azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: America is their home

Shall we welcome them to flood into Alaska for citizenship?Hello bront:Your post suggest you don't know the history of the border.. I dunno why. You're from around there..In fact, for the last 50 years or so, we welcomed the Dreamers and their parents. What??? When they reached the border, did they see a DO NOT CROSS sign??? Nooooo, they didn't.. They saw a HELP WANTED sign..So, they went to work picking your lettuce, washing your dishes, making your beds, and taking care of your children.. Now, you wanna throw 'em out.. DUDE!excon
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: Git 'em OUTTA here

In fact, for the last 50 years or so, we welcomed the Dreamers and their parents.1)Back in the day, we had way less people, more room, and were building a country. Now we have an infrastructure that has been built, is crowded, and a welfare system that can't sustain itself.2)They didn't see a sign, because there is no sign. They saw fences and border patrol.So, they went to work picking your lettuce, washing your dishes, making your beds, and taking care of your children.. Now, you wanna throw 'em out..Ever heard of the Emancipation Proclamation Con? How noble of you to willingly ship minorities in to do the slave labor for you. How about the cotton Con? Is that why we need Mexicans up here? The cotton? Wanting Mexicans here as equals is one thing Con. Wanting them here as farm animals is quite another.Now, you wanna throw 'em out..No. I'd prefer we enforce our laws, and they obey our laws. Then there is no one to "throw out". If someone enters my house, It's not my fault if the cops toss them out. And if they know it's illegal, and put their child in that position, that is their fault, not ours.
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: America is their home

They didn't see a sign, because there is no sign. They saw fences and border patrol.Hello again, bront:This post too suggests that you're unaware of history... Fences and border patrol didn't make their appearance on the border till round 2,000's... Before that, there was a river and open desert..And, they were HAPPY to get work. You call it slave labor, but those Mexicans never made so much money.. Their families in Mexico could feed and clothe themselves.. It was ANYTHING but slave labor.. I dunno why Mexicans pick fruit? Why do Irish become cops? Why do Indians sell jewelry? I'm no anthropologist.. I'm just a lib who believes in freedom for EVERYBODY...excon
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: Git 'em OUTTA here

This post too suggests that you're unaware of history... Fences and border patrol didn't make their appearance on the border till round 2,000's... Before that, there was a river and open desert..So tell us what the policy was prior to your open borders 50 year time period? Then tell us why we can't go back to said policy after a reign of mindless liberal logic, when liberals aren't in control anymore because their ways just got repudiated by 95% of the counties in America...
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: Git 'em OUTTA here

I dunno why Mexicans pick fruit? Why do Irish become cops? Why do Indians sell jewelry? I'm no anthropologist.. I'm just a lib who believes in freedom for EVERYBODY...http://www.commonsenseevaluation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Mainstream-Media-Silent-As-Pro-Trump-Rallies-Get-Violent-Against-Trump-Supporters-4.jpg
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: Git 'em OUTTA here

I dunno why Mexicans pick fruit?Sure ya do Con. Because they can't speak English and have no formal education, or any other skills because they are from another country.
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: Git 'em OUTTA here

When they reached the border, did they see a DO NOT CROSS sign??? Nooooo, they didn't..Oh good. There is no DO NOT CROSS sign in Alaska. I can't wait for the Russians to flood in and have children in mass and take over our country as U.S. citizens. Talk about a Red Scare.
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: America is their home

Hello again, bront:Of course, you don't wanna address my post. You'd rather spew. S'cool..excon
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: Git 'em OUTTA here

Come on Con, tell us. Why do dreamers only count if they are Mexicans? Christians are being wiped out all across the Middle East by the millions, yet not a peep. Why is that?
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: Git 'em OUTTA here

In fact, for the last 50 years or so, we welcomed the Dreamers and their parents.Which would suggest... 1)Even our open enemies can become citizens here if they can have a baby here. Makes sense.2)That before 50 years ago, that was not our policy, and we can change it back and forth as needed and when we want.
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: America is their home

Hello again, bront:I'm not saying we SHOULD open borders.. I'm saying we DID have open borders, and we need to clean up the mess it caused.. Throwing those people OUT will NOT clean up the mess..excon
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: Git 'em OUTTA here

I'm not saying we SHOULD open borders.. I'm saying we DID have open borders, and we need to clean up the mess it caused..Last I checked, my clan opposes open borders. Just think if you had listened to them all this time.
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: Git 'em OUTTA here

Throwing those people OUT will NOT clean up the mess..Really? So open borders caused the mess, but tossing out those who came in with open borders will not clean up the mess? How else do you clean up a mess, sit there with our thumb up our ass and hope God cleans it up? Oh wait...
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: Git 'em OUTTA here

So, they went to work picking your lettuce, washing your dishes, making your beds, and taking care of your children.. Now, you wanna throw 'em out.They aren't picking my lettuce, washing my dishes, making my bed, or taking care of my child. Throwing out someone that you never invited into your home is pretty normal logic.
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: Git 'em OUTTA here

If we're talking about illegal immigrants of course they should be deported in accordance with the law. Immigration controls are necessary to the existence of any successful country. This is because uncontrolled population growth puts immense strain on healthcare, social programs, housing, employment etc.
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: America is their home

If we're talking about illegal immigrants of course they should be deported in accordance with the law.Hello W:It's true.. But you CAN'T start to enforce border law, unless you FIX the problems that were created when we DIDN'T enforce them.. That went on for years and years..To pretend that these "illegal immigrants" just got here belies the truth.. We INVITED them into our country.. They did the work we didn't want to... It worked out fine. They are our friends and neighbors. Just throwing them out isn't going to solve anything.excon
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: Git 'em OUTTA here

My point is this: there are laws in place regarding immigration and these laws serve a purpose. As such nations should enforce their laws regarding immigration. I'm not so sure that "invited" immigrants are illegal immigrants? If they were permitted a temporary amount of time in the country to work then they have to abide by the terms they were given and leave at the end of that time.
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: America is their home

Hello again, W:Well, the invite wasn't all that formal.. I'm saying that when the Mexicans got to the border, there wasn't a DO NOT CROSS sign. There was a HELP WANTED sign.. You understand, that I'm using those terms metaphorically... Openly employing illegal immigrants for years and years, which many companies did, could be construed by some (me), as an invitation..excon
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: Git 'em OUTTA here

Well, the invite wasn't all that formal.. I'm saying that when the Mexicans got to the border, there wasn't a DO NOT CROSS sign.We know. Instead there was border patrol and the law. I think I'll do my own, thank you very much.
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: Git 'em OUTTA here

There was a HELP WANTED sign..Of which you said was to pick the lettuce and do our laundry......
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: Git 'em OUTTA here

Openly employing illegal immigrants for years and years, which many companies did, could be construed by some (me), as an invitation..Or an excuse created by liberalism to cut wages to third world wages.
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: Git 'em OUTTA here

Companies shouldn't employ illegal immigrants for a myriad of reasons, including the exploitation of said illegals. Further I don't think that the fact that opportunities exist in the U.S. is an invitation, though it is an incentive. There will always be opportunities in a successful nation and hence there will always be an "invitation".
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: America is their home

Companies shouldn't employ illegal immigrantsHello again, W:No, they shouldn't.. But, they DID, and the government did NOTHING about it. Whatever we want to call that, it's created a HUGE problem that won't be fixed by throwing all these people out..excon
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: Git 'em OUTTA here

SUPER STUPID you have to be PUNKED again !http://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/immigrants-ignore-us-immigration-laws-because-obama-wont-enforce-them You must pay attention you devoid of facts Leftist !
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: America is their home

This is mythologizing. Most dirty work is carried out by illegal immigrants. Perhaps they aren't part of the official economic numbers, but they bring billions every year into a country. They're also not entitled to welfare. Without them, America would be worse off.Second, what puts strain on public services more than anything, is a lack of funding. That lack of funding is an economic decision made by the government in charge. "It costs too much to have universal healthcare. It costs too much for social housing. It costs too much for welfare cheques". What this really means is: "we, the government, aren't prepared to invest sufficient quantities of money and manpower into these services. We, the government, aren't willing to force the filthy rich to pay their fair share. We, the government, aren't willing to improve educational access to allow poorer people to get out of their current socioeconomic demographic".The single biggest cause of the immense strain on public services is the governmental decision to allow the services to be in a state of stress. This is arguably unavoidable in a country where more than fifty percent of the wealth is owned and operated by fewer than 30 individuals. Such inequality has drastic implications: it means mass exploitation through minimum wage labour; it means huge debts for anybody who seeks to get off the bottom rung of society; it means huge shortfalls in funds for public services; it means oligarchic employment standards; it means most wealth is inherited rather than "earned"; it means, to summarize, that there is an accepted culture of "not enough to go around".There is far more than enough to go around, except that people are too brainwashed to believe otherwise. And who will fight for their rights if they refuse to acknowledge those rights can even exist?
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: Git 'em OUTTA here

This is mythologizing. Most dirty work is carried out by illegal immigrants. Perhaps they aren't part of the official economic numbers, but they bring billions every year into a country. They're also not entitled to welfare. Without them, America would be worse off.Jobs Americans used to do have been taken by illegals, causing wages to go down. Thus no Americans do these low paying jobs. If the illegals were gone, Americans would go back to doing these jobs because they pay decent.
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: Git 'em OUTTA here

Second, what puts strain on public services more than anything, is a lack of funding.Or the piss poor trade agreements put in place by Bill Clinton, but ya know, whatever...
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: Git 'em OUTTA here

There is far more than enough to go around, except that people are too brainwashed to believe otherwise.There is? So why are so many Americans in poverty?
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: America is their home

There is? So why are so many Americans in poverty?Are you literally stupid? You worship an economic pyramid system and you want to know why the people at the bottom are poor? Did you have some kind of brain lobotomy as a child, bronto? I'm serious. Tell us.
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: Git 'em OUTTA here

"It costs too much to have universal healthcare. It costs too much for social housing. It costs too much for welfare cheques".Or... it's simply not the government's responsibility. It's these peoples' responsibility to go make something of their lives and quit making excuses and expecting handouts on someone else's dime.
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: Git 'em OUTTA here

We, the government, aren't willing to force the filthy rich to pay their fair share.They already pay 35% tax rate, hand out all of the paychecks, and deal out all the benefits while being the only ones taking risks. If they don't make a profit, you still get paid. They don't. The only way to get rich is to start a business. You didn't. That's your fault.
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: America is their home

The only way to get rich is to start a business.A) No it isn't.B) About 30% (one-third) of businesses will survive their 10th year in business. (The most recent data shows that of the small businesses that opened in March of 2006, 32.8% made it to March of 2016.)https://www.fundera.com/blog/what-percentage-of-small-businesses-fail C) Get help. You are mentally ill.
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: Git 'em OUTTA here

I assume you won't be doing any of the other things necessary to get rich either. I'm rich. I must have used magic. I'm assuming you are whining because you are poor. Guess who's fault that is.
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: Git 'em OUTTA here

I said the following: "This is because uncontrolled population growth puts immense strain on healthcare, social programs, housing, employment etc."While you point to other things which can and do place strains on these items, you don't at all address the truth of my statement. If the population of the U.S. doubled overnight would social programs continue to function? What would happen to unemployment figures and wages? What about homelessness? etc.It's very interesting that you bring up wage rates considering that a major factor in rates of pay is the availability of labor. When the labor pool is larger wages drop because there is greater competition for any given job. The opposite effect: a vast increase in wages, was seen, for example, after the black death in England (Source 1,2). This was because most laborers had died in the plague and so labor was scarce and therefore more valuable.Sources:(1) http://www.ehs.org.uk/press/the-black-death-boosted-wages-for-men-and-married-women (2) https://themedievalera.wikispaces.com/The+Black+Death+-+Economic+Effects?responseToken=7efa608212fb4fa8b44845617ffcb738
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: America is their home

Your views are predicated upon the notion that a certain paradigmatically normative mode of economy is universally normative: in otherwords, you seem to think that because the interpretation of value is a certain way in a neocapitalist society, that it must or has to be that way.This is what irks me about the armchair capitalist economist. You have a complete inability to think outside the box.Yes, wages increased after the black death, labour was scarcer. But the society in which the black death took place was a feudalist shithole not unlike the quasi-fuedalism we "normal" citizens endure today under the oligarchy we are born into. The only real difference between then and now is that where hereditary title was the currency of power, now it is hereditary wealth, which coincidentally is where the vast majority of wealth is hoarded.It takes a very dull mind and an even duller heart for a man to want to justify the deliberate starvation of the democratically driven economy -- what's meant to be for the benefit of the people and is usurped by the wealthy few -- by citing references to show that death by plague is great for increasing worker's wages.What a moron.There are a plethora of far superior circumstances that would allow for massive increase in living standards for the vast majority of people. The central hurdle to this is rather simple: we, citizens of "democratic" nations, who have been able to sieze the power of the vote, of rights, of democracy and parliament and who have bit by bit stripped the feudal lords of their superiority, have yet to extend our mass confiscation of powers as far as determining by democratic process where wealth is distributed and how economy functions.Given the vote to decide, I would wager everything I own that tomorrow, by the hands of the voters: education would be fed by taxes, not profits; healthcare would be universal; medicine would be made by public companies, not private ones; wars would necessitate a vote of every man and woman, not simply the whim of a single individual; wages would not be the pittance that wealthy companymen can get away with, they would be fair proportions of the profits each worker toils to create.And men like you would be the fringe-thinkers. Finally.
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: America is their home

I don't agree with this, communism and socialism have both been tried and they always result in millions dead (hundreds of millions with communism).Neither have been tried. Stalinism was dictatorial. In Stalin's Russia, value was not redefined as Marx wrote that it would need to be. In Stalin's Russia, the commoner did not direct through democratic process the product, amenities and infrastructure of the nation. Communism has not existed on Earth. There have been only dictatorships, which have hijacked the label of communism in pursuit of feudalistic agendas. Feudalism -- if you had read any Marx, you would know -- is the very first crux of oppression that Marx and Engels tackle in their Manifesto. I personally think the path to progress that we have staked out is one of greater individual rights and self determination.Socialism and communism (as Marx writes) are about self determination. Whereas oligarchy, feudalism, presidency and monarchy offer centralized power to a select individual or several individuals, Marxism offers a society that is bottom-up, not top-down.This is shown in your examples of progress, it's always about empowering the individual insofar as is possible, not imposing collectivism.Empowering the individual. This is a soundbite for capitalism. All it really means is, empowering those with might -- monetary, familial or otherwise -- against the majority. The right to private property is one of the rights that we the citizenry had to fight for against our rulers.Marxism doesn't demand that people give up property. Only that excessive proprietary holdings that by virtue of their private ownership diminish the utility of the working class, be surrendered to the public body: this is your railways, your oil wells, your mines, your power stations, your roads: anything by which individuals oppress upon the self-evident interest of the many to support the needs of the many, for their own personal advantage.Under the centralized control of communism and socialism the people aren't even free to dissent, let alone own private property.In capitalist society, dissent is only as effective as far as it aligns with the individualist paradigm. In Marx's writings, he explicitly goes against any form of censorship of dissent, because censorship is a tool that has always been used to oppress the lowest rungs of society. A society that gives a voice to the many, benefits the many. A society in which what can be said and not said is dictated by the few, is not a free society.For someone so skeptical of the powerful, I find it interesting that you would want a group to have control over the entire economy and the distribution of wealth.When that group is the majority, then the majority are the powerful: that's what democracy was SUPPOSED to be.
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: America is their home

Winston, this is a long wall of complete rubbish. Nobody is going to refute it, because it would be a three hour exercise in extracting straw man arguments. I only got about three paragraphs in and found these:-The same applies to every single country in existence. Does this mean every country is socialist?So because the banks were nationalized Iceland is socialist?Direct democracy isn't socialismIn each of the examples you demand your opponent either acknowledge or verify claims they have not made. What is the point of doing that? It doesn't refute them. Please, help me understand how you have written so much and yet said so little to refute your opponent's argument?
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: Git 'em OUTTA here

The points are in reference to Sean's claim that Iceland is socialist. Apparently those three points (infrastructure, nationalized banks and direct democracy) meant that capitalist Iceland is socialist. Note also that Iceland isn't even a direct democracy, though like other countries it has occasional referendums.