azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: The Holocaust proves God is not as loving as he should be (Christian God)
Side: No

Allah is the Arab word for God. Allah isn't a different God it's just a different name for God. For instance in Hebrew the word for god is Yahweh. Same difference.
Debate: The Holocaust proves God is not as loving as he should be (Christian God)
Side: Yes

The Muslim God does not consider Jesus Christ as the Son of God, so they are different.
Debate: The Holocaust proves God is not as loving as he should be (Christian God)
Side: No

The Muslims don't consider Jesus to be the son of god. But it's still the same god. Because they still consider Jesus to be a great prophet.
Debate: The Holocaust proves God is not as loving as he should be (Christian God)
Side: Yes

It can't be the same if the priorities are the same. Worst off Christianity claims exclusivity in reference to Islam by claiming Jesus is God.
Debate: The Holocaust proves God is not as loving as he should be (Christian God)
Side: No

The doctrine differs but from what I understand they are all Abrahamic religions and the God which religions center around is the same God even if the interpretations are different.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: Yes, because...

The wall, coupled with armed guards and a mine field will send a potent message to all would be law breakers: Keep out, or we'll shoot your ass and then blow you up.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: No, because...

Considering the fact that approximately half of all illegal immigrants entered the United States legally and stayed past the expiration point of their visa, how do you believe the wall would serve as a deterrent for them?If it doesn't, do you really believe spending tens of billions of dollars in order to stop less than half (in all likelyhood far less than that) of illegal immigrants is fiscally sound?
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: Yes, because...

The wall is a start; at least it will address half the problem. The visa violators, that can be addressed by simply enforcing the laws on the books. As a matter of fact, all the illegal alien problem can be addressed by enforcing existing laws that have been on the books for years.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: No, because...

The wall is a start; at least it will address half the problem.We don't know that it would address half the problem, we know that it would impede half the problem. Considering methods used such as subterranean tunnels, smuggling through check points, boats, etc, chances are damn near 100% that it wouldn't stop everyone. Which means it would stop less than half, at the cost of $25 trillion not including maintenance (which is estimated to reach cost within only 7 years) and the cost of manning it.The visa violators, that can be addressed by simply enforcing the laws on the books.And how is that, exactly? As a matter of fact, all the illegal alien problem can be addressed by enforcing existing laws that have been on the books for years.Attempts to do so would add trillions upon trillions more (you are talking about a national manhunt to find and deport a LARGE number of people). So at what point does it become fiscally self-defeating? Or, if this has nothing to do with money and fiscal practicality, what is the purpose of this?
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: No, because...

You do understand that each year Obama has been deporting 7x as many illegals as Bush did each year, right?Trump would need to magnify that another sevenfold and maintain that extreme number for an entire 8-year term. How do you suggest going around finding all these illegals?
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: Yes, because...

They need to deport. Regardless of the masses.They get here, have a baby, then we are stuck with them.The burden is doing incredible damage to our economy. They need to deport, and implement our immigration laws. And they need to stop making laws of allowance, and cities of amnesty.The avg illegal allien costThe annual outlay that illegal aliens cost: Cost to U.S. taxpayers is an average amount per native-headed household of $1,117. The fiscal impact per household varies considerably because the greatest share of the burden falls on state and local taxpayers whose burden depends on the size of the illegal alien population in that locality.The areas that they are moving into are already struggling local economies. They are not moving to Radnor PA, a wealthy community. They are moving to areas like Norristown boro, and major cities. These are already areas that are broken financially, and the education is already a struggling. How can we fix anything, if we keep adding to it exponentially?So the impact is creating more poverty! And its a hole that keeps getting deeper, especially with illegal alliens draining those local economies.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: No, because...

They need to deport. Regardless of the masses.They get here, have a baby, then we are stuck with them.The burden is doing incredible damage to our economy.As I have already told you, the CBO estimates that the costs and the benefits equalize.They need to deport, and implement our immigration laws.And they need to stop making laws of allowance, and cities of amnesty.That is an economically bad idea.The avg illegal allien costThe annual outlay that illegal aliens cost:Cost to U.S. taxpayers is an average amount per native-headed household of $1,117. The fiscal impact per household varies considerably because the greatest share of the burden falls on state and local taxpayers whose burden depends on the size of the illegal alien population in that locality.Since you are going to keep repeating this:https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf So the impact is creating more poverty! And its a hole that keeps getting deeper, especially with illegal alliens draining those local economies.Do you have any studies to cite regarding the socio-economic impact on locations where illegal immigrants move to, or are you just speculating?
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: Yes, because...

Provide numbers please. 1/2 of 10 is 5. 1/ of 60 million is 30 million.1/2 could be a huge number. 1/2 of a ficticious number or an inferred number is spin. Its ONLY half, well um, 1/2 of what exactly. Then multiply it by years it has happened, plus the years you are willing to have more of it.Then lets discuss that number. And then, calculate the cost of economic impact. Unemployment, Government payouts and benefitss, and all the other costs that we incurr. And multiply that by years , past and future years of continuance.And you sound as bad as Trump with throwing the number of cost since you are at tens-sss of billions.He said 5 billion to 12 billion. And it hasn't been calculated yet. And then you have the risk of terrorism, and that cost in lives and damages. And the increase in crime, since criminals do not come legally, they come illegally! And the weight of that is also huge.Illegal immigration is a HUGE issue.And one that absolutely should be a priority of our Government and of Our People!!Illegal immigration cost us Billions every year!  Taxpayers (2013)The full report is available in pdf format in the attached link Here is a snippet from the report:"Executive SummaryThis report estimates the annual costs of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level to be about $113 billion; nearly $29 billion at the federal level and $84 billion at the state and local level. The study also estimates tax collections from illegal alien workers, both those in the above-ground economy and those in the underground economy. Those receipts do not come close to the level of expenditures and, in any case, are misleading as an offset because over time unemployed and underemployed U.S. workers would replace illegal alien workers.Key FindingsIllegal immigration costs U.S. taxpayers about $113 billion a year at the federal, state and local level. The bulk of the costs — some $84 billion — are absorbed by state and local governments.The annual outlay that illegal aliens cost U.S. taxpayers is an average amount per native-headed household of $1,117. The fiscal impact per household varies considerably because the greatest share of the burden falls on state and local taxpayers whose burden depends on the size of the illegal alien population in that localityEducation for the children of illegal aliens constitutes the single largest cost to taxpayers, at an annual price tag of nearly $52 billion. Nearly all of those costs are absorbed by state and local governments.At the federal level, about one-third of outlays are matched by tax collections from illegal aliens. At the state and local level, an average of less than 5 percent of the public costs associated with illegal immigration is recouped through taxes collected from illegal aliens.Most illegal aliens do not pay income taxes. Among those who do, much of the revenues collected are refunded to the illegal aliens when they file tax returns. Many are also claiming tax credits resulting in payments from the U.S. Treasury."
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: Yes, because...

"Overall, the federal government spent $3.72 trillion in fiscal 2010, according to the White House Office of Management and Budget. That means the $11.9 billion the government spent on securing the entire U.S. border equaled 0.3 percent of federal spending and the $3.6 billion the federal government spent on securing the border between the ports of entry equaled about 0.1 percent.Strayhorn found that undocumented immigrants paid $424.7 million more to the state in taxes and fees than the state spent on them in education (by far the biggest expense), health care, and incarceration. That’s a net gain for Texas. But on the local level, the report found a very different story: Local governments and hospitals were nearly $1 billion in the hole.  - See more at: http://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-illegal-immigration-but-didnt-know-who-to-ask/#sthash.snphaNr6.dpuf.   Here is another example of statistic data confusion, that skews actual dataPerhaps the (above) comptroller’s most problematic decision was to exclude the expense of educating the U.S.A. born children of undocumented immigrants, on the grounds that these children are American citizens. That’s a dodge, and a pretty significnt one.  And below, here is another example of statistic data confusion, that skews actual data (this skews all the numbers, since they are born as citizen at a rate of 2 out of 3, legal and illegals, are born from illegal aliens - not just education, but all other benefits, from health care to free lunch etc...) According to a 2009 report by the Pew Hispanic Center, there are nearly three times as many U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants as undocumented children. Incarceration rate of native-born men is higher than that of immigrants. But there are problems with these reports.  And again below, here is another example of statistic data confusion, that skews actual dataFew of them differentiate between legal and illegal immigrants; the former are often well-educated people who have been vetted by immigration officials and their prospective employers. Lumping them in with illegal immigrants might sharply skew the statistics.  - See more at: http://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-illegal-immigration-but-didnt-know-who-to-ask/#sthash.snphaNr6.dpuf.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: No, because...

"Overall, the federal government spent $3.72 trillion in fiscal 2010, according to the White House Office of Management and Budget.That means the $11.9 billion the government spent on securing the entire U.S. border equaled 0.3 percent of federal spending and the $3.6 billion the federal government spent on securing the border between the ports of entry equaled about 0.1 percent.Strayhorn found that undocumented immigrants paid $424.7 million more to the state in taxes and fees than the state spent on them in education (by far the biggest expense), health care, and incarceration.That’s a net gain for Texas.But on the local level, the report found a very different story:Local governments and hospitals were nearly $1 billion in the hole.- See more at: http://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-illegal-immigration-but-didnt-know-who-to-ask/#sthash.snphaNr6.dpuf. Here is another example of statistic data confusion, that skews actual dataNot really, that's just showing how bureaucratic budgeting works. The ultimate economic effect remains, despite the fact that some local economies are harmed. Those aren't mutually exclusive.Perhaps the (above) comptroller’s most problematic decision was to exclude the expense of educating the U.S.A. born children of undocumented immigrants, on the grounds that these children are American citizens.That’s a dodge, and a pretty significnt one.What do you mean?And below, here is another example of statistic data confusion, that skews actual data(this skews all the numbers, since they are born as citizen at a rate of 2 out of 3, legal and illegals, are born from illegal aliens - not just education, but all other benefits, from health care to free lunch etc...)According to a 2009 report by the Pew Hispanic Center, there are nearly three times as many U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants as undocumented children.Incarceration rate of native-born men is higher than that of immigrants. But there are problems with these reports.And again below, here is another example of statistic data confusion, that skews actual dataFew of them differentiate between legal and illegal immigrants; the former are often well-educated people who have been vetted by immigration officials and their prospective employers.Lumping them in with illegal immigrants might sharply skew the statistics.- See more at: http://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-illegal-immigration-but-didnt-know-who-to-ask/#sthash.snphaNr6.dpuf. What point are you trying to make?
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: Yes, because...

Im not saying there isnt economic factors that show a contribution to economy. But they are also a huge expense.And the local economy seems to have a negative impact.Closing and tightening border control, and figuring out the mess we have within so far should be the focus. And it should be a major concentrated effort to stop the downpour, so we can dry out some. We have huge internal issues and we need to fix our house.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: No, because...

Im not saying there isnt economic factors that show a contribution to economy. But they are also a huge expense.You have been thus far unwilling to recognize any economic benefit. Now that you have, we need to determine whether or not they are a national net-benefit or net-cost.And the local economy seems to have a negative impact.Local economies suffer from many things that benefit the nation as a whole.Closing and tightening border control, and figuring out the mess we have within so far should be the focus.Why?And it should be a major concentrated effort to stop the downpour, so we can dry out some.Without knowing whether or not it is a net-cost, why?We have huge internal issues and we need to fix our house.We do have huge internal issues. This isn't even top 5.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: Yes, because...

Why stop it? Jeeze, for every reason. Even with contribution they are a drain. Do you understand the growth in aliens is already unmanageable. Its a heavy burden particularly on the local economy. Deportation is expensive. And criminals come over that way with ease. And terrorist also see it as an access point. Regardless of everything, the bottom line,I would think that most Americans don't want illegal aliens who are not Citizens to make up large portions of areas we live and work in. We host many foreigners with green cards and student and work visas. There is a reason we as a country have limits in numbers of passes to come in annually. 1 way is manageable, 1 way is not!I'm not sure why anyone would think open borders and illegal immigration would be healthy for society in general. If you really think about it, you would at least be cautious. You have areas where large amts of illegals live, they have no allegiance, they are not citizens. They are not honoring the country and they see little value in honoring the prividge of citizenship if we don't value it. Fix America by fixing the warped minds of Americans.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: No, because...

You really think we can legally create a mine field in America?!?Or even in Mexico, a country with which America is not at war?Think of the children....
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: Yes, because...

Sure we can legally create minefields; America has the right to defend itself by any means. I am thinking about the children, American children.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: No, because...

American children [in Texas, presumably] would be at risk. Did you not wander around as a child? I surveyed the forests within miles of my house when I was young.But that begs the question: where would these minefields be placed? In Texas, along the border? It isn't as if America is at war; weapons of war cannot be used on a whim, especially within America itself. In Mexico? That would be an act of war. Might as well vote to turn America into a military state.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: No, because...

Defense is a different issue than illegal aliens entering.And even in Defense, there are humane and inhumane acts of war.Since we are not barbaric, we don't blow up people unlesd it is unavoidable. We value all life as Americans, its our greatest strength, and its also our greatest weakness. Our kindness and tolerance are exploited in massive ways. By more methods than we can point out. From terrorists, to other countries, every special interest group, every entitlement, every illegal immigrant, the media, our own government, and everyone that wants to trample America and the people of America, to move up while Americans suffer!The National Debt, the Annual Budget, The Annual Spending, it belongs to all of us.We ALL need to begin to make sense of our priorities in spending, and cut wasteful and nonpriority spending. And also, evaluate cost vs value and pay fair market prices when spending our money. Not overpaying significantly for bid contracts. Require fiscal responsibility, and priority spending.The wall is a priority
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: Yes, because...

Defense is a different issue than illegal aliens entering.And even in Defense, there are humane and inhumane acts of war.Since we are not barbaric, we don't blow up people unlesd it is unavoidable. We value all life as Americans, its our greatest strength, and its also our greatest weakness.That's really not true, as evidenced by our collateral damage rate in over seas operations. It's a nice sentiment, but we do not follow it.From terrorists, to other countries, every special interest group, every entitlement, every illegal immigrant, the media, our own government, and everyone that wants to trample America and the people of America, to move up while Americans suffer!The National Debt, the Annual Budget, The Annual Spending, it belongs to all of us.We ALL need to begin to make sense of our priorities in spending, and cut wasteful and nonpriority spending. And also, evaluate cost vs value and pay fair market prices when spending our money.Not overpaying significantly for bid contracts.Require fiscal responsibility, and priority spending.The wall is a priorityFiscal responsibility and building the wall are mutually exclusive.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: No, because...

We actually can't. Our Constitution binds us to any international treaty we have signed, such as the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in which we, along with several other superpowers, agreed to no longer use minefields. To ignore that would not only be stupid and a violation of international law, but it would be unconstitutional.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: No, because...

Yeah, I agree. A minefield would be at the top of the list of really bad ideas!
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: No, because...

I only just now realized you are advocating a war crime as per the treaty we signed in the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (catchy name).Were you aware of that?
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: Yes, because...

The wall supports the countries current stance against illegal immigrants so in that case it is an excellent idea.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: Yes, because...

The illegal aliens entering this country are a burden on our society. They get "free" healthcare paid for by whom ? They get "free" food stamps paid for by whom ? So do tell me how Oblunder's vetting process is working and if it is where do they hold the illegal aliens while this vetting process takes place. Now Josh Disearnest has stated on the record there is a 2 year vetting process.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: Yes, because...

Im not proposing Trump for president, actually Im going with Cruz.I like the idea of some of what he brings, but he has too much adversity. And, he is not informed enough on issues. I want to see the wall built anyway. I know Cruz has concerns about the Southern Border, and will work to limit access to thevUS from there.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: Yes, because...

The wall has already decreased illegal immigration in the areas where it stands.In some places as much as 70%.Ergo....more wall of an enhanced Trumpian tweaking of it would certainly conmtinue to impede the criminal trespassing into my country by thousands of wetbacks.Of course it would not stop these bastards totally. But it, along with severe legal penalties, including the amputation of feet for serial violators, is a good start.I support all efforts to stop the illegal invasion of my country.Whatever it takes, amigos!Que no?
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: Yes, because...

Casual racism aside, do you have any citation for your 70% figure?
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: No, because...

Casual racism aside, do you have any citation for your 70% figure?You take numbers seriously.This doesn't mean that you hate racism.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: Yes, because...

When you are discussing how practical proposed policies are, numbers tend to me more important than opinions.Not sure why you think that has anything to do with my opinions of racism.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: No, because...

When you are discussing how practical proposed policies are, numbers tend to me more important than opinions.Not sure why you think that has anything to do with my opinions of racism.You haven't disputed racism, just the lack of numbers involved.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: Yes, because...

You haven't disputed racism, just the lack of numbers involved.I never made any attempt to do so. Your responses are disconnected from what you are responding to.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: No, because...

I never made any attempt to do so. Your responses are disconnected from what you are responding to.You never attempted to do so?You have claimed that racism diminishes the practicality of the wall and yet you refuse to refute anything as being down to just mere racism.I don't think you're really interested in debating.Your responses are disconnected from what you are responding to.Let me tell you something: you're dumb.