azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Building the border wall and paying with it through 20% tax
Side: I am against wall and tax

The border wall between Mexico and America is an ineffective solution to illegal immigration and a monumental waste of the projected 25 Billion dollars it will cost to build it. The hard truth is, this wall is addressing immigration under a false impression of the "harm" it is doing. According to the Census' American Community Survey approximately half of mexico's illegal migrants 25 and older hold a bachelors degree or higher. These are people that will benefit our economy, that will own small businesses and create opportunities for all Americans. Also, only 12% of immigrants coming to the U.S are from mexico. To invest this monumental amount of money on an issue this small is illogical. The status quo is a big enough slow on immigration. Since the Great Recession the need for low skilled workers has stemmed which has slowed the amount of immigrants coming into America. We do not need a 25 billion dollar wall. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/01/20/why-a-wall-wont-keep-americas-newest-immigrants-out/?utm_term=.fb5d29322b0a
Debate: Building the border wall and paying with it through 20% tax
Side: I am against wall and tax

Although there is no set answer, there are too many faults in the endeavor of building an 'impenetrable' wall along the US/Mexico border. Is it realistic that a 2000 mile long wall will be built, when factoring in the major geographical issues, tremendous cost, and possible ineffectiveness that this wall could cause?During the 2nd term of former president George W. Bush, congress authorized that hundreds of miles of fencing would be built along the border. Even with this much less intimidating endeavor, there were many obstacles. Because of issues of treaties and flood zones, construction is forced to move north into the US. However, many private land owners were not interested in buyouts. If this is the case, ethics comes into play. Will this land be taken forcefully to fulfill the need of the wall? Can it? And if not, what are the alternative solutions to work around these areas? We've all heard the statistics about the wall many times. About 2000 miles long, stretching across four states, and the mentioned costs have ranged from about ten billion to twenty-five billion. Realistically, the costs seem to favor the latter. Not only this, but the 20% increase on imported Mexican goods will not only possibly cause an outrage, but also make everyday living more difficult, especially since American wages have stagnated in the past few decades. Now, there are quite a few arguments to challenge this, but the question remains. Will the possible ineffectiveness of the wall make this tariff worth it?As I said before, the Bush administration built fencing along the border that was meant to do the same job. Keep illegal immigrants out. However, this was merely an obstacle for the masses of immigrants who found their way over. Although there is the argument that the fencing can not be compared to the wall in security standards, a desperate family will find a way into the US. The wall merely stands in the way, but it can only do so much against the ones who have their mind set to get out of the country.
Debate: Building the border wall and paying with it through 20% tax
Side: I am against wall and tax

Building a new wall will not stop people from Mexico wanting to get over to America. We already have a barrier in between the two countries that covers about 700 miles out of almost 2000 miles of border. This may not seem like a lot at first but about half of the border has its own natural barriers like the Sonoran Desert which see hundreds of deaths from people trying to cross it. Not only that but the wall we already have in place does not have a good success rate at stopping people from coming over illegally. With about 7.8M illegal immigrants in the U.S. reported from 2009-2013 who were born in Mexico or other Central American countries compared to a measly 421,000 border apprehensions in 2013.
Debate: Building the border wall and paying with it through 20% tax
Side: I am against wall and tax

The argument at hand is not so much if we should build a wall, its should we tear down the current border wall and replace it with an "updated" version. Either way, the answer is no. The current border wall ,which was built between 1996 and 2006, took 6 billion dollars. 10 years and a large sum of money for a wall that thousands of people cross monthly. Taking a look at Trumps proposed wall, the cost ranges from 15 to 25 billion dollars. That is almost quadruple the cost of the current border. This does not add the cost of the annual maintenance that will be needed and the pay for the deconstruction of the current wall. The 20% tariff may seem like a good idea on the outside, but this will only hurt consumers in the long run. Mexico is one of the United States largest source of imports and exports. Imposing a 20% tax will increase the price on many goods. In terms of business, this will hurt many companies that rely on selling their goods. This will also hurt the average consumer by costing them more money for the items they use daily. This also brings in the question of how long the tariff is supposed to last. The current border took 10 years. How would a tax of that size impact the economy of the United Stated over the period of time taken to build it? Both of these questions are imperative when discussing the situation at hand. The wall will not benefit the United States in any way especially not economically. In conclusion, the border wall is not a good idea.
Debate: Building the border wall and paying with it through 20% tax
Side: I am against wall and tax

Building a wall is ridiculous and paying it through 20% tax is absurd. There's going to be an increase on Mexican goods coming into the United States, which could lead to tariffs by Mexico for incoming goods from the United States. ( https://youtu.be/D8NrjXcwuM )Do we really need a wall? Did we even need the fence. America is supposedly "the land of the free" right? Immigrants come over here so that they can have a better life, but creating a wall will only prevent them from coming over. Which serves the purpose of building the wall, but why? According to the New York Times immigrants aren't stealing our jobs or are a huge problem. ( http://immigration.about.com/od/bordersportsandcustoms/i/Fence Issue.htm )( https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/29/magazine/debunking-the-myth-of-the-job-stealing-immigrant.html?_r=0  )
Debate: Building the border wall and paying with it through 20% tax
Side: I am against wall and tax

The world is torn between two ideologies: Jihad and McWorld. McWorld, globalization, can be seen as the dominating perspective, and that is not a malevolent result. Globalization is inevitable and its consequences are economically beneficial; whereas isolationism, Jihad, is not. In this situation of building a wall on the Mexican boarder, the isolationists are acting on xenophobic motives; for the major reason some support the wall is because they believe that a majority of the immigrants are criminals. Their foundation is based on opinion rather than fact. Such a perspective is detrimental to both civil and economic systems in the US. It is detrimental to the civil system because it engenders prejudice in the public by using immigrants as a scapegoat for different issues, and it is detrimental to the economic system by forcing it remain isolated from opportunities of prosperity. Through globalization, the US's economy would be exposed to new and foreign markets diversifying and strengthening its assets. Building a boarder wall would publicly display the US's decision to isolate itself. Such a gesture would mar international relationships. Moreover, building a wall 1,900 miles long is a little expensive, about $25 billion, but President Trump administration has claimed that Mexico will pay for it by taxing Mexican imports. While this may sound like a good idea at first, It is really ploy to hide the fact that no one but the US will pay for the wall. Taxing Mexican imports only increases the prices of the products, so really the buyers, us Americans, will be paying for the wall. Really it would be easier and faster if every single person, from infants to senior citizens, in the United States donate about $80 to the Trump administration to satisfy one persons unrealistic, radical, xenophobic emotions.
Debate: Building the border wall and paying with it through 20% tax
Side: I am against wall and tax

I would rather my money go towards education, helping veterans, and helping our homeless, over some wall that will be difficult to maintain. I don't even mind the tax but that money could be better spent providing assistance and benefits to those that need it.
Debate: Building the border wall and paying with it through 20% tax
Side: I am against wall and tax

Trump's border wall plan has many holes in it. It would be terrible diplomacy. The building of a border wall would put a strain on the relationship between the U.S. and Mexico, one of our closest trading partners - not to mention the rest of the world. And it would be a waste of money. Experts estimate that Donald Trump’s wall would cost at least $25 billion. That’s enough to build 1,500 new elementary schools, or send more than 300,000 veterans to college, or install enough renewable energy to power more than 5 million homes. In other words, we could help a lot of hardworking American families with all of the money Trump would spend on his wall. It’s completely unnecessary for securing our borders. We spend roughly $7 billion per year to place thousands of border patrol agents in the field and inspectors at our ports. We have vehicles, aircrafts, watercrafts, camera towers, and even aerial drones.
Debate: Building the border wall and paying with it through 20% tax
Side: I am against wall and tax

Building a wall at the border would not benefit the United States. Doing this would divide both nations and could potentially cause Mexico to raise their tariffs on U.S. imports. Building the wall would also be very expensive, costing between $15-20 billion. The United States cannot afford to build this wall. Trump tells us that Mexico will pay for the wall while Mexico's president claims that they will not pay for any of it. Citizens taxes will probably end up paying for the wall which is pointless when the money could go to many other things.
Debate: Building the border wall and paying with it through 20% tax
Side: I am against wall and tax

Building a wall is a complete waste of time AND WASTE OF MONEY. If there is a 20% tax on Mexican goods then that means WE Americans are paying for the wall. We would be paying for something that won't even work! Many don't seem to remember that there already is a wall, and it is appearntly ineffective. How will rebuilding a wall solve any problems? An immigrant will do what ever it takes to cross the border, and a simple wall is not going to stop them. There are better ways to reduce illegal immigration (mentioned at https://www.quora.com/Why-is-building-a-wall-between-the-US-and-Mexico-like-Trump-proposes-a-bad-idea-Ignoring-ethics-would-such-a-wall-reduce-illegal-border-crossings) ) All building another wall does is create tension between American and Mexico. Mexico is the United States' neighbor, we rely on them and they rely on us. They are our third largest trading partner. It is better for USA and Mexico to work together to ensure Mexico is trying their hardest to prevent the passing of illegal immigrants as well. Overall, this will will not accomplish much.
Debate: Building the border wall and paying with it through 20% tax
Side: I am for the wall and MX tax

We have a fence, not a wall, and it doesn't span the whole border. If you want evidence that walls and fences do work when constructed with integrity and along the majority of the length of a border then look no further than Israel and Hungary.
Debate: Building the border wall and paying with it through 20% tax
Side: I am for the wall and MX tax

I agree with SirDrPrf. The "fence" that we have currently only stops about 40-50% of the immigrants coming into the country. While this might seem like a high number, there are still tons of immigrants that make it over, about half a million each year (check link.) However, I believe the wall in Israel did not really serve its true purpose. The wall has proved to be a wonder, but was eventually labeled as illegal by the International Court of Justice, so I do not believe it was the best example to use.
Debate: Building the border wall and paying with it through 20% tax
Side: I am for the wall and MX tax

The surrounding circumstances and effects of the Israeli West Bank barrier may not be easy to stomach for some, especially those that respect the rulings of obsolete, misguided entities such as international courts, but that doesn't discount its effectiveness in the capacity of keeping out undesirables. That being said, what other example would you suggest?
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: Yes.

I am an agnostic, but I lean in favor of Christianity. .
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: Yes.

Sure they can.If you would allow somebody who thinks the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth were great, and who believes that his teachings CAN indeed help us lead better lives, and who even tries to follow them as best they can, to call himself a Christian, that is.But what if this same person, who admires the teachings of Jesus, and even admires the Man--yes, he believes Jesus was JUST a man--does not believe in a biblical type of God? Who does not believe Jesus was God? Or Divine. But just a great teacher and philosopher. Like the Buddha? Or Lao Tzu? Or the Dalai Lama?Many (most?) more fundamental and mainstream Christians would not allow that person to be called a Christian, however. This is why most religions lose me.That person I described above who likes the teachings of Jesus but does not believe in a Biblical God? And who thinks most religions are corrupted?He is Me.So...I can go one farther for ya: Can a person who is an ATHEIST like me call himself a Christian if he thinks the teachings of JC were awesome? After all, if somebody in Biology (my field) believes in the theories of Darwin, we call him a "Darwinian" in his school of thought.And in politics, there are the terms "Jacskonian" and "Jeffersonian" in regards to particular political ideologies.So why not transfer this usage of the suffix "ian" over to religion and let somebody who agrees with Christ's teachings to be called a "Christian?"It is only fair.But I wager the vast majority of fundie Christians would not allow an Atheist like me to say that> And would not EVER call me one.This is one way in which I believe religion is elitist, oppressive, and skewed beyond what JC meant it to be.Thanks!
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: No.

You can call yourself whatever you like, but when it's logically contradicting, don't be offended if you hear people snickering. Your examples of Darwinians, Jeffersonians and Jacksonians all miss the mark. Christ is not a last name, it's a title (i.e. Messiah). It means the anointed One. Anointed by Whom? By God of course. Thus it makes no logical sense for an Atheist to also identify as a follower of the anointed One.In my opinion, this seems to be a growing trend of atheists to attempt to garner a bit more credibility, by attaching themselves to the "Christian" label. We fundies have special logic-deciphering glasses that allow us to see through all this bs though.
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: Yes.

Actually my example missed no mark.I correctly stated that the "ians" suffix denoted a follower of the person's ethos who was the subject of that suffix.Thus, it matters not if it was a last name or a title. This is simple grammar and syntax. NOT Theology.Also, the word messiah comes from the Hebrew "messiach." And then it was converted tot he Greek "christos." Which means anointed, yes.But who is to say that the anointing was from god? Back then they used the word "anointed" for when somebody was dressed with oil. As a symbolic gesture of worship and adoration. Like Jesus was at the Last Supper. On his feet.Lastly, us Atheist need not attempt to garner and more credibility. Certainly not form the likes of people who are devoid of scientific knowledge and believe in sky gods and long-dead Jewish carpenters that now sit up in a fictional place called Heaven at the right hand of a make-believe god.Thanks.
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: No.

Now THAT'S the kind of atheistic response I'm accustomed to. I knew it wouldn't take long. Look at this classic, petulant atheistic disdain: "sky gods", "long-dead Jewish carpenters", "fictional place called Heaven", "make-believe god". No wonder we fundies have a hard time believing in such a thing as an atheistic Christian. Are you honestly now positing a secular anointing? If so, then that's a first for me, so I have to give you points for originality.
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: Yes.

Now THAT'S the kind of atheistic response I'm accustomed to. I knew it wouldn't take long. Look at this classic, petulant atheistic disdain: "sky gods", "long-dead Jewish carpenters", "fictional place called Heaven", "make-believe god". No wonder we fundies have a hard time believing in such a thing as an atheistic Christian. So despite the fact that most of your reactions have not been like this, you come across one person who is and suddenly that is the 'typical' response. Come on Sceathers. That's like atheists on this website pretending SaintNow is representative of Christians.
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: Yes.

Fair enough. I'm new to this site, so that response may not be typical here (time will tell), but it's very commonplace everywhere else I've seen.
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: Yes.

But do you recognize that your personal experiences are purely anecdotal?My personal experiences are that Christians tend to be hateful, bigoted and angry. But I recognize those experiences are of what, maybe a bit over a thousand people over the course of my life? A bit more than that online? A thousand out of over a hundred million people. Your experiences might be similar (but for atheists), and yet your sample size is still minuscule compared to the total population. To tout those negative experiences as if they are indicative of all atheists is not only misguided, but its also incredibly belittling.
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: Yes.

I did initially say that those were the responses I was accustomed to, which is true, I typically get much worse actually, but I have no idea how that translates to the total atheist population. As a former atheist for 30 years I can honestly say I never debated these issues when I was on the other side of the fence. Nowadays though, there's a much more aggressive atheist movement afoot. My personal experiences may not be that far off after all.
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: Yes.

"Look at this classic, petulant atheistic disdain"You really don't see how that comes across?As for the increased aggression of the atheist movement, I'm not sure why you are surprised. There was no substantial atheist movement thirty years ago. There were atheists, sure, but they had just barely been given the right to hold public office by the Supreme Court. Now that atheism isn't considered a borderline mental condition, atheists are comfortable speaking out within a society that many feel is rather oppressive (note: not repressive or discriminatory) and within which they are overwhelmingly a minority.
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: No.

How's that? My labeling his response as petulant is what you take issue with, but not his childish response itself? He certainly didn't add much to the debate with that response did he? Now you're playing the pity card because you've allegedly been oppressed as atheists? C'mon this is just getting stupid now. "The struggle is real", right? >: )
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: Yes.

How's that? My labeling his response as petulant is what you take issue with, but not his childish response itself?Oh believe me I take issue with his childishness as well. He doesn't contribute anything beyond insults 99% of the time. You seem more mature than that, so I actually respond to you.Now you're playing the pity card because you've allegedly been oppressed as atheists? C'mon this is just getting stupid now. "The struggle is real", right? >: )Right, so because you can't imagine it, that means you can essentially make fun of it. That's pretty lame, sceathers.
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: Yes.

No, I am not suggesting secular anointing. There would be no reason for a secular person to engage in such a ritual. (Although the CoS (church of Satan) DOES have a very similar practice). And although like I said I DO think JC had some pretty damn good things to say, and I as an atheist even read Him once in awhile, I would not call myself a Christian. Although I still do think that I could make a good argument for doing so. As could anybody who follows His teachings but does not believe in the biblical God, and even thinks JC was human. And was merely A good mortal teacher like the Buddha, or Ghandi, or the Lama, or even, say, a philosopher like Aquinas or Augustine or Origen.
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: Yes.

What they are saying when they call themselves Christian is that they respect Christian teachings on morals and they are trying to be good people. At least they are not trying to rob us and cut off our heads like Muslims........well, most of them, anyways. Most atheists I have known are decent folks, law abiding citizens....like my neighbors. Kind and generous people with a strong sense of right and wrong.....clean living people who care deeply for their families and friends as they try to make the world a better place.
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: Yes.

You lost all credibility when you claimed that the atheists who are espousing support for Christ's teachings (a misguided trend, in my opinion) are doing so "to attempt to garner a bit more credibility".
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: No.

Care to expand a bit? Why did I lose "all credibility" in your eyes? Or is this just an emotional outburst, where you simply regurgitated one of the last words I used? Why else do you think Atheists would claim to support the anointed One?
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: Yes.

It's the classical "assume the worst of others" path.Instead of going with the most obvious answer (that they actually believe what they are saying), you make it into a borderline conspiracy based on the assumption that atheists feel they need "credibility" in the eyes of theists.Many non-Christians support many of Jesus' teachings (probably because the ones they are supporting are great ideas that predate Christ). That does not mean they support his claim of divinity, or his claim that anyone who doesn't believe in it will burn in hell.Edit: Basically, they support Jesus of Nazareth, not Jesus Christ. Silly, I know, but not as absurd as you are making it seem.
Debate: Can agnostics be Christian?
Side: No.

Actually I used to assume the best when dealing with "agnostic/atheistic Christians" - that is until I started to see them consistently deny just about everything Jesus said. That's when I began to notice this new "wolf in sheep's clothing" trend. Jesus did claim to be God, so if these agnostic/atheistic Christians don't believe His supernatural claims, then in their minds they must be supporting the teachings of a mad man. And if, like you say, there are others that came up with these "great ideas that predate Christ", then why would Agnostics/Atheists choose Jesus' teachings to "support" over the earlier ones? Sounds very suspect, doesn't it?