BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The US government should cease regulating its borders

Against your first point, the government is patrolling the border strictly to prevent "weak spots." In what way is this damaging the region? For many years natives have been walking our land for years, they made paths, trails, etc to accommodate their own travels. These "weak spots" have been made check points and they could not possibly harm an entire ecosystem. how could we control our staggering number of illegal immigrants in the United States if we can not control the number of people entering? Obviously the government must use all that they can to accommodate both sides by an equal amount of action at home and on the borders. This could provide a large number of job opportunities for the law enforcement agencies across the border and within the government. This would decrease the unemployment rate and boost our economy. Illegal immigrants often take jobs that were once overlooked,but are now necessary to make a living away from legal taxpaying citizens.
The US government should cease regulating its borders

I'll save my remaining words for the debate. == Opening Licks== 1. Border patrol causes massive damage to the environment. "There is a rising concern over what illegal immigration and the U. S. response to it my do to the area's fragile ecosystems. " (1) Rather than block off all immigration like many believe it does, border regulation simply funnels immigrant paths to weak spots causing paths and trails of immigration that damage the region. 2. Border patrol is a distraction from a true solution. Governor Rick Perry defends a policy where "law enforcement should focus on criminal aliens. Efforts to crack down on the larger pool of undocumented immigrants could be a distraction. " (2) Instead of lined up on the border, personnel would be better served seeking out lawless aliens inside the country. Refutation to come. (1) . http://www.time.com... (2) . http://www.economist.com...
The US government should cease regulating its borders

The United States government should continue to regulate its borders. The borders need to be secure and the country needs to be careful who they let in on a temporary basis. The more agents we have at the border the harder it will be for illegal immigrants to enter the country. Research shows that illegal immigrants find jobs and housing. If the government establishes a database for employers to enter information about their employees it will be harder for the illegal immigrants to find jobs. It will also open up more jobs for the legal citizens. Also if the government cracks down on the employer's that are giving the immigrants jobs by ticketing them, they will be less willing to hire the illegal workers. Presumably the United States government will continue to regulate the borders.
Non-interventionism

I will start of by using history. In the interbellum Europe was acting like my opponent is suggesting. Non-interventionism, let people choose what people choose and in the end peaceful debating will solve the issue. But sadly, thats not what happened. In the treaty of Versailles, Germany was fined to pay huge amounts af money to France, Belgium and the UK. These fines were so devestating that they put Germany in crisis. There was famine, no money, misery. The perfect climate to produce a demagogue. Which is exactly what happened. Adolf Hitler stood up. He was elected by the German people and took control of a state in crisis. One of the first things he did was stop paying the fines. No money went to France or Belgium or the UK. And there the European countries made their first mistake, acting as my opponent suggests, with non-interventionism. They did not stop Hitler. Hitler rebuild the German economy to an extend where it almost surpassed France's. He continued by annexating Austria. Through a referendum, I agree, but Germany grew. In the treaty of Versailles, Germany was also ordered to disband their army. Another thing Hitler ignored. He then invaded Czechoslovakia. At that point the nations realised something was wrong. So what did they do? Non-interventionism. They gave Hitler everything he demanded. He got the Sudete country, he got Austria, he got everything. And Hitler continued. The European nations did this to preserve peace and to act through peaceful treaties, non-interventionism. But there are cases where this system does not work. Because a year later, Hitler would stand in Paris, supreme leader of all of Europe. And the only thing that could stop him was war. Therefore, non-interventionism is not a good thing. People like Hitler are not one of a kind. People with his ideas and charismatic speaking will come back. And we need to have a defense mechanism, a deterrent, stronger than treaties and non-interventionism.
Non-interventionism

My argument is that the most successful and peaceful form of foreign policy is Non-Interventionism. The basis of my argument is that diplomatic solutions can come easier through tough negotiation and through peaceful deals and compromising (assuming that said countries citizens aren't being harmed or the country is being harmed somewhere in the process). Declarations of War are only necessary when said country is being heavily heavily influenced negatively or under attack. Regime change is overall harmful to diplomacy and democracy.
The Atheist, Evolutionary Theory Defeats the Social Welfare Argument

A few things your rashly over generalizing, one is that evolution is jsut some giant mosh pitt, in truth there are many mechanics of evolution we are still not sure about. This over generalization leads you into the point that Because its just one big moshpitt, the social welfare theory... which I will instead refer as the Common Good, is invalid but in justfying this argument you defeat you're own point in the same breath. And I qoute "If we DO end up helping others, it is either because a) we feel an emotional attachment to other human animals that only exists as an evolutionary byproduct or b) we believe strategically, selectively helping others in society will benefit US in the long run, therefore it is self-serving and part of our evolutionary drive to survive."So pointed out effectively that chemical reactions responcible for cauing us to feel empathy are selected evolutions that allow(ed) us to function as social creatures. It is this social trait that has ruly amde us a dominate species, enabling our technology in a way that would not have been possible with out a cooperative nature, enabled by thwe evolutonary responces mentioned above. So actually it is baffling to think fo an Athiest not supporting collectivist policies, since our entire civilization which is an engineered evolution made possible by our biological capacity for empathy, is based on accumulation fo collective knowledge as well as the acumulation of collective efforts. Secondary motivations here such as " I will benefit from helping you" are not relevant to your case in truth, they are just another set of evolved chemical responces in the brain.
The Atheist, Evolutionary Theory Defeats the Social Welfare Argument

Evolution is posited on the idea of all living organisms getting to where there are by way of violence and chance. In this argument, there is no God, there is only the Big Bang which gives birth to matter and substances which will gradually grow into plants and animals. Now, if this is the case, then we must accept that human beings(us) are nothing more than advanced animals, with an intellect, emotions and self-awareness that came about for the sole purpose of ensuring our survival. We do not owe any morality or basic decency to an all powerful creator God, because he does not exist; there is only the evolutionary process. Therefore, it is truly every many for himself. If we DO end up helping others, it is either because a) we feel an emotional attachment to other human animals that only exists as an evolutionary byproduct or b) we believe strategically, selectively helping others in society will benefit US in the long run, therefore it is self-serving and part of our evolutionary drive to survive. If this is the case, then it is impossible for an atheist to support any type of social welfare or security program that is implemented by the state. For an atheistic evolutionary must believe that there is little to no self-benefit to helping the millions of disabled, non-contributing members of society; they exist only to survive off the contributions of others, and thus are an impediment to the idea of every man for himself. Evolution demands that only the strongest and smartest live long, while the sickest and weakest must die off to make room for the true survivors. Show me why the atheist evolutionist should care for and support "useless" human animals that do not contribute to his own quest for survival.
fortnite1v1

fortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnitefortnite1v1menoobnoonepumpgg
There is No Biblical Support for Young Earth Creationism

My opponent is mistaken. He's taking parts of the Bible out of context to suppose the Bible supports Young Earth Creationism. As Young Earth Creationism is completely absurd and factually false on every level it must necessarily be the case that either the Bible is false or my opponent is misinterpreting the Bible. http://www.talkorigins.org... We can tell from various scientific fields that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. Further there are organisms around today such as the King Clone creosote bush which is 11,700 years old and thus cannot be the product of a Young Earth. Further there are processes which take millions of years and clearly verify the age of the Earth is significantly longer than 4000 years. We have books older than 4000 years old. My opponent is clearly misrepresenting the Bible. If he were accurate he would be forced to conclude the Bible isn't pure and true, and that can't be. The Earth is 4.6 billion years old, the Bible is perfect, so clearly the Bible doesn't (if properly read) suggest anything different.
There is No Biblical Support for Young Earth Creationism

My opponent makes two claims. One, that the Bible is perfect and accurate. Two, that the Earth is 4.6 Billion years old. Now I agree with the first claim, that the Bible is true. I disagree That the Earth is that old. The Bible gives us evidence to how old the earth is. Since we both agree that the Bible is true, then if it gives us evidence, it must also be true. Correct? Now, the Earth has been around roughly 4,000 years. (This is MUCH shorter than my opponent suggests) Man was created four days after the first day. The first day was roughly 4,000 years ago. "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth...God called the light day, and the darkness he called night. So the evening and the morning were the first day." -Genesis 1:1, and 1:5. How do we know the Earth has been around for about 4,000 years you ask? Simple. The Bible tells us. There are many genealogies throughout the Bible. Here are a few: Genesis 5 Adam – Noah Gensis 11 Noah – Abraham Abraham to Moses is then counted Moses to Judges then Judges to Kings then Historical timelines. Here is a website that details it out for you if you want to read it. http://www.abiblestudy.com... So, if you count, this totals to be around 4,000 years, allowing for different calendar translations. 4,000 years is EXTREMELY shorter than my opponent suggests. Here are the facts so far, and correct me if I'm wrong: 1-We both agree that the Bible is true 2-The Bible gives us evidence for YEC 3-YEC is true, since it is proven in the Bible Taking all this into account, one can only see YEC as the only option regarding the Bible. Thank you.
Rap battle

Excuse me your a hell of a guy, but nothin can stop me from breaking your tie. cmon let the public decide, who's good who's bad who's high as the sky, I'm gonna lift this roof, before you go kapoot, coz i know that God's on my side, and you aint gon win this tide. The names VG-Lo, so you gotta take it solo, It's all in my name, the aim of this game, the crowd is shouting out the aim so get ya'll lame rhymes out of this flow.
Rap battle

Yeah sure you didn't understand, coz you didn't make any sense, maybe my vocab is too good, or you can go and buy yourself a hood, you see you can't even rap, so what's the point of making this cr-ap, Well i'm older than you, so you can't just settle with that attitude. you think you're better than me, but you got no guts to see, how much do you really suck, coz all of your rhymes are bad as f*ck.
Rap battle

I just wasn't online for a couple of days, man what's your problem you got nothin to say, if i were you I'd run off an cry, coz you ain't got nothin but your lame rhymes, if anything goes close to deuce, i kick your ars coz i got nothin to lose, i can beatbox what about you? you can't give a beat to anything due, every things seems like a joke, you seriously don't know what you'll choose, it's all in the matter of time, when in a few days time i've stolen your line, it's all in the aim of the game, but gosh your rhymes don't even make any sense, so go and get a better grammar, coz you ain't got the vocab to settle this match.
Rap battle

Well your raps are decent But that still won't change the fact that you'll get beaten I won't go so hard because I respect you Although that wont change the fact that all the damage will affect you You know I got a good flow but yours is so-so Yes your name is VG-Lo But I'm better than you, don't you get it you fucing hoe I control you and to me this is a puppet show Don't you get it: leave or I'll kill you Because this is something you won't get through And at your funeral which I will attend to I'll tell everyone who you were outdo Note: remember this is a rap battle
Putting limits on debates

I understand where you're coming from but those are only few examples. Though, the purpose of a debate isn't to pick your opponent. The purpose of a real debate is to share ideas with someone who disagrees or has a different idea on the subject. "High quality opponent?" The amount of debates or age range does not determine who's ideas differentiate. If a ten year old would like to challenge me in a debate, I'd be happy to hear his ideas and add on to mine. And of that wasn't good enough for me then I'd move on to another debator. And as I said before, the amount of debates doesn't determine quality. Only the "quantity" of an opponent. And just because another person has more debates completed that me, does that mean his ideas are better or of better value? Don't judge books by their cover. That's what I've learned. We should all take this into consideration. And yes I do understand about trolls, but if someone trolls you, if there's a block button; block them. If not, just start another post, no biggie. Copy and paste. Thank you for listening to me blabber on. I do apologize for posting late.
Putting limits on debates

I had an argument typed out already that was deleted, so unfortunately I will have to make a short but detailed argument:In this round I will post my arguments for why people should put limits on debates:1: Debates with limits tend to be higher quality:The debate below was left open to the publichttps://www.debate.org...As you can see, it was accepted by a troll.Now this debate that was made impossible to accept turned out to be of high qualityhttps://www.debate.org...2: With a debate made impossible to accept, the instigator gets to choose an opponent:Many debates that are made impossible to accept, ask users to post in the comments if they want to accept. This allowed the instigator to choose between users, and make sure that they get a high quality opponent, and not a troll or a person who might forfeit.3: Speaking of forfeits, debates left open to the public tend to see the instigator forfeit more often.Below are examples:https://www.debate.org...https://www.debate.org...https://www.debate.org...I have provided evidence why it is best to make debates impossible to accept.Thank you.
Putting limits on debates

I was looking through the debate section and saw a debate that caught my eye so I decided to click on it. Little did I know that it had an "amount of debate" qualification. I was of course not able to argue or debate my ideas with this person due to this limit, because I had just started today. I believe that there shouldn't be a limit on who should be able to debate. Just because I haven't completed as much or more than another person doesn't necessarily mean you or the person qualified to debate has better reasons or ideas. It also doesn't benefit you in any shape or form. Because of that limit you have set up, you have now disregarded another's idea without knowing. Now I conclude my beginning argument by saying that while putting up limits may show how ranked you are, it's debating we should be doing; not cherry picking opponents.
Evolution (con) vs. creationism (pro)

R.1 Evidences towards the big bangAccelerating expansion of the universeThe accelerating universe points out evidence towards a huge possibility of a singularity for the creationof the universe. The evidences for the accelerating expansion include the red shift, and isotropic distribution of the objects in space. We can detect the expansion through redshift bytheir electromagnetic spectra to determine the distance and speed of remote objects in space. (1)2. Cosmic microwave background radiationIn 1964 Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson serendipitously discovered the cosmic background radiation, an an omnidirectional signal in the microwave band. the radiation was found to be consistent with an almost perfect black body spectrum in all directions.This discovery showed radiations that were isotopic and further supported the big bang theory. (2)3. Other evidences supporting the big bang include abundance of primordial elements, galactic evolution and distribution, and Primordial gas clouds. (2) R.2 Evidences towards evolution1. Ancient organism remainsDarwin found the bones of an extinct giant sloth, Megatherium. He realized that animals can become extinct and that life is not unchanging, and Darwin also saw many similarities between extinct and living animals. This provided evidence that the giant sloth, Megatherium was an ancestor of the tree sloth. This showed that the sloth evolved. (3)2.Similarities among living organisms.Many organisms share a similar body structure such as Horses', donkeys', and zebras'. This provide evidence that they shares a common ancestor until they branched off. This also includes for apes and humans, also showing similar DNA structure. (4) Similarities among embryosFish embryos and human embryos both have gill slits. In fish they develop into gills, but in humans they disappear before birth. This shows that the animals are similar and that they develop similarly, implying that they are related, and they have common ancestors and that they started out the same, gradually evolving different traits. (5)http://en.wikipedia.org......http://en.wikipedia.org......http://necsi.edu......http://necsi.edu......http://necsi.edu......
Evolution (con) vs. creationism (pro)

Keep in mind that evolution is a biological term used to describe the process of which species gradually change. It does not describe "how the world started". If my opponent pleases, I may also add in my arguments for recent scientific theories that may oppose creationism. However, even though this is not what the question states, I am more than happy to do so. So, assuming by my opponent's resolution I will provide evidence for current accepted scientific theories, and show how creationism is flawed with little to no evidence. Good luck. (I request my opponent to bring up definitions so no conflict arises)
Evolution (con) vs. creationism (pro)

My opponent literally gives nothing for his/her stance. Instead, he/she wastes time on things that have already been proven. (Energy cannot be created nor destroyed) He/she does not even read my arguments! Gases did not create the universe, and I never said that. Using my opponent's logic, if everything comes from something, then god had to come from something too! Thank you for this debate Irrelevant but interesting thing to think about: If god claims that nothing created him, doesn't that mean that god is an Atheist?
Evolution (con) vs. creationism (pro)

In physics, as Lawrence Krauss puts it, nothing is not really nothing. It is many particles coming in and out of existence. The dominant energy in the universe resides in empty space. In fact, quantum mechanics combined with relativity, can tell us that we did come from nothing.(1) And as per the 1st law of thermodynamics, energy cannot be created nor destroyed. That is quite puzzling but true. Other than that, my argument stands. 1.http://www.openculture.com...
The benefits of post 9-11 security measure outweigh the harms to personal freedom.

Well, I HAD hoped for a spirited debate, particularly since I actually DO think that there have been awful abuses of personal freedoms since 9/11. Oh, well. Technically, I should respond to the post from my opponent by pointing out that the cost in money has nothing to do with the cost to personal freedom. Assuming the last post actually WAS from Con's brother, let me say in his brother's defense: he should remember that he'd already forfeited R2, so he shouldn't be TOO mad that his R3 was trolled by his brother. Maybe he'll kill you less if he remembers that...
The benefits of post 9-11 security measure outweigh the harms to personal freedom.

Now, Do you want to know how much money we are spending on these "security measures"? We are spending 2.5 billion dollars on SEAPORTS ONLY! We are also jacking up mcdonalds. SORRY!!! I'm james's brother and i like to jump on cheetahs. James is going to kill me when he sees that i posted this... MEOW!!!!!!!!!!
The benefits of post 9-11 security measure outweigh the harms to personal freedom.

Thanks to my opponent for this debate. My opponent did not specify that this first round was acceptance-only, so I will be posting my opening remarks.I will not be taking the position that the benefits of all post 9/11 security measures outweigh the harms to personal freedom, but rather that some, at least, of the post-9/11 security measures have outweighed the harms to personal freedom. I generally agree with the premise that many 9/11 security measures are either failures or do not outweigh the harms to personal freedom involved in their implementation. However, I think my opponent overstates the case with the blanket declaration that "The benefits of post 9-11 security measure DO NOT outweigh the harms to personal freedom" that is implied by his taking the Con position.The TSA, for example, first of all exists (which it did not before), and second of all handles baggage inspection. The benefits of checking airline luggage for explosive devices outweigh the harm of the search. This does not mean the implementation has been without its failures; but the concept of checking luggage for explosives more frequently is a security measure that outweighs its cost to personal freedom. Putting Air Marshals on planes are, in principle, an effective security measure. While there has been a great deal of corruption in the ranks of the Air Marshals, none of that corruption has been part of the system, and to my knowledge none of it has affected “personal freedom” in general; thus, while legitimate complaints exist about the program, the benefit of the measure outweighs the non-existent cost to personal freedom. I can cite other examples, however, I will wait for my opponent to state his case.