BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The US Should Give Unlimited Visa's

I'm extremely sorry for the delay. I was a bit busy with my work. Firstly I would like to thank my opponent for posting this debate. It can be said that US has been founded on immigration since its birth.The very first people to live in US were immigrants from England if I'm not wrong.Even now the percentage of total number of immigrants in the world living in US is more than the next two runner-ups in the world, Russia and Germany. Immigrants are persons living in the United States who were not American citizens at birth. This includes naturalized American citizens, legal permanent residents (green card holders), illegal immigrants, and people on long-term temporary visas such as foreign students or guest workers. (1) Immigration policy determines the number allowed in, the selection criteria used, and the level of resources devoted to controlling illegal immigration. By the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which abolishes the national origins formula used by the Emergency Quota Act, and replaced it with the quota system my opponent mentioned, which allows 175,000 visas to be issued every year for every country in the world.(2) 175,000 is not a small number at all.The number of immigrants (legal and illegal) in the country hit a new record of 40 million in 2010, a 28 percent increase over the total in 2000. We DO ENCOURAGE immigrants into our country openly but every country has its own limits.Recently, one of the most important findings is that immigration has dramatically increased the size of the nation"s low-income population.Because, jobs are being given to the immigrants and hence many native people are left without any job in the end. There are many reasons to examine the nation"s immigrant population. First, immigrants and their minor children now represent one-sixth of the U.S. population. New immigration plus births to immigrants added more than 22 million people to the U.S. population in the last decade, equal to 80 percent of total population growth. Immigrants and their young children (under 18) now account for more than one in five public school students, one-fourth of those in poverty, and nearly one-third of those without health insurance, creating very real challenges for the nation"s schools, health care systems, and physical infrastructure. (1) One of the reasons immigrants choose America over other nations is because we don't just kick them into the streets as soon as they step off the boat. They have access to government placement programs and safety nets like SSI and food stamps, they don't have to step into the great unknown all by themselves. Especially during times like these when the government is looking to pinch pennies where ever it can, these systems would be totally overwhelmed and of no use to anybody at all. The quality of life for immigrants in the U.S. would plummet, and then the American dream really would fade from reality. This is my argument. I look forward to hear to your argument. If there is no argument being posted, then vote for "CON". References: (1).http://cis.org... (2).http://en.wikipedia.org...
Homosexuality should be socially accepted.

When you create the instance that someone 'should' accept homosexuality, while you are not forcing it onto the individual, you are actively creating a social consequence if they do not accept homosexuality. In your words, in your particular example of smoking, If you disregard and continue to smoke, it is undeniable that a considerable number of society LOOK DOWN upon you for smoking. It is no coincidence that many employers pass out actively on people who have nose piercings or belly piercings. They view these people as 'thugs' or people from lower socio-economic background. So, UNLESS you are able to tell me why we should enforce an argument on why we should create active consequences for these individuals to socially accept homosexuality, your points are void. Re-iterating my points, I wasn't confused, but you can, if you like, choose to explore my points in the context of giving people freedom 'without being judged' by members of the community. -imagining social acceptance as giving homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals This is flawed. YOU NEED to state this in your definition. If you do not define the topic, then I will define it for you, as I have in the beginning. My interpretations stem from your first argument, so technically you're in the wrong here. -you can decide to forfeit if you would like It seems quite redundant for me to forfeit when you've been orchestrating this falsely and lacking vital information which you conveniently decided to bring out as part of your final argument. To summarise, homosexuality shouldn't be socially accepted because it creates unnecessary social implications on those who don't.
Homosexuality should be socially accepted.

That's all right, let's just get on with the debate. I undestand that social acceptance is different from legalizing marriage between homosexuals, but I imagined "social acceptance" as giving homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals. If you did not correctly understand me when you agreed to this debate, then I will drop that topic for your convenience.A reason some people may not be okay with accepting homosexual people is because those homosexuals will most likely raise a kid, and they fear that the child may lack a male/female role model. I believe it is relevant. I think you misunderstood the whole debate after examining your arguments. I never said that anyone should be forced to accept homosexuality, I simply said that those people SHOULD accept homosexuality. I don't think you should smoke, but I also don't think you should be forced NOT to smoke. I think your arguments would be great if we were discussing if people should be forced to accept homosexuality, but we are not. I'm sorry if you were confused, you can decide to forfeit if you would like.
Homosexuality should be socially accepted.

Technically I was under the impression that if you are assuming the 'pro' position, you start off with your arguments. So firstly, some flaws in your case. Social acceptance is different between allowing marriage between homosexuals. Because of the fact that this debate is centred around whether homosexuals should be 'socially' accepted, it does not hinge around marriage. One can marry another but not be socially accepted by the community. Hence, argument 2 is irrelevant and thus, invalid. While the parents sexual orientation does not affect the child as you conveniently talked about, we do not feel that talking about how children are not affected dictates a compulsory social acceptance. Rather, we feel that this is an argument about whether children are inherently affected by homosexual parents, not about why people should accept homosexuals. Again, this argument is plainly irrelevant because it does not persuade people to accept homosexuals. Now, onto my arguments: 1. There are significant consequences for making people 'accept' homosexuals in general. We feel that there is a large number of citizens in the world who have been against the idea of 'accepting' these people in general. We can correlate this to the people who detest sorts of food, religions, etc. These people do not like believing a certain way and we should not compel or enforce a black or white approach onto these people. We live in a generally free world when people are free to make their decisions. There should be no reason why we should force our ideas on others. If we do, this can lead to many potential implications. These people may start riots, these people may start creating hate speech, etc. We are only going to inflame this situation further by enforcing the idea or notion that we should accept homosexuals. 2. People should have the freedom to choose whether they 'accept' homosexuals or not. Again, this can be related to whether people want to accept eating mushrooms as a regular staple or whether they want to accept watching a circus every week. No one should force this onto them or tell them 'you should eat mushrooms'. Sure, you can justify eating vegetables as healthy, but that does not necessarily give us the right to tell them that they 'should' eat something. This is giving them unnecessary social pressure to conform and there should be no reason, especially for an issue like this. If they break the law attacking homosexuals, they are still subjected to the same harshness of treatment as any other person attacking a 'non-homosexual'. There is no difference in the law.
Homosexuality should be socially accepted.

I was assuming you would present your arguments in round one, since you first have to prove homosexuality is something that shouldn't be socially accepted, but I can start by expecting some arguments and rebutting them before you present them.1. It is unnaturalFirst of all, define natural. Most people would say that something is natural if humankind does not tinker with it. But you're going to have to explain why being unnatural is bad. You're in an air-conditioned house. Not very natural, is it? You are staring at a computer. That is nothing close to "natural".2. Homosexuals cannot marry, because "Marriage" is between a male and a femaleWell then maybe we should change the definition as our society and culture changes. 3. Their child doesn't get a female/male role modelThe parent's sexual orientation does not affect the child. [1][1] http://www.yourtango.com...;
Video game should not be banned

Video games improve problem solving skill and teamwork. Not all video games are just violent kill or be killed games. For example, "Human Fall Flat" where you gone work alone or as a team you go level by level figuring out the puzzles, so you can get to the next level this is a good example of what would improve you problem solving skill. it makes you think hard not them mindlessly kill people games that some of the older people think that all video games are. In game teamwork is a essential for most video games without you couldn"t succeed in your game. A study by Columbia university Mailman School of Public health in New York says children playing video games would be more social with their peers. Video games can help with problem solving skill and teamwork and should not be banned
Video game should not be banned

Video games are what gets food onto the table for the family"s about 120,000 people rely on it as their job those people are hard at work making games for us to enjoy and love and many other people rely on games e.g Youtubers, Streamers if you took that away their would also be a huge economy drop from youtuber and streamers not able to play video games but also a drop from video games being banned video games make up 6.2 billion dollars the US economy alone according video Games in the 21st Century: The 2014 Report, which was an economic impact study conducted by Economists, this statics where from 2014 and have probably grown a lot. And if video games get banned their could be massive ripple effect and a final crisis.
Video game should not be banned

How many people play video games?, about 1.2 billion people about 1 quarter of the worlds population and that means 1.2 billion people who would revolt against the video game ban. HI today I"ll be arguing that video games should not be banned. Video games should not have banned they are don"t cause enough harm to justify banning them. First of all Video games make up a chunk of the economy and if they were banned many people would lose their jobs and it would really put a big blow to the economy. Secondly Video games improve problem solving skills and teamwork. And lastly video games are a way to escape reailty and have fun and joy and you would be taking that away from the people.
Homeopathy-It works

Now, you have raised a fair point in the topic stating that resolution is "Homeopathy-It works," and that placebo's to tend to work. However what we need to understand is the definition of "It works. " Lets take medicines that are scientifically proven to work for example. Say an antacid. Does it work most of the time? Yes. Does it occasionally not work? Yes as some cases may be too extreme or not related. So the entire point of a "working" medication is one that serves its purpose and fixes the person, and fixing what it was meant to fix, means it works. Pro states that "There are some conditions in which a placebo can produce results even when people know they are taking a placebo. Studies show that placebos can have an effect on conditions such as:" "Depression, pain, sleep disorders, irritable bowel syndrome, and menopause. " But Homeopathy is also given for other diseases, literally all of them. So if placebo's don't even work MOST of the time then we cannot consider them to in reality work. As there are probably hundreds (if not thousands) of other diseases that Homeopaths give medications for. Even though these are but a few examples, homeopathy/placebos could not really treat every single disease. If we do say that homeopathy works than we also may say that simply feeding a person balls of sugar can cure them, thus allowing them to "work. " If that is your viewpoint, then please look at it logically. So even drinking coke is good for our teeth if we believe so? Fanta truly gives us proteins and minerals? Oh and don't forget protein bars or frozen food. These products actually have ill effects. Homeopathy may be bad for some people with diabetes (sugar balls being used). Pro implies that if we believe it works then it does. One cannot simply say that. In order to work, the item in discussion must have 1) Legit evidence 2) Logical reasons (scientific or otherwise) 3) Successful tests As Homeopathy does not fit into any one of these categories (even thought to "work" you need to fit into all three) we cannot really say that Homeopathy works. It isn't viable, it definitely isn't even close to 75% sure and it has no scientific base whatsoever. As placebo's cannot be considered "to work" neither can Homeopathy.
Homeopathy-It works

My argument is that homeopathy works. Albeit not often, they still work as a placebo. Placebos have effects on people. Sometimes positive. I can then only conclude that it works. "Sometimes a person can have a response to a placebo. The response can be positive or negative. For instance, the person's symptoms may improve. Or the person may have what appears to be side effects from the treatment. These responses are known as the "placebo effect. " "There are some conditions in which a placebo can produce results even when people know they are taking a placebo. Studies show that placebos can have an effect on conditions such as:" "Depression, pain, sleep disorders, irritable bowel syndrome, and menopause. " "Research on the placebo effect has focused on the relationship of mind and body. One of the most common theories is that the placebo effect is due to a person's expectations. If a person expects a pill to do something, then it's possible that the body's own chemistry can cause effects similar to what a medication might have caused. "(1) Like Con, I am very skeptic of homeopathic methods, especially compared to regular medicine. However, the resolution is "Homeopathy-It works. " This is easy to prove as placebos are known to work, perhaps not constantly, but they work. Con even concedes "There is no scientific proof whatsoever that Homeopathy has medicinal properties and the reason some people get cured is a pure Placebo. " Homeopathy may not have medicinal properties but due to the placebo effect, it works. The resolution stands (1) . http://www.webmd.com...
Homeopathy-It works

Sorry for that,I have been incredibly busy recently. Barely got enough time to write this one. So the placebo effect is on the basis of the patient truly believing that the placebo works. However as many people now know that Homeopathy is in reality a placebo they will tend to look the other way, and if they consume it it will have no effect on them. When we say "it works" we mean that the object fulfills it's function regardless of exterior factors. Placebos are based on the exterior factor of believing. Pro states that "I would also like to point out that there are many things Conventional medicine also cannot cure, which is evident as people still die everyday, even when they have conventional medicine. Con is asking for me to prove something about homeopathy that also cannot be proved by conventional medicine. " All conventional medicine for certain diseases which people still die to are purely in the experimental process. Also even if we have a cure for every disease people will still die due to murder or other physical wounds that are not given attention. Please do not rebut with saying "Death is a disease" And in the rare case that conventional medicine not working, either the wrong one has been given OR it has been given too late. Pro also states that " I will add that Placebos can be described as "working" as they have been know to produce the desired result. Sometimes up to %75 of the time." 75% of what? Please be more specific. And also the website you have linked does not seem very scientifically motivated. It was extremely vague on it's description. And the desired effect for me or someone else who is educated on this topic will not be achieved, at all. So in reality we can't even consider them to work as placebos are not medicinally speaking working. Pro says "I would like to point out that the Resolution is "Homeopathy- It works," It is not "homeopathy- it works medicinally," or for that matter "homeopathy- it works due to medical properties." I argued previously that homeopathy works as a placebo, not due to medicinal properties." But when we talk about a certain item working, we must prove that it does it's job, rather than working on pure belief. If let's say I truly believe that breathing air can cure my stomach ache, and it does, we must consider Air to be a viable working medicine. In reality there are no official national hospitals that accept homeopathy as a medicine that works. So even if the resolution is "It works" I have shown to you that it doesn't and no person educated on this topic think it does. Please stop turning this debate into a debate on the definition of "works" The main reason I couldn't find time to reply was I did not think I could fit in such a minor debate, one where I thought we could discuss the scientific basis of homeopathy and it in reality working other than the Placebo effect. This debate has turned into a new resolution of "Do Placebos work?" which is clearly not the intended resolution. Thank you.
Israel should use preemptive military strikes against Iran, to take out their nuclear program.

You stated that weapons grade uranium is only .25% more enriched than reactor uranium. This is no where close to the amount. Weapons grade uranium is enriched to about 90% U-235. Reactor grade uranium can be made with 5-10% U-235. (20% for higher, research reactors) This is my source for this data: http://www.fas.org... For your second point, It is clear that Israel is entangled in conflict within it's immediate region. You say that Israel has had to put very little effort into fighting Hezbollah, however Israel has had to put ALOT of effort into fighting Palestine. According to http://www.reuters.com... Israel and Palestine are still undergoing land disputes. In fact, according to another article, http://www.reuters.com..., Israel's top general notes continued raids on Gaza, and a possibility of a major offensive into Gaza. Hamas controlled Palestine is also conducting further attacks upon Israel. While you are saying that the Israeli air force is not being utilized, this does not assure immediate victory for Israel. Clearly a retaliation on Iran's part will occur if a wide scale preemptive attack is staged on it's Nuclear program. The fact is that Israel's attention would therefore be divided, which it can ill afford. Just because a country has a strategic, militaristic, and economic advantage, does not justify an attack. Or else the United States would be attacking the entire world right now. While yes, the situation is somewhat different from North Korea in that Iran's economy is much more stable, the power ploy of a weaker country arguement still holds true. Economic sanctions and international pressures also will still be effective against Iran. Also, my points about how Israel attacking Iran prematurely compared to US attacking Iraq prematurely were unaddressed. Also much of your arguement is upon the fact that if Iran were to obtain nukes, Israel's destruction is imminent. Well, not only is Iran not very close to getting weapons grade Uranium, but Israel would still have defenses against Iran. According to a Jerusalem post article, http://www.jpost.com..., Israel has a functional ballistic missile defense system, capable of intercepting missiles. Therefore without this imminent danger of getting "wiped off the face of the earth" by Iran, Israel does not need to attack Iran preemptively and can instead rely on the diplomatic measures pursued by other Western Nations.
Israel should use preemptive military strikes against Iran, to take out their nuclear program.

1. Iran is continuing their nuclear reactor program. Weapons grade Uranium is only 0.25% more enriched than reactor uranium. Therefore, Iran could be using their nuclear reactor facilities as a front for creating weapons. The US does not have the technology to know whether Iran is creating WMD. 2. Iran would not risk war with Israel. Iran would not risk war with a country that has more monetary, political and military backing from the world's superpowers. Israel has recently had to put very little military effort into the war with Hezzbollah. Additionally, Israel uses no air force against Hamas and Hezzbollah leaving it open for war with Iran. 3. This situation is different from North Korea. North Korea had nothing that the outside world wanted, while Iran has a lot of oil. Also, North Korea didn't comply because of the sanctions, but because of the offers from the US. 4. Israel should take the opportunity to rid Iran of the possibility of getting rid of Israel before they can.