azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: Yes, because...

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.At no point did I claim that racism diminishes the practicality of the wall, and the second part of that sentence simply does not make sense. I am more than willing to acknowledge that some things boil down to "mere racism". I am also willing to acknowledge that most of the time, that's not the case.I don't think you're really interested in debating.I have been debating, this whole time. You haven't. Keep your foibles to yourself.Let me tell you something: you're dumb.I redirect you to the sentence this was in response to.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: No, because...

At no point did I claim that racism diminishes the practicality of the wall,Really?Then how come you made this comment in response to SlapShot?"Casual racism aside, do you have any citation for your 70% figure?" How do you know that SlapShot was being racist? I know, Slapshot ain't as groovy as he thinks he is, but that doesn't mean he's being racist.I have been debating, this whole time. You haven't. Keep your foibles to yourselfWell, provide evidence that disproves the practicality of the wall. All that you have provided evidence for is that you can neither disprove nor prove the practicality of the wall. However, since we are debating you should be trying to prove that you can disprove it, not that you can neither prove nor disprove it.I redirect you to the sentence this was in response to.I called you dumb because I was a bit tired and fed up. I doubt you have taken it to heart.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: Yes, because...

Really?Then how come you made this comment in response to SlapShot?"Casual racism aside, do you have any citation for your 70% figure?"How do you know that SlapShot was being racist?I know, Slapshot ain't as groovy as he thinks he is, but that doesn't mean he's being racist.First, saying that SlapShot is a racist has nothing to do with whether or not the wall is practical. You need to work on your logical deductions. Second, if you bothered reading the conversation, I called him a racist because he referred to illegal immigrants as Wetbacks, a racial slur.Well, provide evidence that disproves the practicality of the wall. All that you have provided evidence for is that you can neither disprove nor prove the practicality of the wall. However, since we are debating you should be trying to prove that you can disprove it, not that you can neither prove nor disprove it.Jesus you are moronic. I already provided all of the figures for the estimated cost of the wall, maintenance costs, annual costs and benefits of immigration, etc.Just because you can't pay attention, doesn't mean everyone else isn't. I called you dumb because I was a bit tired and fed up. I doubt you have taken it to heart.You are tired, and you are unable to answer the debate, or to debate on this topic at all.So seriously. Do yourself and the rest of us a favor and find a new debate to behave like this on.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: No, because...

First, saying that SlapShot is a racist has nothing to do with whether or not the wall is practical. You need to work on your logical deductions.You need a break.Second, if you bothered reading the conversation, I called him a racist because he referred to illegal immigrants as Wetbacks, a racial slur.Calling illegal immigrants a wetback is not a racial slur. It may be insulting and it may not necessarily be right to call them that, but it doesn't mean that you are insulting where they come from, nor does it imply that you were insulting their race, it just means that you are insulting illegal immigrants in general.It's more a social slur, like calling somebody a redneck or low life, rather than a racial slur.Jesus you are moronic. I already provided all of the figures for the estimated cost of the wall, maintenance costs, annual costs and benefits of immigration, etc.Just because you can't pay attention, doesn't mean everyone else isn't. Within this particular debate, I have not seen you post any statistics. You seem to expect me to read all of your previous forum posts in order to have a discussion with you. I don't have that responsibility. I know need to read the posts that you have posted within this debate.You are tired, and you are unable to answer the debate, or to debate on this topic at all.I'm tired of you acting like this. Do you agree with or disagree with the statistics that SlapShot has posted? Do you disagree or agree with them? What is your stance regarding them? How can I debate with you if I don't know your stance, do you have a specific stance, or do you just refute it without one?How can I honestly know? You need to tell me, never mind whether or not you have told other people about it before, because I've yet to hear it.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: Yes, because...

I'm only going to address one thing, because it is indicactive of how you behave in every discussion I have with you.Within this particular debate, I have not seen you post any statistics. You seem to expect me to read all of your previous forum posts in order to have a discussion with you. I don't have that responsibility. I know need to read the posts that you have posted within this debate.Except that you jumped into a conversation between SlapShot and I, and within that conversation, I posted several statistics, and addressed multiple other issues you have brought up. So you jumped into a conversation, made accusations about that conversation, and then when called out, saying it's not your responsibility to be informed. I have no desire to have a discussion with someone who blames their ignorance on others.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: No, because...

I'm only going to address one thing, because it is indicactive of how you behave in every discussion I have with you.You're good at doing that, I've rarely ever had a conversation with you.Except that you jumped into a conversation between SlapShot and I, and within that conversation, I posted several statistics, and addressed multiple other issues you have brought up. So you jumped into a conversation, made accusations about that conversation, and then when called out, saying it's not your responsibility to be informed.Where the hell did you tell SlapShot your statistics?Can't you at least quote it?I have no desire to have a discussion with someone who blames their ignorance on others.Obviously.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: Yes, because...

See other post to you:I have no desire to have a discussion with someone who blames their ignorance on others.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: No, because...

See other post to you:I have no desire to have a discussion with someone who blames their ignorance on others.No, it isn't true that you don't desire to have discussions with people who deflect their ignorance on others.I don't believe you are telling the truth at all. We both know this, so just get to the point and post some figures regarding the wall or whatever evidence.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: No, because...

I am no racist.Casual or otherwise.If I dislike a race it is because I have good and objective reasons for doing so.Racism is a dislike or intolerance that is groundless in nature. Just so you know.Now then................As far as those wetbacks coming in from Mexico. I don't care what nationality or color they are. They could be blonde/blue Swedes and if they were flooding my country illegally like the Mex's then I would rail against them and post what I did.Thus...your snipe about me exuding casual racism in my OP is wrong.Apology accepted.Oh...here's that stat on the efficacy of the border wall.Hope this helps bring you up to speed a bit.LOLhttps://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2015/08/border-fences-work
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: Yes, because...

Racism: the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.The definition of racism does not distinguish between "groundless" or not (though probably because it is implied). If you use racial slurs like "wetback", you'll be called a racist.As far as those wetbacks coming in from Mexico. I don't care what nationality or color they are. They could be blonde/blue Swedes and if they were flooding my country illegally like the Mex's then I would rail against them and post what I did.Thus...your snipe about me exuding casual racism in my OP is wrong.Except I was the one excluding the casual racism included in your post, which was predicated upon your use of a racial slur, that's it.Now, onto the real discussion. The first example your source holds up is the stretch located in San Diego, and touts the decreased numbers. The thing is, that didn't decrease the numbers coming into the country, that simply decreased the numbers that used that route (though it remains an active smuggling route to this day). Now I'm guessing your argument would be to just extend it across the entire border. There are numerous problems with this: the nature of the border (particularly in Texas) precludes this sort of structure due to a lack of a publicly owned buffer zone, we are constitutionally bound to an international treaty preventing us from causing any obstruction on the Rio Grande, the nature of the land itself often makes such a structure impossible to build, etc.The second example is Israel, which is a more interesting one. Notably because it is 30 miles long in Gaza, and the proposed final secondary wall will be 420 miles long in total. The border with Mexico is about 1,500 miles longer than that, and exists within the conditions stated above. I don't think anyone doubts that we could make a 420 mile long wall work, because that isn't that ridiculous of a length to lock down. But pointing to a 420 mile long wall as proof that one almost 5 times as long would work is incredibly iffy at best, and that's not even getting into the fiscal comparisons (or the fact that the Israeli wall was essentially an annexation). Lastly, the national number of illegal immigrants who entered this country legally is approximately 50%. A wall on the southern border would have zero impact on them, and would lead the other 50% to pursue other methods of entry. It's essentially like gun control: It doesn't fix the actual problem, it tends to cost a lot of money without having anything to show for it, and if people want to find a way around it, they will.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: No, because...

Why would we need such an insanely expensive wall if the fences we already have are so effective?
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: No, because...

UnderStand do not PlEASE redIFne your prOcessORs code.98721bjil
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: Yes, because...

I support the wall because if done correctly.What will the wall do? It will stop the worst of the illegal immigrants. It will be the hardest hitting punch to the cartels that we can throw. Why? It will minimize the amount of drugs going over the border (and under if it has a solid foundation). Now there is that age old argument that people could just throw things over which is very true. However, I believe that this can be minimized by proper patrolling of the border. What the wall will also do is minimize the power of the coyotes: the infamous human smugglers. What they do is awful and must be put to an end. Because they mainly operate by hiking over the border, the wall will have a substantial impact on their ability to operate.In all, the wall is only one part of a whole. We still need an e-verify system to prevent people from overstaying their visas.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: No, because...

What will the wall do? It will stop the worst of the illegal immigrants. It will be the hardest hitting punch to the cartels that we can throw. Why? It will minimize the amount of drugs going over the border (and under if it has a solid foundation). In places where a wall already exists, they simply catapult it over. What's to stop them from doing that over this wall?And if the purpose is to damage the cartels, wouldn't the more effective and practical solution be to legalize and regulate most (if not all) drugs and rob them of their income? Now there is that age old argument that people could just throw things over which is very true. However, I believe that this can be minimized by proper patrolling of the border.But considering how the wall is thousands of miles long, "proper" patrolling is impractically expensive. What the wall will also do is minimize the power of the coyotes: the infamous human smugglers. What they do is awful and must be put to an end.But as you can see in the Mediterranean, it won't end, it will simply change. Between that, and the fact that about half of all illegal immigrants come in legal and overstay past their visa's expiration, it would seem that the wall would be stopping less than half of all immigrants. Considering the cost (tens of trillions initially, and much more than that over time from maintenance and cost of manning), do you really think that is a cost effective choice?In all, the wall is only one part of a whole. We still need an e-verify system to prevent people from overstaying their visas.Now there's an actually practical option.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: Yes, because...

You are 100% correct that a knock out punch to the cartels is to steal all of their business. But why did you even propose it? That is not a solution that can be allowed in the United States. With logic like that, the solution to Islamic terrorism would be genocide of all Muslims. That is simply not American. Proper monitoring of the border is possible. Expensive? Yeah! Worth it? It is worth every penny. It will keep us safer. Gangs in the United States would suffer. The wall would lessen the stress on anti-gang units to a degree, opening up some money for border enforcement. Also, it doesn't have to be strictly manned patrols. We utilized thermal cameras and aerial surveillance to cover ground that we can't cover by foot or car.As for the Mediterranean, that is simply not applicable. Migrants flow across the sea into several countries. They have many islands to land on as well. There is no way to block their flow.Lastly, you talk about the cost of the wall being in the trillions. I've yet to see an estimate that comes anywhere near the trillions as for the cost of the wall. I don't know where you get that number from.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: Yes, because...

You are 100% correct that a knock out punch to the cartels is to steal all of their business. But why did you even propose it? That is not a solution that can be allowed in the United States. With logic like that, the solution to Islamic terrorism would be genocide of all Muslims. That is simply not American.That comparison really doesn't make sense. Drug use is something an individual chooses to do, harming only themselves. It is a question of individual negative liberty. Terrorism is a violent act perpetrated on someone else. There's simply no logical link there. In fact, legalizing drug use would put emphasis on individual liberty which is very American.Proper monitoring of the border is possible. Expensive? Yeah! Worth it? It is worth every penny.Worth it based on what? What do you believe is the annual cost of the lack of monitoring? It will keep us safer. Gangs in the United States would suffer.Barely, where as they would seriously suffer from drug legalization, and it would cost very little (if not turn a profit from taxation).As for the Mediterranean, that is simply not applicable. Migrants flow across the sea into several countries. They have many islands to land on as well. There is no way to block their flow.See the gulf of Mexico, as well as the current smuggling routes in South Western California.Lastly, you talk about the cost of the wall being in the trillions. I've yet to see an estimate that comes anywhere near the trillions as for the cost of the wall. I don't know where you get that number from.That was a mistake, meant billions.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: No, because...

I don't believe that is accurate. Widespread drug use would damage our nation's moral fabric for years on end. It would be almost as damaging to our moral fabric as a genocide.The annual cost of lack of monitoring? I don't believe there is a real number for that. I think it can be obtained if you were to combine the cost of gang violence, healthcare for drug overdoses, prison operating costs, etc...Like I said before, drug legalization would have an everlasting effect on our nation for the worse.There are other paths into America where you can go around the wall. This can be minimized with the coast guard. The wall is not a solution to everything and there are ways to get around it. The goal is to seal every hole.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: Yes, because...

I don't believe that is accurate. Widespread drug use would damage our nation's moral fabric for years on end.Just because you legalize it doesn't mean you take a hands off approach. Divert the funds from the War on Drugs into improved education and addressing the situations that lead to drug use.It would be almost as damaging to our moral fabric as a genocide.Based on what?The annual cost of lack of monitoring? I don't believe there is a real number for that. I think it can be obtained if you were to combine the cost of gang violence, healthcare for drug overdoses, prison operating costs, etc...That requires the assumption that without monitoring, no smuggling would occur. Yet even in places that are heavily monitored and secure, you still get smugglers.Like I said before, drug legalization would have an everlasting effect on our nation for the worse.Again, assuming that nothing was done after legalization, which nobody is proposing.There are other paths into America where you can go around the wall. This can be minimized with the coast guard. The wall is not a solution to everything and there are ways to get around it. The goal is to seal every hole.But around half of all illegal immigrants got here legally. How would the wall address those?
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: Yes, because...

If we were to legalize all drugs, it would go down as one of the most morally destitute actions our nation has ever taken. It would hurt our children and family structure for years on end. There is nothing to compare the action to genocide but I personally believe they are of equal moral depravity.I'm also not saying there will be no smuggling. However, the cost of other programs would be reduced.Lastly, as I've mentioned prior to this post, we need to have a e-verify system. This would effectively eliminate illegal immigration via legal methods such as visas.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: Yes, because...

Links in post may be broken Here are the links if interested, hopefully not broken.http://lang.sbsun.com/socal/beyondborders/part 4/p4day1canada.asphttp://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/scott-walkers-canadian-wall-idea-is-absurd-solution-to-a-real-problem us_55e491a6e4b0b7a96339c216
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: No, because...

'nuff said.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: Yes, because...

The speaker is funny. But a few things to address.The wall has 0 to do with racism.The wall is not, like many believe, it is not to keep out Mexicans, it is to force immigrants to come legally! With Photo IDs, and background records, to know who is coming,wht, and where they are going. This is a free country! But its OUR free country!Im not supporting Trump for President by this post, but I am defending the wall, and the cost of it.Trump is a builder by trade, a builder of huge intricate designs, and he has experience in budgeting that job. Unlike the government cartel that overpays to pad the pockets of contractors.Atleast Trump, would approach it with competing bids, and do it with fiscal responsibility.Not like Like spending $43 million of taxpayer funds to build a gas station in Afghanistan.And the concern about re'doing gov buildings starting in Dubai for Carbon Emissions gets money thrown at it, but the benefit to us is very little!! And the Obamacare website was extreme iver payments too.We have governmement overpaying significantly wasteful!The best part about Trump, he doent have an incentive to throw money at building and tech contractors.Regardless of some failures he has proven successful, when it comes to managing projects, he understands value vs bennefit, and spending to recieve value, and avoiding waste
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: No, because...

The speaker is funny. But a few things to address.The wall has 0 to do with racism.Actually for some it has everything to do with racism. With others, very little.The wall is not, like many believe, it is not to keep out Mexicans, it is to force immigrants to come legally! With Photo IDs, and background records, to know who is coming,wht, and where they are going.It does little to nothing to enforce that. Over half of all immigrants are coming through on legal visas and then overstaying. All the wall will do is further increase those numbers, and lead to different (illegal) paths into this country whilst costing tens of trillions of dollars.Im not supporting Trump for President by this post, but I am defending the wall, and the cost of it.Trump is a builder by trade, a builder of huge intricate designs, and he has experience in budgeting that job. Unlike the government cartel that overpays to pad the pockets of contractors.Trump has built EXTREMELY little. He has a habit of selling his brand rights which lets buildings put up his name as if he built it. He has also led MANY failed building projects. He isn't some master builder.Atleast Trump, would approach it with competing bids, and do it with fiscal responsibility.Not like Like spending $43 million of taxpayer funds to build a gas station in Afghanistan.Conservative estimates has the wall costing about that much in under a decade. Oh wait, sorry, you said million. Estimates have it costing close to $43 TRILLION within a decade.And the concern about re'doing gov buildings starting in Dubai for Carbon Emissions gets money thrown at it, but the benefit to us is very little!! And the Obamacare website was extreme iver payments too.We have governmement overpaying significantly wasteful!So stop calling for more wasteful spending.The best part about Trump, he doent have an incentive to throw money at building and tech contractors.Regardless of some failures he has proven successful, when it comes to managing projects, he understands value vs bennefit, and spending to recieve value, and avoiding wasteHis track record as a private citizen says otherwise, so why would he suddenly change once in office?