BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Trump Travel Ban was Beneficial to the United States

It's not banning people based on their religion, as over 80% of Muslims can still enter the country. If he really wanted a more effective Muslim ban, Trump would have banned Indonesia, Pakistan, India, etc. The data proves that Muslims living in the U.S. are far more likely to say suicide bombings are justified (only 7% saying they are sometimes justified). And no, it's not racist to listen to facts to notice a pattern among people of a certain country. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It is clearly stating that it only applies to U.S. citizens. And by the logic that we can't let these people in on the basis that they are from these countries, should we have let in the Japanese during WW2 after Pearl Harbor? Should we have let in Russians during the Cold War? I don't think so. At the times they offered serious threats to the security of the United States, like many residents of the countries on the travel ban list. I don't think that every Muslim from these countries are terrorists, or even support terrorism. But 16% is too high of a number for me. Just because 84% of them don't support it, doesn't mean that there isn't some sort of pattern among these people. I think it would be dangerous to judge all of them as peaceful just because most of them are.
The Trump Travel Ban was Beneficial to the United States

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." --First Amendment, Bill of Rights, U.S. Constitution.I do not believe that violating the Constitutional rights of people who wish to move to America is beneficial to the country. If the citizens of those nations converted to Christianity, or even became atheists, would they be welcome then? Is that form of discrimination ever justified, like moving German Jews into their own neighborhoods because there is less conflict when they among their own people?Furthermore, what about Muslims already living in the United States? Would they be forced to move to predominantly Islamic countries? If not, what makes them different from any other Muslim from another country? What about people who convert to Islam? Is it only racially Arabic Muslims? If so, is that not the definition of racism? "...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." --Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Constitution.The amendment above can be understood one of two ways. One: taken at its grammatical, written meaning, this amendment applies to "any person", not just citizens; therefore, people coming from predominantly-Islamic nations who arrive in the U.S. must be given equal protection under the law and due process, which means that we cannot violate their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion. Two: if the amendment is implied to only refer to citizens, and you use it to justify a ban on citizens of these predominantly-Islamic countries, you argue that the U.S. government can discriminate on a federal level against both race and religion against any non-citizen. (Note that using the 14th amendment to revoke the rights of non-citizens still does not address the Muslims already living in the U.S. as presented above.)Radical Islam is obviously a problem for many countries stuck by terror threats, and I believe that the government does have the right to maintain federal watch lists and act on potential threats, such as a Muslim who exhibits evidence of radical ideas online. Anyone who poses a threat to the well-being of others should be stopped, regardless of race, religion, or any other aspect of themselves. However, a radical faction of a particular group, race, or religion does not permit discrimination against the whole group, religion, or race.
The Trump Travel Ban was Beneficial to the United States

Sources: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com... http://www.pewresearch.org... http://www.pewglobal.org... http://www.infowars.com... By west society, I mean: USA, Canada, Australia, West Europe, and New Zealand. The only problem is there is no evidence that Christians support stoning, executing gays, or killing non-Christians. I agree that the Bible and the Quran have similarities when it comes to raw text, but the followers of the religion have extreme differences. There are no polls showing that anything near 16% of Christians support suicide bombings. Also, I stand by that at the moment, Muslims can't successfully move to western society as a whole. But with extreme vetting I think we can allow the ones who don't have extremist views into the country. Also, the travel ban is beneficial because Syria, banned indefinitely, has upwards of 20% of Muslims that have a favorable view of ISIS. I'm not defending the entire executive order, as it has flaws, but overall it was beneficial. I
The Trump Travel Ban was Beneficial to the United States

If you could add some sources, that would be very helpful. I know you cited Pew Research, but if you could link to that, that would be great.I assume by "Western society", you mean predominantly Christian countries. Therefore, if you believe in biblical law, you believe in killing any girl who has sex before marriage (Deuteronomy 22:20), putting "rebellious" sons to death (Deuteronomy 21:18), executing gays (Leviticus 20:13), killing anyone who tries to convert followers of God to another religion (Deuteronomy 12:6), and murdering anyone who commits adultery (Leviticus 20:10-12), among a slew of other things. Any defense that you use to prove that current Christians and Jews don't follow these laws in the same defense that many Muslims will uses as to why to don't follow all of Sharia law. If by "Western society" you don't mean predominantly Christian countries, I don't know what else you mean. Perhaps white majority countries? In that case, within 20 years, American will no longer be a Western nation, regardless of how many immigrants we keep out from the few countries currently banned from immigration (1).This brings up another point: the travel ban–which, I might add, the administration has repeatedly emphasized is not a travel ban at all, but simply a revised vetting process (2)–only lasts for 90 days, excpet for refugees, which lasts 120 days, and of course the indefinite ban of Syrian refugees. If you believe that Muslims do not belong in America, then you should say that the travel ban is not beneficial, as according to your view it is essentially useless.Finally, leet me address the fact that we are debating whether or not the travel ban was beneficial to the U.S., so we should be discussing the travel ban and its merits and problems.Sources:1. https://usnews.newsvine.com...?2. http://thehill.com...
The Trump Travel Ban was Beneficial to the United States

The travel ban recently put into place is beneficial to the United States. I am not here to defend the entire Executive Order, as I actually do think that more countries should be added, but this list is better than nothing. Take a look at polls of what Muslims actually believe. They are not good people to be living in Western Society. I do feel sorry for these people who are actually suffering in countries such as Somalia, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, etc. But I do think that we should think about the fact that according to Pew Research, over 16% of Muslims think that suicide bombings are sometimes or often justified, and that number goes up to over 38% when you factor in the Muslims who also say that they are at least rarely justified or they don't know. Another problem with Muslims that makes them not suitable to be living in western society is their thoughts about human rights, this of course being Sharia Law. Also according to Pew Research, more than 70% of Muslims believe that Sharia should be the law of the land. But this begs the question: what does that really mean? Well, if you believe in Sharia, then you believe in executing gays, killing Muslims who leave Islam, and cutting off people's hands for stealing. These are the kind of beliefs that are not acceptable in western society. But these stats are simply from countries that are very Muslim. What if we look at Muslims already living in the west? Well, about 1/4 US Muslims ages 18-29 think that suicide bombings are ever justified. The same applies with Muslims ages 18-29 who think that suicide bombings are ever justified with 35% in the UK, 42% in France, 22% in Germany, and 29% in Spain. Are these really the people we want coming into our country? Now, to end my side of the argument, I actually do feel sympathy for these people who are actually suffering in the Middle East who just want to live a normal life. Although, since the group as a whole show a pattern of an inability to live in western society, I think it's the job of surrounding, safe, Middle Eastern countries to take these people in. Countries like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman, Kuwait, Qatar, etc. Who have taken in virtually 0 refugees, but easily can. Saudi Arabia for example, has more than 100,000 empty air conditioned tents just waiting for refugees. These countries have what Muslims as a whole (70%) want, which is Sharia Law, but they are not war zones like Syria, Iraq, or Yemen.
The GOP Rests on Ideologically Shaky Ground

Welcome to this debate.I issued this challenge to my buddy, my friend, my pal, DanT, because in one of our more invigorating discussions, I had an ephiphany. The nature of this ephiphany was, you guessed it, semantical, so I figured, who better to test the semantics of my argument than our esteemed local expert, DanT himself.Resolution:The GOP Rests on Ideologically Shaky GroundDefinitions:GOP - Grand Ol' Party, the Republican PartyIdeologically Shaky Ground - Uncertain ideas/principlesEssentially, a less flowery wording of the resolution is that "I find just cause to question the Republican Party's ideological foundation".Background:Here I will outline what I percieve to be a broad consensus of exactly what constitutes the current ideology of the Republican Party, i.e. modern conservatism.http://www.studentnewsdaily.com...[modern] Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals. Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems.I know this may not be precise...it is easier to see how this contrasts with modern liberalism:[modern] Liberals believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. It is the duty of the government to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve problems.This background is not set in stone...it is merely to offer an agreed-upon reference point in order to give this debate a focal point of discussion.Rules:Round #1, acceptance onlyRounds #2,3 argumentsRound #4, closing, no new arguments/sources4,000 character rounds4 roundsThis is a NO VOTING debate. I ask that any and all participants refrain from actually scoring this debate...feel free to leave comments pertaining to the quality of the debate and anything you may find noteworthy. The aim of this NO VOTING debate is to eliminate the tendency of people getting invested in their vote, which tends to encourage needless politicking for votes, and restricts the quality of feedback due to fear of having their vote challenged/questioned. By eliminating the scoring, the focus of discussion then becomes the actual ideas of the debate, rather than whether or not someone's RFD conformed to this or that. The idea is that after the formal debate is done, a less formal debate involving the audience would commence, one that would hopefully involve more constructive feedback than just attempting to persuade voters to change votes. This would also allow for some flexibility for PRO/CON to concede arguments that he/she may agree with, but run contrary to his/her position (after the debate is over, of course).
bible is not an infallible work

<< i believe in God. i don't believe in the bible. there's a significant distinction you need to understand.>> No. I don't need to understand that. This is a debate. I just need to argue my points, which I did. You did not argue yours, however. < > No where in my argument is "i feel it in my heart" used as one of my points. If using misdirection is one of yours, I commend you. It's too bad my points are short enough to confirm the fact that you made that up. I respect your beliefs (and lack thereof too). Happy New Year!
bible is not an infallible work

"Take heed that no one leads you astray.........and they will lead many astray. And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars; see that you are not alarmed; for this must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and Earthquakes in various places: all this is but the beginning of the birth-pangs." -Jesus Christ, son of God I refute your dark-sided twist of God's words. You would have me turn away from God's path, but he predicted your post almost two-thousand years ago. It won't work! The Bible IS infallible.
The Theory of Evolution is a lie and We did not come from monkeys.

Great, it's no wonder why you observe macroevolution, you get to determine what a "kind" of animal is in the first place! you set it up with genus, phylum, and whatever. Just show me a fish turning into a man and then we'll talk. The word "evolution" has Six meanings, only one of which is scientific - 1. Cosmic Evolution - the origin of time, space and matter. a.k.a. big bang - 2. Chemical Evolution - the origin of higher elements from hydrogen. - 3. Stellar and Planetary evolution - Planets and stars forming (never been observed) - 4. Organic evolution - Origin of life. - 5. Macro-Evolution - changing from one kind of animal into another. - 6. Micro-Evolution - variation within kinds (big dog, little dog. Only this one has been observed and is scientific. this does not contradict with creation or the bible in anyway.) * The first 5 are not scientific, they have never been observed, never tested. Now you can believe they happened, but do realize that you just left the realm of science and entered into religion. As for your evidence, you have none. Fossils? Evolutionists have constructed the Geologic Column in order to illustrate the supposed progression of "primitive" life forms to "more complex" systems we observe today. Yet, "since only a small percentage of the earth's surface obeys even a portion of the geologic column…the claim of their having taken place to form a continuum of rock/life/time…over the earth is therefore a fantastic and imaginative contrivance." "The lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled." And this supposed column is actually saturated with "polystrate fossils" (fossils extending from one geologic layer to another) that tie all the layers to one time-frame. "To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." Genetics? Of course we share similar genes with animals, WE CAME FROM THE SAME GOD! duh! dumb athiests... If the earth is billions of years old than how do you account for the Carbon-14 ammounts in our atmosphere? We get C-14 due to radiation from the sun entering out atmosphere and some becomes C14. Scientists have calculated that on a brand new planet about the size of earth, it would take about 30,000 years for the C14 to hit the equilibrium point (no more coming in, none leaving, a.k.a. the ammount stays the same). Our atmosphere is still gaining c14. That proves the earth is less than 30,000 years old Ok fine, so you can name a few mutations, do they make a human become a different species? no. sources:http://www.freewebtown.com...
The Theory of Evolution is a lie and We did not come from monkeys.

1 debate per person please. I can't imagine how you can believe we came from monkeys. doesn't it just make more sense to just say we adapted? Just because we changed our environment doesn't mean we automativally can mutate ourselves and just "evolve." When people get mutetions, they suffer from various illnesses. Can you name me ONE mutation that is positive? Just one. That's all I'm asking for. You can't, simply because there is none. We are made in the image of God, our heavenly father, so when genes in our body changes it goes from good to something bad. How can you explain how things so complex such as the eye can just have "evolved"? you can't. The fact is, evolution takes faith. How you can believe in something that is so absurd with no evidence is beyond me. Do you realize the probability of us getting here by "chance" is so miniscule that it takes more faith for you to believe in evolution than it takes to believe in unicornes. Every time I talk to athiests, they can't back their claimes up. All they do is resort to ad-hominem attacks, because that's all they've got. When it all boils down, they have no evidence. So I challenge you, show me the FACTS, show me the Evidence, to justify this belief, because when it all boils down to, you really have none, don't you.
I believe the silent majority is closer to the libertarian party than to any other.

Firstly, you will not be successful brushing off my entire argument by accusing me of using "hasty generalizations." Not all generalization are hasty, but you have used them together repeatedly as though they are inseparable. You mentioned the independent party might compete with the libertarian party, but that party is not known (even by hasty generalization) to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. The libertarians are known generally (there's that word) to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. For this reason alone the libertarian party would be the most suitable home for dems and republicans with similar views. Many of these types of voters already do consider themselves moderates because they aren't buying the ideas of the radicals in their own parties. There is a large piece of common ground among these types of voters in each party, that could be exploited to get this country moving in the right direction again.
I believe the silent majority is closer to the libertarian party than to any other.

Alright you have brought up many major points. The thing is since you are indeed basing this entire argument around generilizations your right it comes down to a point of not needing sources and a entire debate of hasty generilizations. If we are going to that point then it is that all liberatarians could not take the republican vote due to that with experience libertarians focus more importantly on major issues in a heriarchy rather than what is important and what is not. If we voted directly on beliefs then we have to go into what do libertarians belive. What is directly important to libertarians. In your first argument "Most republicans I speak with are also fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Only the fringe religious right want to tell you who you can marry and what you can smoke. Most conservatives aren't for telling you what you can do in your bedroom, but for keeping government small, taxes low, and spending under control. That's why they are so frustrated with the current administration." We can assume this is a hasty generilisation just as well since you are interpreting what is important to republicans and there beliefs. This just as well works in libertarian belifs due to they must have a set of beliefs to take votes away from the two parties. Well then you have a proven point since is it not the purpose of a third party to take away votes from the major parties. Since you stated that "If everyone voted their beliefs instead of their parties, I believe the Libertarians would be able to take at least half from each party." Well then are we simply debating conservative vs liberal. In this turn instead of democrat vs republican vs liberatarian are we not simply debating conservative vs liberal vs moderate? As shown people do vote based on these beliefs and as opposed to a liberatrian in the senate we have another "moderate" party known as independents. So in turn if we voted this way as opposed to votes being taken from major parties to libratarians then would isnt the idea of libertarians loosing all votes to the major parties equally realistic?
I believe the silent majority is closer to the libertarian party than to any other.

The way I see it is that in a way you could be correct but no, i do not agree with that as the libertarian party seems more like a splinter of the independent party in this sense. Truth is when you say the party, you seem to be generalizing the American populace in these party's as well as the representatives. The american populace more or less focuses on the major planks, while then representatives the less major planks. I can agree as far as democrats, except that the libertarian party is far more into individual liberties to the point of anarchy. Democrats differ on the planks mainly economically. Other than that I can agree that they could take a vast majority of the democratic party if not for that. That is why we have the political philosophy of a libertarian democrat. Republicans however differ very much on basically every issue against democrats except on federalism, and the right to bear arms. Honestly here it comes down to republican vs. Conservative Democrats. . http://www.lp.org...
I believe the silent majority is closer to the libertarian party than to any other.

I believe most republicans and democrats are ideologically closer to libertarians than they are to their own parties-- mainly because most people in both parties are not as irrational as their opponents assume. Most sensible democrats I speak with are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. They are not for creating a welfare state, but for helping people only when they cannot help themselves. Most democrats aren't for socialism, but freedom of lifestyle. Most republicans I speak with are also fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Only the fringe religious right want to tell you who you can marry and what you can smoke. Most conservatives aren't for telling you what you can do in your bedroom, but for keeping government small, taxes low, and spending under control. That's why they are so frustrated with the current administration. If everyone voted their beliefs instead of their parties, I believe the Libertarians would be able to take at least half from each party. "Stay out of my personal life AND out of my wallet" is the only position consistent with personal freedom. I believe it resonates with most democrats and most republicans.
This is not a debate.

I will provide four definitions that obviously must be accepted assembly - a meeting of two more people public - on the Internet or in a public place discussion - arguments from two sides viewpoint - a position on anything I contend that this is a debate and that my opponent has opposing viewpoints. Since I disagree with my opponent on the fact that he has opposing viewpoints makes this a discussion. The argument of whether or not he has a viewpoint is in itself a viewpoint.