BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Counter-Counterpoint: Human Exploitation + Global Equality

The approach adopted by the proposition is too simplistic for believing that by granting voting rights to foreign workers everything will fall in place. Firstly, the governments of countries should stop racial profiling of people from Asia and Middle East and stop eying them through the prism of suspicion. The racist attacks directed against the foreign people should stop and the government should take stern action against the perpetrators of these attacks. This will make the foreign workers content and instill a sense of belonging since they would be sure that the government of that country is taking steps to help them even though they are not natives. If common prudence were to prevail, a foreign worker would first expect that there is no anti-foreign propaganda and that he is not tortured at the hands of the natives. The issue of Indian students being attacked in Australia and other European nations has had racist angles. The proposition should understand the ground realities rather than assuming that “by providing foreign workers - with voting rights - we will make them happy”. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/indians-abroad/Another-Indian-student-attacked-in-Australia/articleshow/4589199.cms http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8481165.stm Local election results are keenly watched in India and abroad as they are directly equated to the progress of the nation. The success/failure of the political parties in the local elections provides a valuable insight to the national political field. The proposition ought to study the importance of local elections rather than undermining their importance. In India, the Local Government is further subdivided into two: Panchayats in rural areas and Municipalities in urban areas. They possess authority to tax and enact laws. Given the huge population of people in states and districts in a country like India, these laws have a substantial effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_government
Suffrage is a serious matter; don’t make a mockery of it

The proposition begins by asking rhetorical questions regarding democracy and citizen. The proposition concedes that common prudence and legal codes provide no scope to foreigners as British legislation did in past. To the concept of equality, the opposition responds that it is out of proportion. Equality can only be considered if there are two groups who form part of the same cult, for instance, if there had been an issue of granting voting rights to females in a country where only males are allowed to exercise suffrage, it would have made sense. As Montesquieu says the law should be determined by the characteristics of a nation so that they should be in sync with the climate of each country, to the quality of soil, main occupation of the people and religion. Historical and economical factors are important. Hence it is aptly clear that foreigners, who are only a diminutive section of the society, do not identify themselves with all these characteristics. The proposition mentions that there is distinction between rights of nationality and those of community citizenship, to which the opposition questions as to how community citizenship will be ensured as national citizenship is easily ensured. In most part of the world on the basis of national citizenship you get your local state citizenship that too it happens only in federal structures not in unitary structures. There is nothing such as “community citizenship”. On the point of affirming the universality of human rights it will be kind of proposition to specifically makes us understand as to how by assuring right to vote will make us in sync with universality of human rights. It is important to recognize that it is not within the scope of the resolution. Giving of suffrage will be effective if all nations follow it; which cannot feasibly be done. If nation A gives foreigners of nation B this right and nation B doesn’t give the same to foreigners of A in B, then relations between the two are bound to be affect
Counter-Counterpoint: Suffrage is a serious issue; don’t make a mockery of it

The proposition has rightly pointed out that immigrants are not on equal footing with the natives. Hence there arises no question of granting them with the most prized gift of a citizen i.e. the right to exercise suffrage. Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” Hence the Constitution recognizes the basic human right of individuals to life and liberty. On the other hand, adult citizens only are entitled to vote in the elections. Thus it highlights that there is a demarcation between basic human rights and exercising suffrage. http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/coifiles/part.htm How can the proposition assume that only by giving voting rights the interest of the foreign workers are going to be protected? Each State strives to secure the rights of the immigrant workers by legislations and bilateral agreements. Going by the proposition’s take if voting rights are granted, no State would ever welcome any foreign workers as the politics of the local elections would gain an international outlook which could fare disastrous results. Local elections are to be kept out of the purview of the international hold. The proposition again concedes its point by saying that it is about supply and demand. Going by this it would seriously be a mockery of the pious institution of suffrage. One year the workers will come, exercise voting rights, and exit next year. Later, more workers will come, exercise their right and exit. It would be like adding in the resume that I have exercised my voting rights in these many countries and hence I have much more exposure. If the demand and supply theory of the proposition is taken into account, then in case of excess inflow, the locals would reduce in percentage which will never be taken in a positive sense. It would lead to civil strife and hampering of the relations between the countries.
Granting Foreign Workers Suffrage would Protect Them from Human Exploitation

Because foreign workers don’t have a voice in the society, this makes them vulnerable to abuse. Offering foreign workers a “voice” in the society in which they live legitimizes their place within it, and makes them part of it. This gives a healthy outlet for foreign workers or even their children to express their opinions and participate as local citizens without posing any threat to national sovereignty. Such participation is empowering and will encourage people to be proactive in knowing their rights as workers. “Migrant workers are some of the most vulnerable groups in any society, especially those whose status is irregular. Documented, undocumented, in a weak bargaining position or in otherwise is dirty, dangerous or degrading employ…” says Lindsey Couronne, director of Amnesty International, Mauritius.[[http://www.howto.co.uk/abroad/living-in-paris/finding_employment_2/]] Giving the foreign workers a voting right acknowledges their position as members of a community, and their rights as humans. In affording them status and legitimacy, it also sends a message to those who would exploit their vulnerability. Article 22 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights states that: “Everyone, as a member of society…is entitled to realization through national effort and international cooperation in accordance with the organization and resources of each state, of the economic, social, and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality. Foreign workers are inherently vulnerable to exploitation “…Many live and work in conditions described as akin to "modern slavery", apart from facing discrimination, the denial of labour rights and even violence...”[[http://allafrica.com/stories/201007020682.html]] Regardless of their rights under the law, socio-political marginalization often leaves them in a position with no power. Is it surprising that so many are unwilling to come forward and accuse their employers
Economic Benefits – A Win-Win Proposal

Currently, around 150,000 foreign workers come to Canada annually[1], and for the duration of their residence, they are shut off from local politics. As we have described, granting foreign workers voting rights will prevent marginalization, unnecessary violence and violation of human rights. Beyond these benefits, there is a very pragmatic one that informed citizens should consider: the great mutual economic benefits brought by foreign workers and the desirability of welcoming skilled workers to fill identified shortages. Foreign workers have always been vulnerable to exploitation because they lack the rights of recognized citizens. Offering them a sanctioned place in the social and political fabric of their communities will no doubt go far to encouraging them to leave behind the rights and privileges of national citizenship in order to fill the demands of global job markets. This works as a double benefit for the countries that welcome them, by improving the economy and creating more jobs. It is important to be clear that foreign workers are not “taking jobs” from national workers, because hiring laws require the companies hiring them to demonstrate that national workers with appropriate skills are not available for such jobs. With the help of the skilled and motivated workers, businesses will grow. Business growth is desirable because it ultimately creates more openings for native workers as well as broader opportunities in general. Rather than “taking jobs”, foreign workers are a valuable resource. They fill gaps in the market, and have the potential to create more jobs in the long term. By offering foreign workers a legitimized place in society, we recognize the value of their skills, the important role they play, provide insurance against exploitation, and encourage their continued participation in markets where they are needed. [1] http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/work/index.asp
Counter-Counterpoint: Human Exploitation + Global Equality

Opp has stated that local elections do not include foreign workers in minor decisions, but let them make big policy decisions. We beg the opp to describe what “major policy decisions” are made at the local level in India, or any country at all, as we know of none. Their worry is that nationalistic values will not let foreign workers feel a sense of belonging, but by giving them voting rights, we will help them feel like they are included in the community. They attempted to attack our speech by saying that voting rights will not lead to equality and that there are other means to achieve equality. However, they didn’t provide other ways to achieve this. They have also claimed that we need to keep the workforce happy. By providing foreign workers- a part of the workforce- with voting rights, we will make them happy and include them in small decision making. Once again, Prop solves for Opp’s avocations. Opp stated that national sovereignty will be hurt by voting rights. Let us clear the fact that we are talking about local voting rights, not federal. This means that the things that affect the community, not the overall society will be voted by foreign workers. Lastly, we aren’t putting foreign workers “on a higher pedestal” because citizens get more benefits still, including federal voting rights. In response to opp’s question, we would like to state that yes, we do believe that the resolution will ensure better rights for Mexicans in Texas. They have conceded the fact that their voices are not being heard in the SQ, yet haven’t explained why voting rights will not fix this, merely addressing a claim against our point with no substantiation. If these minorities such as the Mexicans were a part of the voting population, they can express their opinions and elect mayors that they believe will help ensure their rights. Having a say and a choice in how they want to be treated, better rights are ensured since they at least have freedom of choice.
Immigration Issue

Immigration is irrelevant to this point. Immigrants are eligible for national citizenship, and would certainly have the right to vote in local elections. Nations do not allow foreign workers to take their own citizens’ jobs. Canada lacks staffs for certain jobs, in Fraser valley; there are 250 open spaces for nurses. Since we can’t find workers in Canada, we allow foreign workers to work in specific jobs. This is how foreign workers never “hamper the interest of the citizens of the country in terms of job employment”, but are actually benefits. Suggesting that granting foreign workers the right to vote in local elections is linked to granting amnesty to criminals is absurd. We need to acknowledge that foreign workers have legally obtained temporary work visas in a country. As we are discussing people who have entered a country legally, criminal activity is therefore not an issue. Is patriotism necessary to vote in local elections? Certainly, foreign workers want a voice in the community. The issues for which their votes would be casted directly link to their lives, not the country as a whole. Most of the time, foreign workers are alienated from the community. Giving them a vote in local elections would give them a voice for the issues that directly affect them. Granting foreign workers suffrage does not create a “short cut top the land of opportunity”. It creates a sense of belonging and equality with their coworkers; creating peace in the workspace and in the country as a whole. Foreign workers’ goal is not to create “a state of political turmoil in the country”. Even if they were able to do so (which they are not, as it is only local elections they are allowed to vote), where would the desire come from? People who are working in a foreign country do so since they have chosen to be there. Whether it is temporary or permanent the country in which they are working in is their home.
Allowing Foreign Workers to Vote in Local Elections would Help Maintain Social Stability

Social security has nothing to do with the minute foreign population. Comparing small acts of violence to outburst for not having the citizenship of a particular country is a fallacy. Many countries face problems such as terrorism and naxalism (for instance India). This does not mean that all of them are caused due to foreign hands who want to have the so called ‘equal’ status. Granting suffrage is a big task. It can’t be taken lightly. It is like most want to scale Mt. Everest without realizing its magnitude. The basic fact that foreigners go to other countries is the need to make profits. As economics is the sole important factor on their mind, there seems to be no value in the proposition’s point that giving voting rights will enhance social cohesion. If given a say, the foreigners will press their point for only those laws which support their cause of making profits. No social issues will be pondered upon. It’s a problem-solution mismatch, as proposition clearly mentions such examples of violent rebellion that took place will still take place even if we ensure the right to vote. The move to provide suffrage for to the foreigners will remain an eye-wash as the foreigners will never be allowed to stand in the elections let alone win them. The point remains that they will still be a minority. Hence the granting of suffrage will do more harm than good, if any. The resources of a country are limited and have to fulfill the unlimited needs of the people. When foreigners come and settle in the country, the same amount of resources have to support a larger number of people. This leads to resentment among the people who feel deprived of what they believe belongs to them including jobs, land, etc. Japan’s example is worth quoting where the legislators have denied giving the voting rights to the foreigners.[1] [1] http://www.japantoday.com/category/lifestyle/view/japan-weighs-up-whether-to-give-foreign-residents-the-vote
Fast Food Chains Have Even Made Efforts To Make Their Foods Less "Junky"

While many things on the McDonald's menu are still very much junk food, the chain has begun to make an effort to reduce the amount of trans fats in their foods. According to CBS, one of their french fry oils no longer contains any trans fats. This helps to reduce the negative effects of the grease on the cardiovascular system. Furthermore, they have begun to incorporate healthier menu options in addition to the junk foods they offer. For instance, McDonald's has started offering a variety of salads. In addition, they have begun to offer snack wraps with a relatively low amount of calories. This illustrates that Americans are becoming more and more health conscious. Therefore, many people would likely be in favor of banning junk foods in schools.
Junk food is unhealthy

Junk food isn't that bad. Healthy food can be just as bad sometimes. And when people try to change it, it just doesn't work. For instance, my school's canteen had a food change to make the food healthier. One day they cooked "healthy" fish and chips, and the people who spent $5 on it, got no chips and a tiny half-frozen piece of fish. This could happen to any other canteen, and I strongly advise against it happening, as it will turn out not to work.
Unhealthy Food May Be Bad For Brain Function

According to WebMD, eating too much junk food could result in decreases in brain function. According to Consumer Health Digest, there are several types of food that are bad for brain health. The additives and preservatives in junk food can have impairing effects on cognition. Foods with a high level of salt also have been shown to reduce cognitive performance. Studies have also shown that fatty foods impair cognition. In addition, foods that contain residual amounts of pesticides might cause negative effects on brain health. Many healthy foods contain chemicals that are necessary for optimal brain function, such as Omega-3s. According to the University of Maryland, Omega-3s are extremely important. A deficiency of Omega-3s has been linked to a number of common mental health disorders, such as depression and ADHD. It's even thought that a deficiency of Omega-3s could make one more prone to develop severe mental health conditions, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Banning junk food in schools could encourage students to eat more healthy food. This could reduce the prevalence of mental health problems among students. It also could improve the school performance of students.
Junk Food Can Have Negative Affects On Bone Health

During childhood, bones are developing. Growing children need a significant quantity of calcium each day for bone development. Without enough calcium, serious defects in bone development can occur. A poor diet can increase one's risk of developing osteoporosis, according to UPI. In addition to the lack of calcium in junk food, many junk foods contain high levels of sugar and fat. This can weaken bones. If junk foods are consumed in schools, this may cause kids to continue to eat a poor diet as adults. It's thought that the first six years of life are crucial in ensuring that a proper diet for bone health is maintained throughout one's life.
Some Regions Have Already Put Warning Labels On Junk Foods

While these laws have been successfully implemented, many feel that this is evidence that bans on junk food in schools could be a stepping stone to giving the government increased power over our day to day lives. A bill was even considered in New York City that would prevent sodas larger than 16 ounces from being sold. There was a large amount of opposition to this law. It can be difficult to determine where to draw the line as to what constitutes junk food. Foods vary considerably in terms of their nutritional value. So, it could be challenging to create a universal definition of what junk food is.
Junk Food Can Increase The Risk Of Diabetes

Type 2 diabetes is becoming more common, and over consumption of junk food can increase one's risk of developing it. There are two reasons why Type 2 diabetes can be caused by eating too much junk food. Many junk foods contain a high volume of sugar. If high volumes of sugar are consumed over a long period of time, the body can stop producing enough insulin. This can lead to Type 2 diabetes. In addition, Type 2 diabetes can be induced by becoming overweight or obese. In fact, many people who have Type 2 diabetes are able to cure the condition by losing weight. Serious health complications can result from Type 2 diabetes. In fact, Type 2 diabetes can even result in serious circulation problems that can result in amputation. In fact, diabetes is considered to be one of the primary causes of death in the United States. According to the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Type 2 diabetes can develop during one's childhood under some circumstances. Banning junk foods in schools could result in a decreased rate of obesity, and fewer kids would over consume sugar. These habits may stick with kids for life, and this could further reduce the frequency of Type 2 diabetes.
Some Regions Have Already Put Warning Labels On Junk Foods

San Francisco has put warning labels on sugary sodas. This effort is also being considered by a state lawmaker in California, according to Reuters. While the products haven't been taken off the shelves in any location, the effort is intended to inform the public about the dangers of drinking large amounts of sugary beverages. Given the fact that governments have issued warnings about sugary sodas, it makes us wonder if we really should allow them to be sold in schools. In addition to warnings on sugary sodas, warnings have been considered for foods that have a high concentration of salt. This is due to the fact that excessive salt intake can cause hypertension (high blood pressure). Some school aged children suffer from the condition. Many popular junk foods, such as potato chips, tend to have extremely high levels of salt. It's not just San Francisco that is taking a stance on over consumption of junk food. In France, there recently was a law passed to prohibit free refills of sugary sodas.
Economy

Every moving Junk Food franchise accumulates approximately $1 million a day. There are over 500 such franchises all over Australia and USA. Multinational companies like Lay's, Doritos, etc. also make in the millions and billions. So imagine the amount of money international money, that would be drawn in every month. This kind of a cash flow is a necessity for big country economies to run. Hence, we should no let fast food joints or Junk food producing companies should not be shut down.
Junk Food Can Cause Obesity

If junk foods are banned, kids will still eat junk food while in school. Instead of getting it from the school vending machines, they'll sneak it in. This could create a climate of evasiveness among students. In some cases, students may even sneak out of school to buy junk food. Additionally, junk food is still likely to be freely available at home. Therefore, it's possible that kids would simply binge on junk foods when they aren't in school. This could cause their overall consumption of junk food to remain unchanged. Furthermore, banning junk food could increase the sense of boredom among students. This could potentially result in decreased academic performance. Another drawback to banning junk foods in schools is that it could be more difficult to prepare meals for students. By contrast, many junk foods can be prepared quickly. Furthermore, healthier food tends to be more expensive. The increased expense could result in an increase in school taxes. It also could result in an increase in the cost of school lunches.