are against the views of a majority of the population, if you oppose, please post your idea. Moving on to the laws on immigration, I would first like your opinion on immigration, before I can argue either side, do you believe the laws are unfair to immigrants, or that they are not harsh enough? Assuming from your the title, you believe the laws are too harsh, so this is what I will debate as of now. Illegal immigration has a negative effect on the economy, and causes problems in education, and health services, and increases the crime rate. In some cases, immigrants have been arrested an average of 8 times each, and they can be directly linked to the increasing crime rate.
Free People Should Cross Free Boarders Freely

Excuse me if I did not openly reveal he position that I am taking so I will put it out in the open right now. The immigration laws that we have in America are to put it simply bad. Now the biggest problem in this debate will be is to define the phrase "bad laws". Now lets say we are back in the time of slavery in the US a plantation owner is going see the current law of slavery is good while at the same time a slave see it as bad. We should not and cannot look to other people to define bad or immoral. Now there are plenty of bad laws today and many of have nothing to with what is right for the country or the people there usually to befit the people in charge and the government. And we have plenty of bad laws from the past that are still with us today. Utimaly we must ask yourself is this bad or is this good. The current law of slavery is good while at the same time a slave see it as bad. We should not and cannot look to other people to define bad or immoral. Now there are plenty of bad laws today and many of have nothing to with what is right for the country or the people there usually to befit the people in charge and the government. And we have plenty of bad laws from the past that are still with us today. Ultimately we must ask yourself is this bad or is this good.
Free People Should Cross Free Boarders Freely

Although I am not completely sure what you wish to argue, I have accepted your debate, first I would like to say previous laws, and current laws are completely different, and the past laws have been abolished because they are bad, secondly, I believe that our politicians to what is right for the country, and the people, and very few law is "bad" in that respect, so I believe that laws will be broken, if they are poorly enforced, and perceived as "bad"
Political Parties Need To Cease Existence

I would like to begin by stating that when ever there is a devision in a unified body, corrupting, greed, and progress will halt. This is a situation which has happened, and is bound to happen again. The list includes but is not limited to: The USSR The Union v. The Confederacy and current day, Republicans v. Democrats. The USSR collapsed because of economics. Everyone was woking for equal pay, some lost incentive and stopped working so hard because they knew there was no opportunity to get something better in life. The USSR split from the working class people, who were all "equal", and the leaders. The USSR collapsed due to internal errors, as well as some external errors. The Union v. The Confederacy: America was (is) decided into 2 sections. the north and the south. This was due to a split in ideology. This split led to the death of 1,264,000 American soldiers, and that's not including all of the other civilian deaths. This split can still be seen today, as many southerners still want to secede. And finally, Republicans v. Democrats. Today, congress is officially one of the worst congress' in history. This congress can not get anything done because of whats going on behind the curtains. It's a fight between republicans and democrats. The only was to stop this madness to eliminate political parties all together. Not to mention the fact that today, no one can develop their own opinions on a subject. Everything has to be influenced, and everybody has to be cookie cutter. It is for these reasons I say that Political Parties NEED to cease existence. Thank you
Political Parties Need To Cease Existence

I agree that "political parties are run by large companies or business men who wish to make a profit" in America today. But I assert that it does not intrinsically have to be this way. The status quo can always be changed. I will also continue to assert that abstinence is NOT agreement. To put it into a political perspective then: A person could (and people have throughout history) abstain from political dissent out of fear. This does not mean they agree. Rather, they do not speak up due to a perceived negative consequence. Whether this has been beneficial for them or not is irrelevant. But we digress. Ultimately I believe it is unwise to assume that freedom from all political parties is most beneficial. I even assert that a country could be run by a dictator that provides the most benefit to the most people. It's highly unlikely. But it's within the realm of possibility. Political parties are not self-conscience entities. They are only the sum of the people that make them up. I believe one of the major issues that is negatively affecting Americans today is a sense that the status quo can't be changed. And I believe that it is this sense that may have led you to the conclusion that, 'since it can't be changed, let's just get rid of it'. But the status quo can be changed. To summarize, I assert that political parties do not intrinsically "need" to cease to existence for the better of society. A better society could be created by any political party with the desire to do so. Thank you for the debate.