BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Illegal Aliens are not helping the USA

First of all, you make me puke with your grammar, insults towards me, and yet you dare to call my vocabulary horrible? Big money = a lot of money, big amounts, is it that hard? It doesn't care if you work all day = illegal immigrants work all day, didn't you know that? Do you take sources from every website that claims us spends 1000,0000,0000$ dollars on illegal immigrants? And The United States doesn't feel the money they're spending on deporting them, because the ones who hired are giving tones of money towards Police for hiring illegal immigrants. No, it's not a stereotype, I am not a hater, it's just that they do the works that pay better and do not involve physic efforts, only brain efforts. Did I mention Romania? Are you blind? All your facts make you look like a one way bastard which doesn't care about what the other meant to say, only what he understands. Illegal immigrants win money, buy products from the US, they live in the US (spending money on household), how don't they give money to the US? My sources can be found in the US. I know about America cause of my English teacher that I take studies over the Internet, she is 34 and lives in the America, studies economy, get it? You even had spelling issues in the resolution, and you call my grammar horrible?
Illegal Aliens are not helping the USA

Allow me to ask you where you are getting these facts from? You dont even live in America, how do you know that The USA Government has not spent one cent on illegals, did you not read my sources? Who do you think pays to deport an Illegal back to their country? Please explain to me about how 'gracious' and 'caring' Romania is to give the United States money. I would really like to see your references on that. Your grammar is confusing, you said " Big money but it doesn't care if you work all day." What do you mean by that? The fact is, immigrants don't come into the country illegally to help Americans do the dirty work. It depends on the person who needs money. If someone is out on the streets with their family and a guy offers a job to mop the floors for money, that man is going to take it. Not all Americans have a big Ego. The way you are wording your sentences it would seem that you are an Anti American, am I correct? Audience, my opponent has failed to list references, uses horrific grammar, and stereo types all Americans as being to lazy to work, claiming that Romania helps us by giving the US government money. I heavily urge a Con vote. Thank you.
Illegal Aliens are not helping the USA

First of all, I have to contradict you, The United States NEVER, NEVER spent money on illegal immigrants, they get thrown out of the country and that's all, The United States spent money on LEGAL immigrants, but NEVER, EVER on illegal. I live in Romania, a country where everyone dreams to live in because you know why?! THEY EARN A LIVING! Big money but it doesn't care if you work all day, lots of people immigrated, bought houses, gave money to the US government without caring about if they're helping or not. Why would an immigrant go to the US than? They go to do dirty jobs, Americans would never do it, they're EGO is way too big to mop the floors or pick up strawberries.
Illegal Aliens are not helping the USA

Thank you for accepting this debate, Many people have fallen for the lie that illegal aliens are helping the United States by bringing in money, and doing work that American's are lazy to do, but in fact illegals are using up so much money, that it is hurting the true legal citizens of the USA. Each year $11 billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens http://www.fairus.org... Many people are getting food stamps, but it is not enough http://www.wwaytv3.com... Illegal citizens do get food stamps though. http://www.cis.org... As for illegal citizens working the jobs that Americans do not want to, that is a bold lie. The reason illegals have most of the dirty jobs is not because Americans are to lazy, it is because they do not have to be paid minimum wage. So people will hire someone who will get the same amount of work done for a lower price. Most Americans will take any job they can get, now that the jobless rate has hit 10% http://www.guardian.co.uk... Also many illegals aliens send money that the earned in the USA to their families in other countries, therefor taking money out of the United States A nation without borders is not a nation at all -Regan
Illegal Aliens are not helping the USA

First of all, as you can see, the economy is in a rapid free fall and it cannot be stopped, only slowed down, which could be done by raising taxes and fares to the State, selling American products and each person which pays a tax or buys a product is improvement, so, in order to oppose you, I shall say that any illegal foreigner buys products cause he has to live. In another way of thinking, illegal aliens do that hard work that the US citizens are spared for, which is another benefit cause the US earns money off each of them. Plus, the government doesn't have to worry for them or pay them because they're illegally hired, another way of getting money off them could be the simple fact that they catch them being illegal, sue the organization / owner that hired them and earn more money. The resolution should be "I do not believe that illegal aliens are HELPING The United States".
Ban on Assault Weapons

Let me first state, that I am not a fan for gun nut culture. I simply acknowledge the constitution, and that there was reasoning behind our desicion to allow citizens to form well regulated defense groups. Good luck!I. Assault Rifles are healthy for the economyThe US has a lucrative monopoly on the arms trade. Most of the weapons around the world, originate from the US or Russia. Our nation is the #1 in terms of quality and quantity, even beating the Russian attempts at knocking out cheap post WW2 rifles to third world nations. What nation purcases the most weapons? The United States of course.... Not only are we the biggest arms producer, but also the largest gun consuming nation. How does this relate? Well, lets look how much money is produced from arms sales. The US is making about 70 billion a decade on arms sales, with much being consumed by Americans themselves. The end point is, that we can't restrict rifles from Americans, without restricting foreign sales. If we were to do that, we would be hypocritical and criticized. Also, Russia and China will completely control the foreign arms trade, and whomever controls the arms trade, controls the world.II. The Assault Rifle isn't the problem The gun isn't the problem. It's the culture associated with it. You can take away a gun, but people will just buy all the guns that have already circulated. This wouldn't be a problem if were a nation like Italy, but we have 10's of millions with guns. People willing to commit illegal acts with an assault rifle, will likely commit illegal acts in getting one.We need to focus on gun culture itself. Make guns not look cool. Make people more safe. Taking them away isn't the answer.III. Putting a Ban into effect It is never wise to work against the majority. Have we learned nothing of prohibition? If we ban guns, millions of people will turn to crime, which means 1000's of gangs. 60 million gun nuts will storm the white house (metaphorically), and eventually legislation will just reverse the effect. Banning guns = Chaos.
Ban on Assault Weapons

Thank you for excepting my debate. Over the last few years, we have seen a growing number of gun massacres in the United States. From 1982-2012, sixty-two gun massacres were committed. Amongst those sixty-two mass shootings, fourteen of those massacres were committed with an assault weapon. Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora and many other massacres caused many deaths due to assault weapons. Banning these guns would have saved many lives. For example, at the Sandy Hook shooting, a Bushmaster M4 Type Carbine was utilized. This gun holds thirty rounds of ammunition, fully automatic. Adam Peter Lanza took the lives of twenty seven people with that gun. If assault weapons were banned, he wouldn"t have had the opportunity to murder twenty-seven people. Civilians in the the United States shouldn"t have access to Assault Weapons. I also have question. Why do civilians in the United States need assault weapons? http://www.motherjones.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Kobe Bryant is better than Lebron James

Sorry but Kobe also had Pau Gasol and Ron Artest to help him. Lebron didn`t need Wade and Bosh to beat Oklahoma since he got MVP that year.Lebron`s got 3 MVPs while Kobe only one.In the USA olympics Lebron and Kevin Durant were always becoming theplayers of the game.Never Kobe.Lebron has no probleme owning Kobe since Lebron is alot younger Kobe is 34 while Lebron is 28 Lebron is one of the most athletic humains in the world. Kobe has an advantage since the fans in L.A. are huge they support the teams alot,even if Lebron was with the Lakers they would have won .That ends this round
Kobe Bryant is better than Lebron James

Kobe ende up with more points then Michael Jordan. Lebron can never do as much as he did . Kobe was able to bring the Lakers in a championship in 2009 and 2010 all by himself with no star players but him. Lebron had Wade and Bosh to help[ him As proven in 2007 Lebron can`t win a championship on his own. Kobe has no probleme beating Lebron since Kobe`s got 5 rings how much does Lebron have again ??? Only one Kobe made alot of his points by the 3 pointer when Lebron did easy two`s Kobe was also told to be the best Lakers player ever. Better then Magic Johnson, Kareem Abdul Jabbar,Wilt Chamberlain and Shaquille O`Neal Kobe is even told to be the second Michael best Shooting Guard
Kobe Bryant is better than Lebron James

My turn. Lebron is better then Kobe because as you said Lebron was in the NBA since 2003 and kobe since 1996, but if Kobe is better then why did Lebron receive more MVP titles. Cause he`s better Kobe is a sore loser. Every time he loses a game he goes on the bench and starts crying like a baby, While Lebron when he loses he goes and practicises his mistakes so he would win the next games. Lebron was drafted 1st pick while Kobe was drafted 13th. That explains for this round
Kobe Bryant is better than Lebron James

Alright,well let me begin saying that Kobe has been in the NBA since 1996 and Lebron since 2003 so i guess that means he has more experiance then Lebron so he must be better Kobe also is a champion who done many more 3 pointers,dunks,lay ups ,blocks and steals then Lebron. Kobe always wanted the ball more then lebron and always ends up with atleast 20 baskets. Kobe was always a good player to his teammates and his fans and always plays like a real man , unlike Lebron who just wants the crowd to scream his name Kobe and Shaquille O`Neal wear one of the greatest duos ever in the hsitory of NBA because they were both very talented alot more then LeAbron and Dwayne Wade. Kobe never tried tomake his team lose and always gave his 100% on the field and out. He also barely gets injured and watches his diet out
Evolution does not disprove the existence of god

This is why I have clearly won this debate: My opponent kept attacking me for points I wasn't even trying to make. Yet, all the points I did make he failed to rebut. "What i want my opponent to explain to me is if we involved from fish to monkey's than way are do Monkeys and Fish still exist. " When was I trying to prove evolution true? That's what YOU were supposed to do. If evolution is untrue, then I win this debate because it doesn't prove anything. My opponent just argued against himself. "when you said "whats to say that God didnt create humans using evolution" in the Bible its clearly says that he created us in his own image. I keep referring to the Bible because it has all the Answers. " Uhhhh. Now I just said that - "They make all these paintings of God and mislead people into thinking God is some kind of dude that just poofed everything. That's because they couldn't imagine different. " Can you not imagine different? To make humans in his image, does god have to literally look like a human? Why couldn't his image be as something intelligent, since both Him and humans are intelligent? Or why couldn't his image be as something that controls stuff because He controls the universe and humans control the Earth? Conclusion: Throughout this whole debate, my opponent has failed to realize that I'm not responsible for proving the existence of God OR proving evolution true. I just had to prove that the two concepts didn't contradict EACH OTHER. You kept pointing out that the two concepts contradicted THEMSELVES. Even if the Bible was wrong, that wouldn't make evolution DISPROVE god's existence.
Evolution does not disprove the existence of god

What i want my opponent to explain to me is if we involved from fish to monkey's than way are do Monkeys and Fish still exist. when you said "whats to say that God didnt create humans using evolution" in the Bible its clearly says that he created us in his own image. I keep referring to the Bible because it has all the Answers. There is no edivdence of Evolution, yeah peoples Skulls and body bones that people have discovered and they maybe smaller than peoples today but diets are different now than they were back several thousands of years ago. And I cant tell you if the world is 6000 years old. Voters this is why i urge a Con Vote
Evolution does not disprove the existence of god

Second of all, even if the Bible were to have contradictory verses, it doesn't matter. The Bible could be a piece of crap and God can still exist. And besides, you can't use the bible itself as evidence in this debate; you have use EVOLUTION as evidence. Therefore, the first half of your argument doesnt matter. Third of all, I fail to understand why people keep saying the Bible says the world is only 6000 years old. I don't know, please brief me on that. What I would really like to know is this: does the Bible's words actually add up to 6000 years, or did scholars just come up with that? Fourth of all, what's to say God didn't create humans using evolution, because he knew that's how life would eventually form? You know, working smarter, not harder. People don't seem to think outside the box. They make all these paintings of God and mislead people into thinking God is some kind of dude that just poofed everything. That's because they couldn't imagine different. I think God is too smart to waste all that energy making things all perfect instead of just creating something that would shape itself while he watches the superbowl. I guess my opponent misunderstood the idea of this debate. I was not arguing that Christianity or the Bible was incorrect, I was just arguing that evolution doesn't disprove Gods existence. My opponent has failed to give any evidence on how evolution was even contradictory to the existence of god, and I proved that the two things weren't.
Evolution does not disprove the existence of god

The Bible claims that rabbits chew the cud, that the pattern of goats' coats can be changed by what their parents look at while copulating, that only dead seeds can germinate and that ostriches are careless parents. Fundamentalists try to explain away some of these examples in the light of what we now know: pi is approximately three, they point out, while rabbits eat their own droppings, which is a bit like chewing the cud. But such explanations essentially admit that the Bible is not the ultimate source of of reliable truths about the world. In other words, if you want to know anything from how rabbits digest their food or how to breed goats to the value of pi or whether the sun orbits the earth or vice versa, you have to turn to science and mathematics, not the Bible. If that's the case, then surely the same is true of how life on Earth came about? So how reliable is the Bible chapter that relates to evolution? Let's leave aside the long-standing evidence that Earth is older than 6000 years and that there was no world-wide flood, and look at what else Genesis says. Genesis 1 gives the order of creation as plants, animals, man and woman. Genesis 2 gives it as man, plants, animals and woman. Genesis 1:3-5 says light was created on the first day, Genesis 1:14-19 says the sun was created on the fourth. Genesis 7:2 says Noah took seven pairs of each beast, Genesis 7:8-15 says one pair. The list goes on. The fruit of the tree of knowledge is said to kill within a day of being eaten, yet Adam and Eve don't die after eating it. Genesis says there were giants (Nephilim) before the flood and that the flood annihilated all creatures other than those on the ark, but Numbers says there were giants after the flood conclusion: Attempts to resolve these contradictions are almost as old as the Bible itself. Those who regard the Bible as inerrant tie themselves in knots trying to explain them away (hands up who believes that T. rex was once a peaceful vegetarian? ), or even take it upon themselves to rewrite the Bible to expunge them. However, there are far too many errors, inaccuracies and contradictions to dismiss them all. The only rational and reasonable conclusion is that the Bible is not inerrant. i dont really know if this answered it but this is coming from my knowlege
older people are more prejudiced to young people than visa versa

You are PRO and instigator. You have the burden of proof. You've only briefly stated your negative opinion of old people. My opinion is that young people are far more disrespectful than old people, and thus deserving of any treatment I get. There are obviously people that agree with me: . http://answers.yahoo.com... But that's beside the point, PRO has started a debate, but has proved nothing.
older people are more prejudiced to young people than visa versa

well of course i'll be bias im on my own side. i can look beyond the bias and see that not every single old person is prejudiced to young people but speaking from experience they look down their noses at us. I understand that some teens are intimidating and threatening unnecessarily,but not all. so my argument is that the older generation can be more disrespectful than the youngest because in experience some tend to assume that just because they're old they can demand but not give any respect back.
There is free will.

It's not a matter of gumtion or ingenuity. The brain fully understanding itself is an impossibility. Allow me to ask a few simple questions:What are you thinking about?Are you thinking about what you are thinking about?Are you thinking about the point of these questions?Or are you thinking about you thinking about the point of these questions?The point is that your cognition of your thoughts is always one step behind the actual thought. You can't be cognizant of what you are thinking at any one time. It's an impossibility.Predicting future events or evaluating current happenings with certainty at the quantum level is sceintifically impossible. It's a crazy concept to wrap your head around--one that even Einstein was resistent to accept--but our studies of quantum mechanics assert that the universe is random and runs on probability.Also, here's a quick reading if you're curious. http://www.sciencedaily.com...
There is free will.

If you Think we are entirely natural beings,shouldn't it mean we are 100% predictable I do believe in fate.we are just not able to predict certain events thus modern computers aren't capable of viewing every single factor that makes us run and putting it all together to give us a sum. But one day we will By you saying It's impossible for us to estimate the quantum level,you're practically just like the people saying back 80 years ago that humanity couldn't go to the moon because they thought it was impossible.Also you can see this accruing countlessly between scientific studies You give no evidence for your claims that suggests that nature doesn't control our every thought So for me to sum up everything... Is that if the big bang was natural and every thing that came out of it was natural,wouldn't it suggest that we are 100% natural ergo we can some day predict the future with accuracy. Patterns emerge from what is natural.
There is free will.

You argued that nature controls us. I agree that we're entirely natural beings. What I disagree with is that that implies fate. Our thought process is not predestined because there's no way to predict what someone is going to think. The reason I was bringing up the uncertainty principle is because in all likelihood our brains run very much on the quantum level. It's impossible to predict, so therefore we escape fate. Sorry for being "philosophical" and using "science." I'm merely trying to show you a sign that suggests free will can exist. So let me rephrase my earlier comment, nature may shape us and give us a domain in which to live and think, but it doesn't control our every thought.
There is free will.

Thank you for being reasonable and accepting the idea as a hole. But I do have to point out to the audience though that this debate is in the philosophical Category not the scientific. therefore by then accepting my opinion and then pointing out somewhat scientific fact to contradict it...it doesn't make sense if you're still debating against me. ??? I already know that the quantum level has it's own physics and it doesn't seem to effect the general laws of classical physics why are you saying the simplicity of cause and effect go out the window at quantum levels and then tagging that you can apply the principles to the brain,and the brain is an uncertain creature? Is this you trying to be philosophical/crawl out of the debate. Again this debate is not in the scientific category.
There is free will.

I agree that laws of nature do "control" us. However, that control does not extend to consciousness. Heisenburg's uncertainty principle states that position and momemtum cannot be simulataneously known at the smallest level [1]. There's a lot more to it, but the general idea is that classical physics and the simplicity of cause and effect go out the window at quantum levels. Apply these principles to the brain, and the brain is an uncertin creature.It's very hard to figure out exactly how to brain works. For the most part, physicists are stiumped. It might be impossible for something to completely understand itself. And if that level of metacognition is not possible, then free will is open and possible. We can study the physics to the utmost degree, but still never predict what a human mind will decide. Until physics can be used to read thoughts and predict cognitive actions, free will is still alive. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Theory of Evolution Is Valid

I am challenging Dragonfang to this debate per his request. Please agree to everything below for accepting. Full Resolution The theory of evolution is valid. Definitions Theory of Evolution: "The process by which species of organisms arise from earlier life forms and undergo change over time through natural selection."[1] Valid: "Having some foundation; based on truth."[2] Rules 1. The first round is for acceptance. 2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed. 3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering. 4. All arguments and sources must be visible inside this debate. 5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person. Debate Structure Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con) Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments) Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments) Sources [1]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [2]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...