BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Racial Profiling is a Tool for Police

Racial profiling is not intended to solve murder crimes. It in fact harms the prosecution of murder crimes by reducing community trust in the police, reducing the police ability to gain useful evidence. Racial profiling is primarily used to prosecute drug crimes, which as I demonstrated earlier, are in fact not more prevalent in Latino and Black communities. Additionally, while Blacks commit a large portion of murders, the degree is consistent with what you would expect from the racial profiling "boost" in numbers. In Ferguson specifically, traffic stops routinely targeted Black residents of the city despite the fact that there was not a statistical basis to believe that they had a higher level of criminality than white residents. This has created a situation in which the police force and the community they serve have an antagonistic relationship. This makes police officers more likely to resort to force, and it makes the community more likely to object to that force being used. This hinders the ability of the police to operate, and makes them less effective as a crime-fighting force. In a situation where the police and the community are antagonistic, the officer and the individual being stopped are both more likely to feel threatened and take poorly-considered action. While the police officer might have felt threatened by their loss of control of the situation, the individual being targeted by the officer likely would feel threatened as well. Communities that are not targeted by the police usually have a much less antagonistic relationship with the police. If you know that the police are not going to assume you are involved in criminality, you are much more likely to cooperate with police and provide them with information, assisting in the prosecution of criminals.
Racial Profiling is a Tool for Police

Yes, while it is true that African Americans are stopped more, it is also true that the areas with the most crime are dominantly Black or Hispanic. This means that police would pull them over more just because of the area they live in as well. Also, in multiple studies it is shown that African Americans, who are almost 13% of the population, are responsible for a astoundingly disproportionate number of crimes, which had been the case for at least the past century. Between 1976 and 2005 Blacks have committed more than half of the murder in the United States. Blaming all of this on a broken system and racist cops does not explain decades-long trend. The only reason more blacks are stopped is because they have a higher crime rate. It isn't their fault either. The way you live your life all depends on how your were raised and where you were born. It just so happens that many were not raised well, and in turn that made then turn to crime in some fashion. Like I said before, it is all just a factor of numbers and statistics. Secondly, out of all the good police officers around the world, only the ones that stir controversy are the ones that end up plastered everywhere as an example of what a cop is. We forget about the other thousands of cops who go out every day and do the job they need to perfectly. Also, another problem is that people don't respect officers of the law. Every situation where a cop had killed a Black man, the man was not complying to the officers rules. They ran or disobeyed what the officer said and made the officer feel threatened. Also, there seems to be a lack of respect for police officers in general. From what I have seen and heard, the man the cops are trying to arrest refuses to cooperate when talked to, so what do people expect the cop to do when talking clearly isn't working. The only option is to end up using force. The deaths could have easily been prevented if the men had just listened to the officer and did as he said. While police are held to a higher standard than us, we often forget that they are people as well, who every day deal with people that hate them or want them dead. Sometimes they fear for their life's, and so they have to do what they have to live another day.
Racial Profiling is a Tool for Police

I contend that Racial profiling is not a useful tool for police to stop crime, instead it is primarily used to victimize marginalized communities. 1st, racial profiling is not a useful predictor of criminality.According to last year's Vehicle Stop Report for Ferguson, African American drivers accounted for 86 percent of all traffic stops in a city where they make up 67 percent of the population. Ferguson police searches found contraband on a thrid of white targets and only a fifth of black ones. In the 1999 investigation of New York's investigation of their Stop and Frisk program, they found that while Blacks and Latinos were stopped much more often than other races, they had the smallest likelihood of that stop becoming an arrest with 9.5 stops per arrest for blacks, 8.8 stops per arrest for latinos and 7.9 stops per arrest for whites. However, because these minorities were stopped much more often, many more black and latino people were arrested relative to whites. Jack Glaser of UCal Berkeley developed a mathematical model that demonstrates that, regardless of if the population being profiled actually has a higher level of criminality, racial profiling will result in a disproportionate number of people of that race will end up in prison.Looking at race as a tool to fight crime does little more than increase the incarceration rates of groups profiled out of proportion to the actual criminality of the population 2nd, it is actively harmful both to the community and to the goals of the police to reduce crime.Racialm profiling creates an antagonistic relationship between the police and the communities they are allegedly working to protect. This harms the ability of police to fight crime by causing witnesses to either refuse to speak to police or actively withhold evidence. This cuts the police officer off from what he most needs to succeed in prosecuting criminals: information.Racial profiling reduces the "hit rate" for catching criminals and terrorists by diverting law enforcement resources away from effective practices. For example in 1998, the Customs Service in response to a series of discrimination complaints removed race as part of their investigations and switched solely to a focus on suspect behavior. This led to a 300 percent increase in the discovery of contraband and illegal activity. Racial profiling in counter-terrorism cases alienates the communities that are most valuable in preventing terror crimes. Arab and Muslim communities can be a valuable source of information relevant to the struggle against terrorism, and will compromise the ability of the US to operate overseas by compromising an important source of translators. In this way, Racial profiling compromises the national security of the entire nation.Because racial profiling diverts precious law enforcement resources and destroys the relationship between local law enforcement authorities and the communities they serve, it is a counter-productive method of law enforcement.
Racial Profiling is a Tool for Police

We hear a lot in the news how police seem to just run around killing any black man they see. This has caused people to take a closer look at the issue of racial profiling. On the surface it sounds like a horrible thing that causes wrongful inprisionment and death. But race is only a part of the system of profiling that helps the police stop crime. Racial profiling is something that only follows the statistics of crime, not something a cop who is racist uses to descriminate against another race. No one makes an uproar about the profile for serial killers is a white male in their thirties, because it is only a number that the claim is followed by. It doesn't mean that all serial killers are white, it only says a majority of them is. Therefore it isn't racist to question a black man if the numbers say he might be up to no good.
This house believes that socialism is bad.

You cannot just say that capitalism isn't bad, only the greedy business owners are. That is the equivalent of saying slavery isn't bad it is only the slave owner himself who gives slavery a bad name. The problems will be assuaged when the policy is changed from one that promotes exploitation, to one that promotes equality. Socialism solves for the inherent harms caused from the structural foundation of capitalism. You say that socialism deters incentive, but in capitalism there is a present wage system that gives a fixed amount of money per hour. The hired worker knows that unless he/she is laid off their wage is set per hour. Knowing that the amount of work doesn't affect their money earned efficiency plummets. No matter what they do all they must do is show up to receive a check. In a capitalist system we do not view the utility of an action based on morality but instead we base it off the opportunity to make a profit. Example: The raging debate over whether marijuana should be legal or not. We do not inherently value the issue based on the long term affect of addiction;we base it off the incredibly large market of consumers who would create enormous revenue. Socialism might deter competition, but we can value human rights such as freedom and liberty over capitalist competition.
This house believes that socialism is bad.

I believe that we should not vest ownership and the means of control, production and distribution of capital land ect in the community as a whole. The reason I believe this to be harmful is because it implies checks and balances on the economy. Although I agree that exploitation and slavery may be side effects of certain types of capitalism I motion that we have drawn a false correlation. Many of the side effects I have listed are related to the people themselves (the owners of the businesses) who are greedy and not so much the systems they live in. As people are transcendent of the systems they live in I see it to be evident that the problems WILL continue regardless of any change in policy. The one and only way to reduce exploitation is through transparency relative to businesses (which will provoke further awareness about where exploitation is present) and other forms of mass-awareness. On top of this I re-iterate my previous argument, that by controlling the economy one removes the incentives people have to build said economy.
This house believes that socialism is bad.

Case turn capitalism breeds laziness and neglect. When a business owner amasses large profits he himself can do what he wants whenever he wants because he has pawns (employees) to make products while the owner makes a majority of the money. In regards to neglect, in a book called The Jungle by Upton Sinclair, big boy capitalist would use food coloring on rancid meat to make it look ,"edible" to the inspectors while infecting the consumers. The capitalist system is biased towards the rich and exploits the poor. In an article that Terry Pratchet wrote in regards to her book Men in Arms she states,"Part of the resistance to monetary policy remedies to serious recessions comes from the idea that high interest rates are inherently good. Not so. High interest rates are good for those earning them, and bad for those who are paying them. It is not clear that those who earn high interest rates are always morally more deserving than those who pay them." Using deductive reasoning ,who is more likely to be giving the loan with the interest rate. The rich, or the poor. The poor are exploited in this capitalist system and this leads to the inherent harms mentioned in my first argument, such as slavery, worker exploitation, and conflict. According to my definition of socialism which reads,"a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole." Since I offered a reference to my source my definition should be preferred. Socialism would be issued through the community not the government.
This house believes that socialism is bad.

In reference to competition, I see it as self evident that if I were to run say 24 miles by myself and then run 24 miles with someone else my fastest run would be the latter. Taking this into consideration, is capitalism and competition bad? Sometimes. But I'd prefer to live in a society built on ambition and greed than a society built on neglect and laziness. If the government were to to remove all competition and redistribute wealth and give everyone welfare checks the government would effectively be in control of everything. If it were in control of everything it would be running the race by itself. If the government were to run the race by itself it would be slow.
This house believes that socialism is bad.

I shall be the Devil's advocate for this debate haha. I am not an advocate of socialism Socialism-"a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole." as provided by Dictionary.com Capitalism-"an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth." as provided by Dictionary.com The only argument you make against socialism is,"It is my belief that if a government attempts to control any economy by means of redistribution of wealth or ownership of corporations it will kill the competitiveness of the capitalist world and will create far less useful creations." The argument you make is only a claim and has no inductive or deductive reasoning to back it up, however I will refute this anyway. In the capitalist system once a movement begins such as industrialization the only way to survive is to industrialize even more. Capitalism is somewhat like social Darwinism. Those who are unable to adapt to the ever present and ever revolutionizing system are left to become dominated, by the untameable beast. Competition ultimately means that someone wins and some one else inevitably loses. The greater margin by which someone wins . the greater margin the other loses by. Scenario of what that competition has done Back in the days of the Mercantile capitalist system, Nations would fund large voyages crusading the planet in search of new sources of raw material and human resources to fuel the budding inception of capitalism. Europe in search of gold decimated the indigenous population of Native Americans to export the vast amount of natural resources the western world had to offer. The brutal system of slavery was a result of finding a cheap labor force to harvest the various crops of the "New World". It wasn't sustenance farming to provide for a family, it was an industry of exploitation that looked to fund the empires of Europe. The constant fear of being dominated forced the European nations to pillage and plunder the world to try and stay one step ahead. The utter carelessness and recklessness of the imperialistic system can be felt today. Africa was divided in the Berlin conference by European Nations that had no regard for cultural barriers between peoples. A lot of the fighting there today is a bi-product of that imperialistic mercantile system. p.1)Capitalism is controlled by a few p.2)A few have large wealth c.1)Many have small wealth p.1)Socialism includes all p.2)Wealth is equally distributed among all c.1) All have equal wealth Theoretically no one wins and no one loses
This house believes that socialism is bad.

Here are some definitions I would like to make clear before the initiation of the debate: "so"cial"ism noun \G2;s!3;-shə-G6;li-zəm: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies" Capitalism: "a way of organizing an economy so that the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc. ) are owned by individual people and companies rather than by the government" The first clear system of distribution of wealth which we have observed is mercantile capitalism, a system which centres around merchants and trade. In the antiquity these merchants were likely to be connected to the monarchy of the country they represented. These merchants were public servants who worked for the good of the nation as opposed to themselves. The Queen in fact still reserves the right TODAY to grant monopolies to companies and corporations. What is important to realize about mercantile capitalism is the need for markets that the merchants themselves will posses. Example: I operate a trading post in Goa and serve under the Portuguese crown. The king of Portugal has given me 100 mirrors to trade with the Indians. The Indians don't want mirrors. I can't trade. Now here's where it gets interesting: Industrial capitalism appeared at the beginning of the 1800's and centred around the mass-manufacturing of goods. Owners of companies were likely to be owning 2 or 3 top hat factories as well as a few railroads. These large-business grew based off of the greed and ambition of their corporate sponsors and CEO's. I wholly disagree with this mentality, I believe that any society built around greed will eventually collapse. It will create problems between social classes and will likely increase the gap between the rich and the poor. However, did we have Top hats before Mr. Greedy came along? No. What's important to realize is that even if companies are manufacturing their markets, even if they are lying to their customers about what the customers need, they are still creating and producing goods. Sure, perhaps for every aeroplane made 70 million high heels will be sold, but the aeroplane was STILL made. It is my belief that if a government attempts to control any economy by means of redistribution of wealth or ownership of corporations it will kill the competitiveness of the capitalist world and will create far less useful creations.
This house believes that socialism is bad.

I must give an overview of the debate. We have now for the fifth and final round structurally debate whether capitalist exploitation is worse than socialist lack of innovation. Let it be shown that the pro has given no reason why the lack of innovation is bad, while I have given multiple reasons why through the capitalist system we value money over human liberty. The Berlin conference that ignorantly divided Africa, the European powerhouses that decimated the Native American population in search for raw minerals, and the inherent bondage found through american slavery. The root of all these crimes against humanity have been for the secure access to dominance through capitalist practices. Capitalism makes it essential for the nucleus of our being to be geared towards money. Like I said , Capitalism doesn't make us evaluate whether an action is moral, rather, if said action will make profit. Socialism is a communal effort that can drastically assuage the inherent structural problems in capitalism. It might not be perfect but the alternative is exploitation. Good Round:very interesting
This house believes that socialism is bad.

I find it funny that you so easily dismissed by argument relative to the people being transcendent. You absolutely "hit the nail on the head" with your analogy. The fault with slavery IS the slave owners. What I mean to address right now is ,in my mind, very important. It is not a question of merely socialism but it ties in with this debate. Socialism and certain forms of humanitarianism seem to naively defend that people have an inherent goodness to them and that if they do anything wrong it is because of their circumstances. This is purely and simply incorrect. We are all carnal sinners, nothing but a lack of fur separates us from those animals that may eat their own children. Only through salvation may we achieve a lack of sin. If we are to change the system nothing will change. Time and time again this has been proven, communist Russia wasn't "free". I re-iterate that although capitalism has it's faults it's faults can be fixed through increased awareness whereas socialism will only cause detriment to the economy through lack of innovation.
Organised religion is the root of much evil

==Rebuttal=="however organised religion which usually preaches values such as love, respect and unity is actually one of the leading causes of conflict throughout the world, which you point out, such as the Crusades, Catholics vs Protestants and The Spanish Inquisition."So I guess we can't use religious wars on either side of our argument."Religious wars like these not only expose the corruption of many religious organisations such as the Catholic Church"Corruption "dishonest or illegal behavior especially by powerful people "[http://www.merriam-webster.com...]Is the church really dishonest and illegal? It is legal in most if not all countries."People are dying due to conflicting beliefs, and we need to realise that as a society we are all going to have different beliefs and it is not worth fighting over."What about the people who are NOT fighting? They're peaceful, so why try to ruin it for them?
Organised religion is the root of much evil

You mention that the goal of religion is to unite people with a common interest; however organised religion which usually preaches values such as love, respect and unity is actually one of the leading causes of conflict throughout the world, which you point out, such as the Crusades, Catholics vs Protestants and The Spanish Inquisition. Religious wars like these not only expose the corruption of many religious organisations such as the Catholic Church, but highlight the loss of life and intolerance that people show to one another due to one factor, religion. In these events people resorted to war, violence and death just to prove their beliefs under the banner of their religion were better than another. People are dying due to conflicting beliefs, and we need to realise that as a society we are all going to have different beliefs and it is not worth fighting over. Look how society has evolved throughout history and what is built on, such as the economy, government, education, jobs and now religion to name a few. Take organised religion away from this list, and you cannot say that society would be worse. I would also like to clarify that I am not an atheist, instead I believe in God, but my view of what God is maybe different to what the person next to me believes in. I see God as having a unique personal connection with all of us, someone we can talk to in a time of need. However it is UNIQUE and organised religion does not encourage this, but instead encourages its followers to simply believe everything they learn, while suppressing individuality and anyone who speaks out. I also recognise that these fundamentalists are the minority, and that there are plenty of normal people who go to church and that is their choice, but I believe our society would be better off without the presence of unnecessary conflicts over hypothetical beliefs, which should stay personal and unique to each person.