BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: The United States Should Adopt an Open Border Policy

== Voting == Select winner, 3k ELO, 2 week voting period== Structure == 10k characters. 71 hours to argue. 4 rounds. R1. Acceptance. R2. CasesR3. RebuttalsR4. Rebuttals/closing== Clarifications == Open border policy: a policy in which legalization itself is no longer a crime. There will be border checkpoints, but immigration in and of itself would no longer be a crime and immigrants already here would be legalized. They would not be given citizenship per se (they could apply after a few years), but resident Visas would be given. Current policies: For the sake of consistency, policies like "welfare" will stay the same. I could not argue, for example, that we should just cut back welfare or not give it to the immigrants. I could not argue for tax changes, either. On the flip side, Roy could not argue the same. Current fiscal policies, except immigration, would remain roughly the same. == Teams ==PRO1. 16k2. JMKCON1. RoyLathamHave fun!
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a sound argument for God's existence

This will be a debate as to the soundness of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The Kalam Cosmological Argument I will be defending is as follows:1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.2) The universe began to exist.3) Therefore, the universe had a cause.While it may not necessarily follow from this argument that the cause of the universe's creation was God, it can be logically shown from this argument that the creator was, in fact, God. As instigator, I accept the burden of proof.Round one will be for acceptance, round two for opening arguments, round three for rebuttals, round four for rebuttals and closing statements.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a sound argument for God's existence

I will officially state that he may feel free to use this round for rebuttals. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is as follows:1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.2) The universe began to exist.3) Therefore, the universe has a cause. Premise 1 -- Everything that begins to exist has a cause. This is pretty self-explanatory, and pretty uncontroversial. The principle of causality is a first principle. In other words, it is self-evident. According to this fundamental principle, every effect has a cause and as such, non-being cannot produce being. Premise 2 -- The universe began to exist. The Second Law of Thermodynamics affirms that the universe is running out of usable energy and, hence, cannot be eternal. We also see that the universe is expanding, and at an accelerated rate. [1] As we see the universe is expanding more and more rapidly, and the universe is running out of usable energy, the universe will inevitably run out of usable energy and result in a "heat death. " As the universe is expanding and not static, we can see that the universe, indeed, had a beginning as it is not eternal. We can also approach this from a philosophical viewpoint:1) If an infinite number of moments occurred before today, then today would never have come, wince it is impossible to traverse an infinite number of moments.2) But today has come.3) Hence, there was a finite number of moments before today; the universe had a beginning. [2]Conclusion -- Therefore, the universe had a beginning. This shows the argument valid (as the conclusion follows from the premises), and that it is a sound argument. It can be scientifically and philosophically shown that the universe had a beginning, and therefore had a cause. But what of this cause? Can we know that this cause was intelligent and not just a natural cause? I believe we can. As was already stated, the universe had a beginning. Without God, there would have existed nothing before the universe, and nothing cannot produce something without intervention from an outside force. Nothing is a state of non-existence. Nothing, not the universe, not the world, not humanity, but nothing would be here right now if there wasn't a God. However, God pre-dates the universe. The KCA states that everything that begins to exist has a cause. However, God is eternal. He has always existed and therefore has no cause. We humans are contingent beings. Our existence was began (caused) by God and we can only be kept alive at God's pleasure. We are contingent beings. A contingent race of beings could only have been created by a necessary being (i. e. God). God is a Necessary being because it is in His nature to exist. He has no beginning so He logically will have no end. As it would be impossible for the universe to have come into existence on its own, the only way it could exist is if there was an intelligent Creator. I look forward to our next round. [1] . http://news.nationalgeographic.com...;[2] Geisler, Norman L. , The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Books, p. 399.
Stop and Frisk should be allowed

My first "argument" was the topic, genius. I understand that there was a misunderstanding in the topic, but I addressed that in the comments, and I also went first even though I am con, to give you time to prepare. If you are a debater in any sense, you would accept this and try to debate against me anyway. I will go on to my next two points- 4.Other alternatives that are better Instead of harming youth and violating the Constitution, there are many other ways police could catch people involved in crime. For example, get to know the neighborhood and what happens in the area. This has been tried and worked effectively, better than stop and frisk. The officers could also have better relationships with the other people in the area. Rather than sweep through and stop large numbers of young black men, the police built strong relationships with residents, promising greater responsiveness if they took back the reins of their community and told their sons, nephews and grandsons that the violence and the overt dealing must end. Meanwhile, the police identified the 17 men driving the drug market and built solid cases against each. In one fell swoop, they arrested three with violent records. The other 14 men were then summoned to a community meeting. Neighborhood residents demanded that they put an end to the violence. Law enforcement officials made credible threats of prosecution, but also told the men they had one last chance to turn their lives around. Meanwhile, social service providers offered them job training, drug treatment and mentoring. Most of the men listened. The city"s most significant drug market vanished overnight, and it has not come back. Violent crime has fallen by half. Why did the strategy succeed? The Rev. Sherman Mason, a local minister, told us that a key factor was the decision to involve neighborhood residents in the process. As a result, the police gained legitimacy, and their relationship with the community was transformed. 5. Wastes time Stop-and-Frisk only wastes time for the police and suspect, even though it doesn't even work. Guns may be removed in searches, but only 1% of the time. 88% of all stops in searches did not result in arrests, and 99% of all searches did not come up with a weapon. Even contraband in general, including guns, was only found in 2% in searches of 2011.The percentage of a legitimate reason to imprison or stop is very small, so why should we keep wasting people's time? These searches are not stopping shooting. In the city of New York, Mayor Bloomberg reports that Stop-and-Frisk searches have reduced the amount of shootings. However, the rats of decline have remained the same after 2005. According to LA Times Articles, stop and frisk method successfully catches criminals about 6-7 percent of the time. So if this is the rate, then why in the first place should we use this method!
Stop and Frisk should be allowed

So the topic is saying that stop and frisk should be allowed as a anti crime measure, and since I am going first, you should have time to refute my arguments. So I am arguing it should not be used as a n anti crime measure. So my arguments will be placed as 3 major points, first 1. It is invasive to privacy. If a police officer becomes suspicious of you, yes the should have a precaution for fellow citizens and search you. But with stop and frisk, this method is just being abused. No one likes to be out in public with a crowd having a police officer search you. But no one especially likes it if that police officer can't be decent enough to respect you in the procedures of the search. Stop and frisk definitely does more harm than good. The fourth amendment right warrens against unreasonable searches and seizures, not to mention the 14th amendment equal protection clause. For those who say under reasonable evidence, many cases," the South African Police department said that most tips are unreliable, and that witnesses cannot really help without supporting and helping the officers. If someone called as a prank, that the person that was frisked would be publicly humiliated. Source- South African Police website on anonymous callers and witnesses. 2.has not lived up to its promise Stop and frisk was meant to stop crime or at least lower crime rates. However, it is not doing so. Crime rates may have dropped 20%in NYC,but that is nothing compared to the alternate measures taken by other cities that have crime rates drop 50%, such as LA and Chicago. Stop and frisk has increased 600% in the last 10 years and in New York City. Crime is down 20%. Guns are taken off the street. Stop and Frisks make you safer, and is a clear way to spend tax dollars. These are all myths that the proposition is trying to sell you today, First off, even though we are invading the privacy of thousands and spending millions, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, nothing has really changed. Sure, crime dropped 20%, but in other cities, Chicago and L.A., crime dropped more than 50% using alternate measures, and they didn't invade privacy. Guns were only found in 2% of all searches, and gun related crimes didn't actually drop at all. 3.It lets criminals off. Stop-and-frisk is a horrible policy; it installs fear and distrust in innocent bystanders, while the criminals run free. stop and frisk is a notorious policy, a policy that allows and even encourages unconstitutionality, threats, and violence against law-abiding citizens, while at the same time providing real criminals with so-called legal technicalities that run the risk of causing the suppression of gun and dangerous drug evidence that ultimately results in the dismissal of serious cases, thereby putting the bad guys right back on the street. Lawful and courteous, as well as non-racist, police work is not only the right thing to do; it"s also the permanently effective crime-fighting thing to do.
Progressive Tax is better than a Flat Tax for taxation

Everyone is not a tax breaker, I am not here to justify all the loopholes in the US progressive tax but to call all the American tax payers law breakers seems a little biased Those 50% are the ones who are almost dirt poor, they are the ones living on borderline poverty, if not already deep within poverty. They are not your snooty neighbors next door or your dickish bosses who are not paying income taxes, it is those who truly have nothing to give back because they make so little in the first place. There is a difference between job creators and the wealthy. All the jobs that have been created have come from small companies while the large ones are only focusing on increasing productivity, not hiring more people. So to bestow the title of "job creators" on only the fabulously rich companies is very misguided. http://www.forbes.com... You just admitted that in a flat tax the burden would fall on the nations poor because you automatically claim they could simply get jobs when in this economy your dad cant even get a job, so how do can you simply expect every poor person in America to get a job in this economy when even your dad is struggling to do just that. You also show how income is a bad proxy for consumption because of how much they spend to support their families, but that just reinforces my point about how the lower and middle classes have less to give and do put money back into the economy. If you tax the rich less they wont expand more they will only save and hoard more A progressive tax allows for lower tax brackets for the lower classes so that they are not given a crushing tax burden, but it allows the rich to be taxed higher because they have far far more to give and the wealth they do have is sitting in a bank vault somewhere and not helping the economy in any way As for your 75% argument, your implication that is not fair does not take into account how much each already has and how much more the rich make over the middle and lower classes. The Con is missing the main point of my argument A progressive tax allows the lower classes (who have little to give) to be exempt, allows the middle class to pay a decent sum (even though they pump most of what they earn back into the economy) and allows the rich to pay a large amount of taxes (because they make tons of money in salaries and the wealth they do have is being hoarded away) A flat tax can impose a very harsh tax on the poor, the ones who really really would be harmed by a tax rate, and at the same time it would make the rich just richer, and that money would just be hoarded into a private account. Often a flat tax does BOTH of these... How do you see THAT as fair, how does shifting the tax burden from the rich to the poor justified? http://www.ctj.org... http://money.cnn.com... http://www.deseretnews.com... http://mises.org...
Progressive Tax is better than a Flat Tax for taxation

Yes it is :) I believe a progressive Tax is better than a flat tax for the following reasons. 1) It brings in more money fairly. The lower and middle classes make far less money than the upper class, they often spend all of what they make which leaves less money for taxation but still supports the economy because the money is being pumped back into the system. If a country were to have a high flat tax rate, then the lower and middle classed would be giving much of their income to the government and in some cases they would have to limit how much they can spend for themselves. A high flat tax rate would suck money out of the economy and from the lower and middle classes to support the federal budget. The higher classes meanwhile often hoard their wealth rather than spending it like the lower and middle classes do so the vast wealth they do have is not being used to spur the economy..... 2) It taxes the right people more fairly A flat tax demands everyone pay something, and for those who make barely anything you are taking money from those who really need it and dont have much to give. The middle class meanwhile do have money to give but they often spend almost all of their income on consumption of goods and services, so taxing them excessively will drain money out of the economy itself, which can effect the fate and well being of everyone. 3) It takes more from the super rich (Im not crazy just hear me out) The rich may spend their money on expensive toys, but they often save and hoard much of their wealth and that money instead of being put to use is instead stashed in a safe or a secret bank account or in some place where. In a flat tax, that money would still be just stashed somewhere and would remain untouched. In a progressive tax though the middle and lower classes would pay a fair amount, but the very wealthy who are not using this money for consumption or using it to boost the economy in any way could now become taxable and used by the government. Im not saying this because I hate the rich, I find them very necessary to society. What I am arguing though is that because the super rich have so much more to give and the money they can give is not being used or spent at all, then a progressive tax would be fair. The lower and middle class would still give what they could without hurting consumption and the money that exists in the economy, and the super rich would give more of their own wealth which is not being used to fuel the economy but would not put a financial strain on them either.
Smoking should be banned

Smoking is already prohibited in and near building, at public parks, amusement parks and anywhere else that it could affect non smokers. It is easy to avoid second hand smoke, therefore, people should be allowed to smoke as long as they are not around non smokers. Con says, "there will be an impact also because people die, making the economy worser." First of all, "worser" is not a word. Second, everyone dies, including non-smokers. We cannot avoid death by not smoking.
Smoking should be banned

Because my opponent is not fire_wings, I win this debate. I said only accept if you are fire_wings. Rebuttals1. FreedomPro says that they have the freedom of choice. However, there is one easy way to rebut this argument. The harm principle says you can do things unless it harm others. However, smoking harms others, making this argument invalid.2. EconomyPro says that there is an economic impact. However, there will be an impact also because people die, making the economy worser.
Smoking should be banned

Because one debate did not get accepted by him, this debate will go to fire_wings. Because I use a phone, there will be no sources in this debate. StructureArgumentsRebuttalsDefenseConclusionFrameworkBecause I hear mostly BoP is on Pro, so BoP is on me. Today's topic is Smoking Ban, and I will be Pro. Arguments1. Seconhand SmokingBecause of the pollution in smoking, many people who do not smoke innocently die because of the bad smoke in their lungs. So, if we ban smoking, these innocent people will have no need to die. I really want to site a source, but I can't, so I will just say that Over 500,000 thousand children died from secondhand smoking in one year.2. Bad for your healthSmoking makes smoke pollution. Smokers and non-smokers die because of bad lungs, and heart attacks. With a ban, There will not be lots of lung diseases and heart attacks.
Smoking should be banned

I find my opponent's argument disappointing. Anyone who has been to an airport knows that smoke does not leave the lounges because of the air filters. If there wasn't a sign, you would not even know it was there. However, when people smoke outside, the smoke certainly travels to those who are nearby, which is why smoking is only permitted away from the general public. My opponent also should have pointed out that even if smoking only affected the health a smokers (which is unlikely), their poor health is still a burden on society. Smokers get sick younger and are therefore less productive than non-smokers and they often cannot afford their astronomical medical bills, leaving it up to the tax payers to pay. I would have rebutted this argument by saying that the morbidly obese also put an unfair burden on society, but no one is advocating banning junk food, candy and soda. Alcohol is another example of a legal substance that is a burden on tax payers. Smokers are treated like second class citizen, even though they are victims of the tobacco industry. Nicotine is the most addictive substance known to man. It is not smokers' fault that they are unable to stop smoking. We already use the millions of dollars in taxes from tobacco products for beneficial programs like helping people quit smoking, lung cancer research, and many others programs that benefit everyone, not just smokers. Without those taxes, many people would have to find new employment, which would take time for the economy to resolve. The solution is obvious. Banning smoking does not benefit anyone. We need to protect non-smokers better and continue to help smokers quit smoking.
Smoking should be banned

1. However, when we go out and in the places with the doors, smoke comes in, and it smells bad. That will do almost no help because air can move. If we open any doors when moving, or even a slight bit, many people can get infected by smoking, so those areas are not helpful.2. Again, the second-hand smokers still smell this.My opponent fails to rebut freedom, and economy, making you have no choice, but to vote for Pro. Okay, Con's a she. If my opponent does not rebut my arguments, then there is no chance my opponent will win because she dropped all my arguments. Thank you. You have no choice, but to vote for Pro. Thanks. :)
Smoking should be banned

1. There seems to be some confusion. Allow me to clarify. Smoking should only be allowed in designated areas that non-smokers can easily avoid. A perfect example of this is in airports that have lounges that are just for smoking. This protects non-smokers without banning smoking entirely. Everybody wins. 2. If smoking is only done in designated areas, then only smokers will suffer the negative health affects that are associated with smoking. The general pubic is well informed of the risks involved with smoking. BTW, Con is a she. If you truly feel that you have already won, there is reason to continue this debate, is there?
Smoking should be banned

I already won this debate. FrameworkBoP on me. Rebuttals1. Con says thar non-smokers should move. Non-smokers have rights to be where they want, and the smokers do the harm, making them have to move, not the non-smokers. Why should we move when the people are doing harm to us? Pro's argument is rebutted.2. Worser is not a word, but a typo. Also, he says that everyone dies even non-smokers. Do you want to die because of smokers? They are harming our normal lives, and they should move because non-smokers are doing nothing wrong. Con does not refute my arguments. Thank you.
the assassination of benazir bhutto means end of democracy in pakistan

"if a political leader as strong as benazir can be assassinated then it is clear that many other can be put down too. if one voice has been killed what is the gaurantee that other voices wouldn't be??" That is Pakistan's current status. Allowing US intervention would change that and once again give Pakistan a chance for Democracy. "And in addition to this people have now developed a terror to protest and ask for their democratic rights.Fearing death, no one will dare to revolt for demcracy" Regardless of Bhutto's death, neither of us should've ever assumed that Pakistan was close to democracy. They fear it now but fear is temporary. Calling the end of any Democratic movements in Pakistan is far too absolute.
the assassination of benazir bhutto means end of democracy in pakistan

It is cynical to view the assassination of one person to mean the end of democracy in Pakistan. The efforts for Pakistani democracy take a large step back but the cause should not been considered entirely lost. By supporting Musharraf, the US is allowing for anti-democratic steps to be taken in Pakistan. If America were to lead the initiative to investigate the death of Bhutto and take a more proactive stance in Pakistan's democratization, then democracy may be restored.
the assassination of benazir bhutto means end of democracy in pakistan

WITH THE death of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, the hope of restoration of democracy in Pakistan in the near future has more or less ended. Bhutto, the last bearer of her father's political legacy, fought for restoration of democracy till her last breath. Her death marks the tragic end of long political legacy of Bhutto family. Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's death is not only a loss for Pakistan, but also for the whole democratic world.