BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Fraternities Lead to the Direct Sexual Exploitation of Women

Similarly to the first counterargument, rape culture does not only exist within fraternities. Fraternities might be more pronounced in this area; however, they also provide an excellent way to engage with young men to eradicate the overall prevalence of rape culture. Fraternities are useful specifically because courses can be run among the brothers to raise awareness of such issues. If they can be targeted to this extent then it is possible to use fraternities to cause a reduction in the prevalence of rape culture among people who join fraternities. Such benefits could extend further as fraternities often do activities to raise awareness of issues on campus as a whole. Essentially, fraternities group a large number of people who might be at risk together and as such provide a group that is easy to target for authorities seeking to resolve problems of sexism and rape culture within colleges.   Secondly, eliminating fraternities in this way creates a false sense of security in people, who might feel that the problem of rape culture on college campuses has been fixed. Given that rape culture is so prevalent it requires a large number of people to be behind its elimination for there to be a chance for it to be eradicated. Implementing such a solution harms the overall impetus by creating the false illusion that the problem is solved or is at least significantly better now.3
Fraternities Encourage Binge Drinking

Very similarly to the previous opposition counter arguments, fraternities are useful as they gather people with similar ideas in a single place and allow universities and the state to target individuals who are often vulnerable and provide them with support mechanisms that prevent binge drinking. Further, the brotherhood provided by the members of most fraternities mean that should a brother’s situation get significantly worse owing to alcohol, they are more likely to intervene and prevent the situation from deteriorating further.   The strong social group and the creation of an atmosphere similar to a family means that if the brothers do have to intervene on behalf of a vulnerable individual, that individual is more likely to accept the advice given than a person just among friends.5
There Are Many Better Options

The ban on fraternities should occur because whilst certain fraternities can be punished, it is likely that many other fraternities keep their transgressions better hidden. Often, transgressions can’t be linked back to the fraternity and as such nothing is done to change the system.   But as well as this, by not taking significant action against fraternities for their misogynistic actions, the entire American Education system is made to look bad, with colleges themselves seeming misogynistic through their inaction.   As well as this, universities have an incentive not to punish fraternities too severely as often university alumni who donate significantly come from a fraternity background.   Further, whilst engagement between fraternities and teaching staff is a positive thing, it is unlikely that members of suspect fraternities will be significantly responsive to what they would consider to be patronising classes and interference in their lives when they feel they should be independent.
Fraternities Help Academics

Fraternities promote a culture that implies that education is less important than other activities. Through their ritualistic behaviour fraternities psychologically imprint the idea in member’s heads that the fraternity is more important than all other parts of life. Given that that is true, often fraternities can lead to academic neglect. Secondly, the male dominated fraternity culture can create a sense of machismo, where doing well in school is associated with negative consequences, such as being a “nerd.”   It is also implied that the negative stereotypes of women portrayed by fraternities leads to an environment that is very negative for girls to learn in. In fact, these negative portrayals can often cause girls to feel unwelcome at university and force them to drop out owing to fear. Hence, fraternities not only harm the education of the people within the fraternity but also those who wish to have no part in those activities.7
There are Many Different Forms of Fraternity

Firstly, proposition can if they choose, concede this argument and state that they would not ban fraternities of a social, academic or religious nature. This does not harm the overall case and perhaps can be incorporated into the initial proposition mechanism.   Secondly, even if that is not legitimate in the context of the debate, it can be argued that fraternities are based on the basis of exclusion. Regardless of the type of fraternity, there will always be individuals who are considered inappropriate for the fraternity. University is meant to promote the idea that working together is a positive and good thing; however, exclusion from fraternities goes against this line of thinking and can result in individuals feeling that university is in no way different from the high school experience.   Further, those who are accepted into fraternities are often accepted because of past links to the fraternity. It means that often, even in academic fraternities, the concept of frat boys being, wealthy and white is promoted, again emphasising exclusion within the university system.1
Schengen has allowed cooperation in fighting global crime

Criminality has become globalized, particularly in areas such as drugs that have long supply chains. The response to these threats has to involve large numbers of countries as well and Schengen has provided the impetus for such cooperation. The Schengen Information System (SIS) has been a very successful tool for managing and curbing crime and illegal immigration in the Schengen area[1]. Between August and November 2008, in the first months since the introduction of the SIS database in Switzerland, Swiss authorities queried it about 130,000 times a day[2]. Of an average 30 hits a day, the SIS has found 25 people wanted by another European country in connection with serious crimes[3]. About 900 hits have been for people who have been denied entry into the Schengen area, while another 500 hits have been for missing persons[4]. The database produced about 600 hits for stolen property within its first few months in operation[5]. The Schengen members are now working on developing the SIS II system which will make it easier to manage a constantly expanding Schengen area[6]. In addition, with the creation of a parallel European wide criminal intelligence agency, Europol, information can now be easily exchanged and tracked throughout the different member states, making it easier to catch and keep track of criminals across the Schengen zone[7]. Integration and unity is a better way of dealing with a global threat such as terrorism and trafficking[8] than unilateralism and nationalism. It must also be noted that countries are allowed to re-assume control of their own borders if there is a “grave threat to public order or internal security”[9]. [1] ‘New functions for the SIS in the fight against terrorism’, Europa, 22 August 2006, http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/free_mov... [2] Brooks, Robert, ‘Schengen Information System proves its worth’, Swiss Info, November 15th 2008 http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/specials/switzerland_schengen/Schengen_Infor... [3] ibid  [4] ibid [5] ibid [6] Schengen Information System: SIS II, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Information_System#Evolution_towar...   [7] Europol Public Information, ‘EU Organised Crime Threat Assessment’, Europol, 28 April 2011, http://migrantsatsea.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/octa_2011-11.pdf [8] Norwaygrants, ‘Schengen Co-operation and Combating Cross-border and Organised Crime, including Trafficking and Itinerant Criminal Groups’, European Economic Area, December 2010, http://www.eeagrants.org/asset/3501/1/3501_1.pdf [9] European Affairs, ‘EU haunted by fear of refuges, not reality’, The European Institute, June 2011, http://www.europeaninstitute.org/EA-June-2011/eu-haunted-by-fear-of-refu...
As the Schengen area gets bigger, it becomes more difficult to police and this increases the risk of rogue elements being able to move freely between countries

The expanding Schengen area does not make it more difficult to police due to the lack of border controls. Anyone attempting to enter the Schengen area will be checked at least once, this is exactly the same as anyone entering an individual country. Americans do not consider themselves less safe because they do not have border posts between Maryland and Virginia. The key therefore is not to dissolve Schengen but to ensure that all countries border police are of equally high quality and that they share information as is being done through the Schengen Information System (SIS)[1] and Europol. [1] Schengen Information System, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Information_System
The freedom of movement the Schengen area allows increases the difficulties of controlling immigration

Through the SIS the Schengen Area has been able to streamline immigration and asylum policy, thus making it easier to manage immigrants in a consistent manner across Europe[1]. However, countries are not wholly dependent on external borders for security and immigration checks, and so immigrants approaching from external countries can still be caught by individual countries within the Schengen area. Police are allowed to conduct random identity checks throughout the territory of any particular member state: travel advice for Schengen countries warns that while there are no longer any land border checks, you should not to attempt to cross land borders without a valid travel document because it is likely that random identity checks will be made in areas surrounding the borders[2]. Fears over immigration and the Schengen area seem to be actually more an issue of perception than flows of people; the economic crisis has heightened anti-immigrant feeling across Europe. For example, the actual number of refugees arriving in southern Europe as a result of the 2011 Arab Spring has been fewer than expected: “Out of more than 700,000 migrants displaced by events in the western Arab states of North Africa, around 30,000 (4-5%) have attempted to reach Europe,” according to demography expert Philippe Fargues[3]. The other 95% have headed mainly for African and Asian destinations[4]. [1] ‘Legal instruments governing migration from SIS 1+ to SIS II’, Europa, 13 July 2010 http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/free_mov... [2] ‘Advice for travel to the Czech Republic’, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 6 February 2012, http://fco.innovate.direct.gov.uk/countries/czech-republic/travel_advice... [3] European Affairs, ‘EU haunted by fear of refuges, not reality’, The European Institute, June 2011, http://www.europeaninstitute.org/EA-June-2011/eu-haunted-by-fear-of-refu... [4] European Affairs, ‘EU haunted by fear of refuges, not reality’, The European Institute, June 2011, http://www.europeaninstitute.org/EA-June-2011/eu-haunted-by-fear-of-refu...
Schengen helps divide Europe as not all members take part.

While the EU is indeed a union, it is also a union of states with recognized rights to shape their own security and justice affairs. Unlike the continental members of the EU, Britain and Ireland have traditionally looked at borders not as sources of conflict but rather as natural mechanisms of defence, because of their position as islands. The Schengen agreement has allowed them to also collaborate within the SIS and EUROPOL, thus complementing the traditional framework of the Union, of which, ultimately, the Schengen Agreement is a part[1]. This means that Britain and Ireland are as included as they wish to be. The split in the Schengen agreement will not result in any new differences of interest between Britain and Ireland and the rest of the EU. [1] Select Committee on European Union, ‘Schengen Information System: New Functions’, www.parliament.uk, 9 April 2003, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldselect/ldeucom/196/1...
Schengen tightens external borders, creating a ‘wall’ around Europe.

While having to get a Europe wide visa can be a problem for the countries that newly border the Schengen there are also benefits. The Schengen agreement often favours those who apply for Schengen visas since once a visa is granted, they can easily travel throughout all the countries that have signed the Agreement. This process not only saves money but it also allows for more freedom of movement for those who enter the Schengen area under a visa regime. Countries are free to choose whether they want to become part of the Schengen regime or not, and are thus making a rational and informed decision on whether the Schengen agreement serves them better than maintaining open borders with traditional allies that are not part of the Schengen area.
The Schengen Agreement is an anachronism of a safer age.

Scrapping the Schengen Agreement in the face of terrorism would be to give in to the terrorists. The Agreement is part of the open, free society which the extremists are attacking, with its aim of cooperation between different nationalities and the development of a peaceful European identity. Retreating behind national borders would only encourage them in their attacks, and would be ineffective in seeking to prevent future violence. Investigation of attacks in Madrid, London and Paris have all revealed that the terrorists were legal residents, free to come and go regardless of border restrictions. Rather than dissolving Schengen the solution to terrorism lies in better intelligence gathering and cooperation between states (not likely to be encouraged by a retreat behind national borders), and by addressing the problems of alienation and poverty within our societies which serve as breeding grounds for extremism.
The Schengen Agreement is both a symbol of and fundamental means of upholding the unity of the European Union

Far from being a unifying force the Schengen Area has already led to disagreements between individual countries. Italy and France were involved in a major political dispute after Italy abused the spirit, if not the terms, of the Schengen Agreement to offload thousands of North African migrants onto France. In April 2011, French police even went so far as to stop an Italian train carrying migrants and prevent it from crossing the border[1].  France took the rare decision to temporarily re-establish border controls, adding more than 300 police to patrols monitoring roads and foot trails that lead into French territory, along with inspecting rail traffic[2]. It issued instructions stating that an immigrant who wishes to cross the French border must “hold a valid travel document recognised by France” and a “valid residence document,” “show proof of having sufficient resources—that is, €31 per day if the person has accommodations, and €62 otherwise[3]. France’s unilateral decision to restore border controls and stretch the boundary of the Schengen Agreement underlines the extreme fragility of the legal basis of the European Union. Further, Romania was angry at attempts to exclude them from the Schengen area, a move led by France and Germany, after accessing to the EU and technically meeting all the border conditions for the passport-free zone, calling it “discrimination”[4]. [1] ‘France and Italy push for reform of Schengen treaty’, BBC News, 26th April 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13189682  [2] Ira, Kumaran, ‘France re-establishes border controls with Italy amid dispute over African migrants’, World Socialist Website, 11th April 2011, http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/apr2011/fran-a11.shtml  [3] Ira, Kumaran, ‘France re-establishes border controls with Italy amid dispute over African migrants’, World Socialist Website, 11th April 2011, http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/apr2011/fran-a11.shtml  [4] Waterfield, Bruno, ‘Romania accuses France and Germany of discrimination over Schengen exclusion’, The Daily Telegraph, 22nd December 2010, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/romania/8219933/Romania...
The Schengen Area eases the free movement of goods and people that the EU strives for

Losing Schengen would have little impact on the goals of the European Union. The Schengen agreement is not necessary for economic or monetary union as goods will still be able to travel around the EU. Ireland by not being part of Schengen but very much a member of the European Union and Eurozone has shown that not being a part of the passport free area does not have any negative effects.
Schengen has allowed cooperation in fighting global crime

Pan European crime fighting efforts would have occurred anyway. It was the increasing globalization of crime that has forced combined crime fighting efforts not the Schengen agreement. The first moves towards creating Europol came in the 1970s with the setting up of the Trevi group by the then European Communities’ interior and justice ministries. This was long before Schengen was created.[1] [1] Europol, ‘About Europol’, https://www.europol.europa.eu/content/page/history-149
As the Schengen area gets bigger, it becomes more difficult to police and this increases the risk of rogue elements being able to move freely between countries

As new members are accepted and the Schengen area expands, it becomes more and more difficult to police. For example, once terrorists have gained access to the area, they are free to move within almost the entirety of Europe. The same applies for traffickers of people, drugs and arms. This was the rationale behind the blocking of Romania and Bulgaria from entering the zone at the same time as they entered the EU[1]; they failed to curb organised crime before their accession and if they were join access routes would be opened to the whole of Europe. This means that all countries are dependent on the security forces of countries monitoring external borders. It is key that Member States with an external EU frontier have a responsibility to ensure that proper checks and effective surveillance are carried out at the EU's external frontiers. It is vital that checks and controls at the EU's external frontiers be rigorous enough to stop illegal immigration, drug smuggling and other unlawful activities[2]. Given the different enforcement abilities of different member states, the security of one state is often not protected because of the carelessness of another. Dissolving the Schengen area gives countries responsibility for the protection of their own borders and thus makes Europe safer as a whole. [1] Kelly, Tom, ‘EU borders will stay shut to influx from Romania and Bulgaria over fears of crime flood’, The Daily Mail, 23rd December 2010, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340772/Germany--France-block-Bu... [2] The Schengen Convention: Abolition of internal borders and creation of a single EU external frontier, eurotool, http://www.eurotool.net/info/papers/doc2.htm#internal
The freedom of movement the Schengen area allows increases the difficulties of controlling immigration

The borderless nature of the Schengen Area makes it increasingly difficult to track and detain illegal immigrants. It is often easier for illegal immigrants to enter through countries such as Italy or Greece (and, as is feared when Bulgaria and Romania eventually join, Eastern European countries) and then continue on to countries like France and Germany[1]. For example, Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi's decision to grant temporary residence permits to more than 20,000 Tunisian migrants fleeing the violent uprisings in April, was made in the knowledge that many of the migrants would end up travelling to France, the former colonial ruler where many of the migrants have relatives[2]. France accused Italy of abusing the Schengen Agreement. [1] Lipics, Laszlo, ‘Focal points on the external borders of Schengen’, AARMS, Vol. 9, No. 2, 2010 pp.229-239,  http://www.zmne.hu/aarms/docs/Volume9/Issue2/pdf/03.pdf has a map of focal points of pressure of illegal immigration, all of which are in Eastern Europe [2] ‘France and Italy call for tighter border controls’, theparliament.com, 27th April 2011 http://www.theparliament.com/latest-news/article/newsarticle/france-and-...
Schengen helps divide Europe as not all members take part.

The Schengen Area, adopted by some countries in Europe but not others, will create a difference of interest which will irrevocably divide the EU over time. The fact that not all the EU members are part of the Schengen agreement means that the EU is divided in two areas: one in which the free movement of people is achieved and one in which it is not. This threatens to create two different ways of approaching the questions of justice and security within the EU: one that is managed through the SIS system and Europol, and one that is managed through the traditional justice and home affairs legislation within the Union framework itself. This could turn out to be a particularly divisive force within a Union that is already faltering having failed to sign a common Constitution and settled for a watered down treaty instead.
Schengen tightens external borders, creating a ‘wall’ around Europe.

The Schengen agreement has opened internal borders within Europe, but externally the opposite is true. Thus, while citizens of the belonging countries enjoy complete freedom of movement, citizens of non-member countries find that it is more difficult to receive entry visas to enter the Schengen area. As the Schengen area continues to expand, it enforces more and more restrictions on countries that lie outside its borders, turning borders that have historically been open into real fortresses and thus significantly affecting the political and economic relations between long-term allies. For example, the eastern borders of East European States that already enjoy some Schengen privileges are hardening in order to be allowed fully into Schengen as the existing members need to agree that they are implementing border controls satisfactorily.[1] The result is that they are cutting their inhabitants off from neighbours such as Ukraine, Belarus and Russia in order to give them better access to western Europe. Former members of Yugoslavia that before Schengen was implemented could travel to all the members of the EC (such as Macedonia) have had travel restrictions imposed and this burden has been increasing as more of their neighbours, such as Slovenia,  join the zone or make free travel arrangements with it (such as Serbia and Croatia).[2] [1] Batt, Judy, ‘The enlarged EU’s external borders – the regional dimension’, Partners and neighbours: a CFSP for a wider Europe, (September 2003), pp.102-118, http://www.cespi.it/STOCCHIERO/Ascod-Adriatico/chai64e.pdf p.106 [2] Reactor, Taking Down the Schengen Wall, April 2009, pp.1-2,  http://www.esiweb.org/pdf/schengen_white_list_project_reactor_taking_down_the_schengen_wall_24april2009.pdf