BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Multiculturalism improves the public sense of free speech.

Assimilation, at its heart, upholds a set of moral, cultural, and national standards that are considered acceptable. Deviations from these standards are not fully tolerated and sometimes outright suppressed. While this can be justified in some circumstances, on constant issue is that it creates a feeling that unique expression is frowned upon. This can negatively affect people's feelings of a right to free speech.
Multiculturalism is democratic

Democracy is built upon the notion that individuals may hold different beliefs and that they have the right to do so. In a democratic election, there is usually a more conservative group competing with a more liberal group; in the United States, this would be the Republicans versus the Democrats. Democracies are built upon individuals and groups believing different things, but coexisting. Similarly, a multicultural society acknowledges, respects, and even cherishes differences between groups. Realistically, societies are pluralistic. Because of its parallel with democracy, multiculturalism seems to be a more suitable and appropriate framework for a democratic society.
Multiculturalism is economically beneficial to immigrants.

When a migrant comes to this country their living standards increase by an average 300% according to George Borjas, one of America's leading experts on migration. A country should set a precedent and act in an internationalist way. You are improving someones living standards and providing your own do not drop then it is beneficial. Improving the living standards of a migrant will also help social cohesion. In theory, if the migrant prefers the new standards of living they are unlikely to wage war against the host nation and hence terrorism is made less likely.
Concerns over women's rights cannot be blamed on multiculturalism

Multiculturalism does not simply allow women's rights or human rights abuses to occur. Problems of inequality occur in many ethnic communities, including Muslims and Christians, and even Atheists. While this may be the obligation of wearing a veil in one religion, it may be the inability to become a priest in another religion, or even unequal pay in the workforce, a place where religion has not really a factor.
Multiculturalism encourages immigration and the resulting economic stimulus

. Taken in the most basic form that multiculturalism, because it encourages diversity encourages people to move to a nation, multiculturalism can be seen to be economically beneficial whereas assimilation cannot due to the deterrance of immigrants. A immigrant brings both different skills and ideas to a workplace. Similarly, the type of immigrant is usually at a good working age and hence entrepreneurial skills are brought to the country. Moreover, immigrants usually get more children which also leads to increasing figures of the working population. More people generally fill the labour gaps and people will be working so GDP will increase along with living standards.
Multiculturalism calls for a "mosaic" rather than a "melting pot"

The metaphors used in this debate are important. The assimilation model is often referred to with the "melting pot" metaphor. The multiculturalism model is sometimes referred to with the "mosaic" metaphor. One should ask, do we really want to be "melting" each other's unique cultural heritages into a consistent cultural stew? Is the American mass-culture homogeneity desirable? It seems that a "mosaic" of diverse cultural representations is more interesting, tasteful, and even beautiful.
It is misleading to claim multiculturalism sacrifices individual right to group rights

Every society has a culture and often more than one culture; that is a nation always has subcultures. The issue is not group rights being sacrificed to individual rights, but assimilation often consists of one dominating group's rights taking precedence over all other group rights. In American history, up until the 1960s, white American rights were more valuable than the rights of non-whites. In some areas of life, this still occurs. In America today, the rights of men are literally more valuable in some cases, than the rights of women, doing the exact same work. What multiculturalism does is safeguard the at times tyrannical dominance of one group over all others, forcing others to comply to their standards.
Multiculturalism calls for distracting and costly accommodations to foreign students.

A good case study of this is Polish children in Britain who do not speak English, and where translations into polish are becoming necessary. "Job Description We at Cheshire Education Professionals are looking for a Polish speaking Teaching assistant. Due to an increasing demand for teaching assistants who speak Polish, we are currently recruiting for supply staff in the Cheshire area to support Polish speaking pupils in schools. You will need to have worked in a Primary and/or secondary school before and will ideally have some knowledge of the UK national curriculum. " From [4] This job description hints at the problems of the British teaching system. The influx of Polish immigrants, many of whom do not speak English, has caused many primary school teachers to translate the lessons into Polish to help the students. Surely this is an example of the welfare state gone too far! Think of the detriment to the other school children.
Multiculturalism highlights differences and can increase hate crimes.

If racial groups do not assimilate into an idea of central unity then the natives will have resentment against them. In particular, if the "discrete social differences" mentioned in the introduction become more apparent for instance in light of a terrorist attack then racial hate crimes become more frequent. This happens to such an extent that it becomes dangerous for the immigrant to be a part of the nation. Take as an example the 300% rise in racial hate crimes in London alone after the 7/7 bombings. The 7/7 bombings clearly showed a difference between Muslims who had not integrated (those who still wore typical dress) and the white Britons. Although it was only a minority who committed such appalling acts, the feeling of detachment and resentment toward this particular racial group made the social cohesion uneasy and awkward.
Recognition of indigenous, ethnic, and otherwise different (religious, linguistic) groups is necessary to combat the assimilationist hierarchy of cultures

Throughout the last few centuries, certain nations/cultures viewed themselves as superior to other cultures, including the indigenous people of just about every non-European country. Indigenous people were regarded as savages. This sense of having a better culture than others who are different is a part of assimilationist doctrine. Traditionally, the view has been that there are certain civilized nations and other uncivilized ones. Ruling military units attacked or committed acts of genocide on indigenous and ethnic populations. Assimilation has had a terrifying track record, a history built upon either erasing cultures, beliefs, and languages, or, at times, an entire people or segment of a population.
Assimilation can provide indigenous peoples with skills to succeed

One primary problem for indigenous peoples is that they lack the basic, mainstream skills required to succeed in the societies in which they live. Assimilation helps them achieve these basic language, cultural, etiquette, and working-environment skills that enable them to compete in the working environment and succeed. Multiculturalism, conversely, would allow indigenous groups to exist in isolation, where they would not acquire these skills, and where the would be incapable of progressing socio-economically.
Multicultural states are typically unsuccessful.

Having to do with problems of social cohesion, conflict, and even violence, multicultural states are typically less successful than states that adopt an assimilation model. The historical evidence seems to support this conclusion, and adds empirical credence to the idea that multiculturalism is damaging to a state. As a national model for success, therefore, multiculturalism seems to fail the test. And, since the success of the international community and economy depends on successful states, multiculturalism can also be considered potentially damaging to the international system.
Bias towards the "civilized" west.

Traditionally, the west regarded itself as civilized, even going so far as to trace the origins of civilization to ancient Greece, when other ancient civilizations existed alongside or before the Greeks. This western-centric idea of civilization carries over into contemporary notions of western culture being civilized and thus better than the uncivilized brutes from non-western nations or the indigenous from western nations. Assimilation often signals an ungrounded fear of different ethnic and indigenous groups, with the desperate plea to make everyone the same and thus less threatening -- regardless of how ungrounded and illogical this sense of threat is.
Multiculturalism can damage social capital and cohesion

Some empirical studies by such acclaimed scholars as Robert Putnam conclude that the historical record shows multiculturalism to have failed in producing successful, cohesive, long-lasting states. The primary problem is that it diminishes what is called "social capital". That is, the groupings and divisions caused by multiculturalism separate groups from each other and reduce trust, diminishing such things as civic engagement and community involvement. A cycle of distrust disrupts community and societal cohesiveness and productivity. At least, these are the presumable explanations deduced from the empirical evidence that indicates that multicultural societies are less successful overall.
It is impossible to pick a single moral-cultural standard in the assimilation model.

While there are some very basic, unifying principles and values that can and should be adopted universally, it is impossible for a government to select a single, broad-sweeping, moral-cultural standard. Indeed, many cultural values are subjective and relative, and should not be discriminated against in favor of what a government deems to be a superior, unifying model. Whose to judge right and wrong, in particular, regarding cultural matters? At a minimum, governments risk expanding their regulatory authority too far, past the area in which we can all agree on unifying principles and into the realm where there is no "right and wrong", but only subjective cultural distinctions. Assimilation inherently carries these risks of inappropriate government interference.
Assimilation promotes national unity

. Surely the best form of social cohesion is unity. If a nation is divided amongst several different cultures with no clear feeling of patriotism then country is in essence socially fractured. Assimilating into society means that you both accept the society you are living in and agree with its laws and principles. This is far better in the long run for the country especially when the nation is at war. If the nation is divided between those who would rather the other side won, for instance, then morale will go down. Similarly this idea of unity will make people feel more at ease with other cultures and accepting of their values IF they have fully accepted the country of the host nation.
Assimilation wrongly bans practices due to rare abuses

A major argument used for assimilation posits that it is wrong to allow practices such as veiling (typically in Muslim cultures) because it may be subject to abuse, in which women are involuntarily forced to wear the hijab. This does occur. But, there are also many instances in which women make an independent choice to wear the hijab as an "act of faith" or for other reasons. Should voluntary instances be forbidden along with involuntary instances? No. It is wrong to ban the wearing of the hijab in all instances, merely to prevent instances of abuse.
It is misleading to claim America is a prime example of assimilation

. Despite the image of America as a great melting pot, that is not really the case. America is a land of many cultures, where important and sustained cultural divisions between Americans persist. Assimilationist doctrine claims it is working towards a sense of one Americaness, but there are two problems with this notion. One, America is a land built on democratic difference -- different political groups can and do exist. Two, American assimilation has had a troubling history consisting of a dominating, white power structure aiming to restrict extending American citizen to all citizens, and denying human rights to all citizens (often because of race or skin colour).
Multiculturalism encourages damaging claims to victimhood

Multiculturalism largely categorized groups along ethnic and religious terms. These groups often have common histories of suffering. And, there categorization often brings to the fore this common history of suffering, and fosters the opportunity to re-assess these sufferings and even opportunities for compensation. This creates an incentive for exaggerating past sufferings and grievances, which flares old wounds, resentments, and hatreds. This is unhealthy for a society and can lead to increased instances of violence between groups.
Multiculturalism may also utilize the term tolerance, but it could easily be suggested the appropriate term is more likely respect.

On the other hand, assimilation would reject the notion of respect for ones cultural or ethnic identity. Any coexistence is "tolerated" with the expectation of assimilation in to the mainstream. The problem with tolerance versus respect is more than symantics. Tolerance retains the social hierarchy and contends the lesser group will be accepted, but still recognized for their place in the hierarchy. Some quotations on this include:
Multiculturalism does not help empower minority groups

Why would state recognition of indigenous groups and differences between them necessarily empower these different groups? Might it actually alienate them? Might it weaken them by bringing to the surface historical grievances and pain? Might it create tension and conflict that further weakens them? While it is certainly possible that multiculturalism can better enable a minority group to communicate with its government, it is unclear if it is worth it as compared with these other costs, and if it is then, ultimately, empowering for these groups.
Some cultures don't warrant protection under multiculturalism

Some cultures should not be accepted due to their beliefs. One can argue that cultures are not equal and thus do not earn equal rights in society. For example, barbaric cultures that believe that "honour killings" and female circumcision are justifiable should not be given the same rights as those cultures which are very similar to the laws of that nation. Sharia Law has many questionable and quite frankly prehistoric beliefs that we should not be eager to accept. The mixing of cultures ultimately picks up both the good and bad points and society would in fact be worse off with this culture. Thus social cohesion would be hindered.
Multiculturalism can help separate conflicting groups.

In Britain, multiculturalism emerged as a means to manage conflicts between competing groups in the country. It was, in a sense, a way to separate groups that had long histories of fighting into their own neighborhoods. The effect of this ad hoc multiculturalism was a reduction in tension and instances of ethnic and religious violence. Assimilation, conversely, is frequently seen as producing spates of violence. One of the most notable examples is the 2005 riots in France, which many blame on France's assimilation policies.
Multiculturalism politicizes identity in ethnic and religious terms

The politicization of identity has many pitfalls. It risks broad groupings of individuals, and the extension of certain rights to some individuals that don't deserve it. By giving unjustified legal favor to such individuals, multiculturalism threatens unjustifiably impeding on the rights of "ordinary citizens" that are now put at a disadvantage or whom are forced to help compensate in some way the individuals of the minority group.
Multiculturalism promotes tolerance and social cohesion.

The final objective of multiculturalism is to create a harmonious, strong, integrated, and cohesive society. This is really not different than the assimilation model, but it simply has a different view of how to get there. Social strength, multiculturalism posits, is based on tolerance and understanding between differing groups. From tolerance and understanding flow respect, compassion, and a desire to integrate with an interesting mosaic of unique groups. Tolerant engagement across groups creates a high level of social cohesion necessary to productive and succusfull nations.
Assimilation does not mean abandoning cultural distinctions

Assimilation is often falsely characterized as the melting of cultural uniqueness into a single cultural identity. In fact, assimilation need not have anything to do with culture; that would be acculturation. A conservative approach to assimilation would see only a lack of legal and governmental distinctions between groups and might uphold a single national language, for example. It would attempt to foster a common set of economic standards and skills that would enable all citizens to take advantage of all the opportunities available to them. But, it need not force cultural changes upon anyone. While acculturation often does accompany assimilation, it is important not to confuse the two.
If some aspects of multiculturalism are bad, they can be changed.

Multiculturalism admits that it is a relatively new poltically coined phrase which allows politicians to seem fair and accepting of internationalism. Therefore less favourable aspects can be changed, for example the reluctance to act on fear of being labelled a racist, simply with government policy or precedents set. Just because one part of the philosophy is bad it does not mean that all the beneficial aspects should be jeopordized. All political theories contain a weakness and as far back as Herodotus, Thucydides and Polybius these were analysed in great deal as a result of human nature.
The unity of society that assimilation talks about can be found through multiculturalism.

If we respect someone elses culture then they will obviously accept ours. This is like the golden rule; treat others as you would like to be treated. Accepting their culture will mean acceptance of ours and generally unity is created through this appreciation. Many nations have arguably been multicultural since their foundation depending on how one defines multiculturalism. Someone will always be from a different area and thus of a different culture.
Multiculturalism does entail the loss of culture; that of the host country:

While multiculturalism does attempt to protect the cultures of immigrants, by doing so, it diminishes the culture of the host country. Add a new culture into society and another culture loses out, finding less space to express and exercise itself. And, the cultures that lose out from the entry of new immigrant cultures may be historically-rooted and nationally-honored cultures. Therefore, multiculturalism has its cultural costs, just as assimilation has its costs. But, the distinction is that assimilation better protects a host country's historical culture, while multiculturalism better protects new-entrant cultures. If historically-rooted cultures are seen as more important to protect, than the assimilation model may have greater cultural preservation value.
Multiculturalism and diversity are more interesting and stimulating.

Canadian children are sometimes taught, regarding Canada's multicultural policies and state, "Canada is like a tossed salad - lots of colours, languages and foods make us really tasty".[3] Indeed, a multicultural society is more interesting, as it causes us as humans to deal with different people, interpret these difference, understand them, and even appreciate and adopt elements that we like. It creates more opportunities for experiencing what is unfamiliar, and this is stimulating and beneficial to individual and social health.
Protecting group rights is often necessary in protecting individual rights

. Many minority groups are systemically disenfranchised, discriminated against, or simply disadvantaged. Recognizing them as groups is an important first step in recognizing these systemic problems, taking steps to compensate for them, and in leveling the playing feel so that all individuals have equal opportunity and equal rights. This need not have anything to do with culture. It can focus entirely on past abuses of groups, and encourage steps to be taken to ensure that these groups the the rights of the individuals within them are sufficiently protected.
No-fly zone does not constitute military intervention.

A no-fly zone does not constitute military intervention, according to such sources as John Kerry, the chair of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on Face the Nation in March of 2011. This is because it does not inherently involve engaging the enemy; it only involves engaging enemy aircraft if they try to take flight and inflict harm on civilians, etc. In this manner, a no-fly zone is more of a humanitarian mission.[6]
Show of resolve with no-fly zone could change things.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/15/no-fly-zone-over-libya "A no-fly zone over Libya? The case for and against." The Guardian. March 15th, 2011: "A show of international resolve would give encouragement to waverers in the pro-government ranks and could persuade the Libyan despot to negotiate his departure."
No-fly zone sends message: world won't tolerate tyranny

Job C Henning. "Counterpoint: Protecting the Libyan People." New York Times. March 9th, 2011: "[While [a no-fly zone] won’t prevent many actions by the Libyan government on the ground, as the U.S. ambassador to NATO, Ivo Daalder, has noted, the immediate establishment of a no-fly zone would send an unequivocal message to Qaddafi, his loyal supporters, the Libyan opposition, and the world: The United States and its allies won’t stand by idly as another state brutalizes its people."
No-fly zone over Libya requires scarce aircraft carrier.

Edward Rees. "The Case Against a No-Fly Zone in Libya." The Atlantic. February 28th, 2010: "Unlike in Iraq and Bosnia, there are no obvious air bases near Libya from which to impose an NFZ, so the aircraft would likely have to be based on aircraft carrier. But it's not clear that the U.S., or even NATO, has that kind of capacity to spare. Using European bases would require many more aircraft as the greater distance severely limits the amount of time each plane could actually spend over Libya."
West has responsibility to countering oppression.

Job C. Henning. "Counterpoint: Protecting the Libyan People." New York Times. March 9th, 2011.: "The West should take this chance to support human rights at the most fundamental level. We should stand against a state that seeks to use its sovereign status as a shield as it deprives its people of life. In doing so we would not be perpetuating the unilateral interventionism of our actions in Iraq in 2003. Instead, we would be making an important contribution to a rule-based international society by reinforcing the emerging international legal norm of the “Responsibility to Protect." This principle — that mass atrocities are the responsibility of all nations — was universally adopted at the United Nations World Summit in 2005. It continues the modern evolution of sovereignty from an absolute condition to a status contingent upon behavior: States will treat other states as sovereign if they uphold certain responsibilities."