BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Diversity isn't the magic glue

You replied,"diversity is an extremely important part of America (and the rest of the world) and is necessarily for a effective civilization. Diversity is a word, like other words, has several connotations and its significance and importance depends in what context the word Diversity is applied. If a group of people have a objective of accomplishing a certain task more efficiently would " Diversity" of thought work well if the objective for instance was to move a wagon in a certain direction if all the individuals attempting to move that wagon along in one direction all pushed on that wagon in diverse directions of their own personal choices. A nation is no different than this analogy just given, that a people must, to be effective and enduring as a nation, share a commonality of purpose among them. "Society can be defined as a group of people who share a common economic, social, and industrial infrastructure. It is an organization of people who share a common cultural and social background...." http://www.buzzle.com... But what happens when a nation's people lose that commonality that once united them as a united people. John Stuart Mills said this regarding the effects of diversity ".....In all political societies which have had a durable existence, there has been some fixed point; something which men agreed in holding sacred" We mean a feeling of common interest among those who live under the same government" that one part of the community do not consider themselves as foreigner with regard to another part" that they" feel that they are one people, that their lot is cast together." ".... 'society'.... The word is a derivation of the French word societe, which came from the Latin word societ as meaning 'a friendly association with others'. Read more at Buzzle: http://www.buzzle.com... Friendly association??? It has been the plan of some immigrants coming to this country representing "Diversity" do not all wish America well or to become Americans but instead plan to separate and recapture and take over part of America, the southwest, and make it a part of a foreign nation, Mexico. Diversity.... "Aldous Huxley made the same point when he noted that "faith in the bigger and better future..."Diversity"..... is one of the most potent enemies to present liberty: for rulers feel themselves justified in imposing the most monstrous tyranny on their subjects for the sake of the wholly imaginary fruits which these tyrannies are expected to bear some time in the distant future."7 Bastiat, Socialism, and the Blank Slate James Peron Sunday, June 01, 2003 Imposing open borders, by not enforcing immigration laws, on the American people by their government "....is one of the most potent enemies to present liberty..." Liberty of the citizens consists of the liberty of deciding through their government who, and how many immigrants will be allowed to enter this country. "Diversity," is being forced on the American people and the costs are high in both money and in disharmony amongst the people of this nation.
Diversity isn't the magic glue

I will be arguing that Diversity enthusiasts promote the idea that "Diversity, is the answer to all of America's problems. If America is to thrive or even survive they claim, a diverse population is the panacea, The elite intelligencia declare that If a well rounded out individual and citizen is the goal of educational institutions in America,diversity is necessary to accomplish this objective. Progressive leftist educators and activist Supreme Court Justices all agree diversity is the "Magic glue needed. But The real world in which we live diversity has proven to be divisive in its forced application and has resulted in greater separation among the racial and ethnic groups instead of promoting understanding and harmony. , " In a book Titled "No Campus For White Men, by Scott Greer,he quoted Huntington who said , "......The anglo-protestant culture .... describe..d.... glowingly in his book offered Americans a meaning, shared values, and a connection with one another....and he went on to write, ".....If a strong identity is thought important for a people then this theory should hold true for all races" By this theory then "diversity," isn't the "magic glue"that its hyped to be for a nation. What makes the subject of "Diversity," so scary, so sacrosanct that no one dares to debate on that subject. Has political Correctness made the topic taboo, the holy grail of Progressive ideology. I have always been lead to believe that liberals, progressives, were for "freedom of expression, the freedom to express different thoughts but I guess that virtue that the liberals, progressives, touted was just for show.... It does seem that way doesn't it.
is war right or wrong? I've been told both.

The weak you said? well, international relations actions a of countries cannot be predicted so who do you call the weak.Even diplomacy has a destructive form called the gunboat diplomacy or even coercive diplomacy. Sometimes certain policies taken by countries which bring a war is to the benefit of the global world. Imagine if the U.S.A hadn't invade Iraq in 2003 when it was suspected that they had nuclear weapons?
is war right or wrong? I've been told both.

but why must the strong invade the week?! I thought we were a SMART race. so why must we still answer to our primal instincts?!!! if we do not evolve past those base primal instincts we will not move forward!! instead we will knock each other down with every little thing we say or do!! WE MUST EVOVLE PAST THOSE PRIMAL INSTINCTS IF WE PLAN TO SURVIVE!!!
is war right or wrong? I've been told both.

It is apparently logically genocidal to deny the absolute fact the war has no meaningful bearing. labor is one factor that boost production. labor in the form of human or physical effort is made manifest when war break out and labor (man) is conquered.Before 1700s the wars that were fought between the people of Fante and the Asante people in the Gold Coast involved capturing of slaves. With that not withstanding royalties are paid to conquerors which aids in a developmental project. Territorial expansion is one benefit of war. why do you think Hitler engaged in war apart from getting rid off the Jewish people? The absolute answer is territorial expansion.
Zionism is racism.

Definitions- Zionism- movement establishing and developing Jewish state: a worldwide movement, originating in the 19th century, that sought to establish and develop a Jewish nation in Palestine. Since 1948 its function has been to support the state of Israel. . http://www.bing.com... Racism- 1. animosity toward other races: prejudice or animosity against people who belong to other races 2. belief in racial superiority: the belief that people of different races have different qualities and abilities, and that some races are inherently superior or inferior . http://www.bing.com... RESOLUTION-Zionism is racism. References 1. . http://web.inter.nl.net... 2. . http://www.albalagh.net... Thank you.
Canada is a Scum Nation

First, the definition of scum. Scum a layer of froth on the surface of a liquid: So my opponent has to prove how Canada is a layer of froth on the surface of a liquid. None of Pro's arguments prove that Canada is a layer of froth on the surface of a liquid.First my opponent states that the Keystone XL will destabilize the climate beyond repair, and in turn this will cost millions of lives. The BOP is on my opponent to prove that the Keystone XL alone is enough to "destabilize the climate beyond repair," and that it will cost "millions of lives." But if my opponent wants to talk about climate change, then he should know that Canada isn't even on the top 10 list of countries when it comes to CO2 emmisions. Other than that, my opponent talks about Canada not "paying rent" to the First Nations. This is not concerning actually, because my opponent hasn't even shown that the First Nations wanted rent. My opponents has failed to show that Canada is a layer of froth on the surface of a liquid
Canada is a Scum Nation

If Canada green lights the Keystone XL pipeline it will destabilize the Climate beyond repair in while millions of people will lose their lives. Billions could be displaced. We are already at capacity as a planet and are already hitting the climate wall. Hitler wanted to create a world in which all pure German humans could live in utopia. Germans killed 6 million Jews in death camps Stephen Harper and Keystone XL will create a global holocaust death camp in which the people will suffer. The human race could go extinct. Hitler might have wanted to make some people extinct but not everyone. This is why Canada is a scum nation and why its worse than Hitler. Plus Canada is not paying rent to First Nations after they moved in hundreds of years ago. Disgusting. If you think Climate Change is false and if that requires burden of proof I will provide it but I know my opponent is not as dumb as the dust on my floor. These are only some of the reasons Canada is scum. Thank you very much.
CHIPS should be allowed to be taught in classes.

Sorry about the late reply. I will be talking on the main features first. Key features of the CHIPS programme include: Promoting 'diversity' to four to five year-olds Five to six year-olds role playing lesbian parents Telling six to seven year-olds that "It doesn't matter if someone is gay, does it!" Teachers role playing a gay person These ages are just too young. Firstly, the choice of becoming gay or not i huge. Teaching a child in Year 1 (for England years). When they are told to act a lesbian parents they will start to act like that is the way it should be for them. I'm not saying it's bad to be gay, but everyone is born straight (by that I mean that we are born to make have sex with the other gender the pass onto another generation. Another problem is that they want parents to act as a gay person. How? Isn't it unfair to acts as a gay when different schools/ teachers will have different ideas on how gay act. Also, it is likely that there is more to it than what they act. It's sad, but these they gay are bullied and ridiculed. If a young primary school child was to act the way the teacher was and copied it in public they would get the same bullying. These are young kids who shouldn't be put into this position. They don't teach about sex ed. till Year 6, or about drugs or feminism or WW1/ 2. This is because when you reach that secondary school you can trust that they can decide for themselves on these issues. This is why they don't teach about racism, cross-dressers etc. other life choices. Telling a young child one version of issue will see them copy there views. They are having it forced down their throats. They won't be told the negatives of being gay, only tricking them into a happy life. 9 of out ten people in a 2005 LGBT survey where bullied in school, with *30% missing day of school and 28% of those dropping school altogether. *14 LGBT killed them-self in 11 years. The last 5 all ranging from 14-15 year old. Just imagine the increase if too many young children are made to join the "party" before they find out what is really going on. A way to end: A 5 year old who is shown a super-man movies at a cinema will not know who is the good guy and bad guy if it was by themselves, but by the way the rest of the audience reacts to the actions of the villain and hero and the way they are * Sources: http://www.bullyingstatistics.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
CHIPS should be allowed to be taught in classes.

Round 1 | Intro and Acceptance | by Eav | 2/11/2014 I am surprised Con already provided so many Pro-CHIP resources, considering the choice to be Con for this matter, but that is of course fine with me. The concept of CHIP is a good sign in my eyes. It shows, that we finally accept families have become a complex matter and children should not grow up believing in only one kind of love. It will be a great chance to built a peaceful and harmonic society.
CHIPS should be allowed to be taught in classes.

The topic in question is: CHIPS should be allowed to be taught in classes. CHIPS is also known as Challenging Homophobia in Primary Schools. It was recently passed by ofsted to be taught in Primary Schools. Here in the sources likely to help most: http://www.ellybarnes.com... Website https://www.torbay.gov.uk... Year age groups to help. https://www.spuc.org.uk... CHIPS review Key features of the CHIPS programme include: Promoting 'diversity' to four to five year-olds Five to six year-olds role playing lesbian parents Telling six to seven year-olds that "It doesn't matter if someone is gay, does it!" Teachers role playing a gay person 1st round: Intro and acceptance 2nd and 3rd Debate 4th Rebuttal Good Luck
The FWS should open up the refuge islands to limited business.

Reasoning 1: Leasoning Fishing space is profitableThe Federated States of Micronesia have been very profitable in licensing fishing waters to foreign companies. Making 12 million annually. If the FWS were to allow valid and green companies to operate in the waters, we would make a modest amount of needed cash.http://micsem.org...Reasoning 2 : The FWS can monitor the waters by hiring a team of inspectors.Your main arguments seem to rely on the opinion that companies will abuse the lands. Currently, the FWS travels to each island every 1-2 years, but by hiring a small team of inspectors, who can regularly check the islands, we can be assured that our investment is safe.http://www.fws.gov...Reasoning 3: It would spur the economy of the impovershed Micronesian nations.Many of the Micronesian nations are poor, and are forced to fish for food instead of money. By allowing them to operate in new waters, poorer fishers in areas with less fish, can make a profit by fishing in FWS waters.What I propose is a very modest way to make a little bit of cash and spur the local economy. Now we would not be rolling in money, but at the moment, the islands would actually provide a reliable source of income. We can not afford to pay the extra burden, but by allowing some limited infrastructure, they can easily pay off what their worth.
Peace and free will can't go together.

1) The two can coexist"If we take a look back in time we will see that people do fight over their opinions and do kill people who disagree with them. Take for example Hitler, Mao Zedong or Ludwig."You have three examples of people who started wars over their free will and desires vs the desires and free will of others, but just because there are three extreme examples of people taking free will to the max, that doesnt mean that peace and free will never can go together. This shows how free will and peace can conflict but the resolution is that peace and free will cannot go together, but free will and peace can go together. Look at the protests in Egypt and Tunisia, you had the wills of the government and the people conflict and the situation resolved itself with minimum violence and minimal bloodshed. North Korea and the west conflicted over nuclear weapons but now peace has (temporarily) come as North Korea halts the nuclear program in agreement for food imports. 2) Religious warsThe Al-Qaeda conflict is a religious war in one direction, Al-Qaeda towards us, however the US war against them is not religious, rather it is a security/justice/vengeance conflict from the US towards Al-QaedaAs for Palestine and Israel, thats more over territory rights than religious belief. Pakistan is not at civil war with itself, and sunni's ans shi'ites do get along elsewhere in the world. " there are cases of disagreements which get out of hand and innocent people die because of it."Yeah, there are disagreements between peace and free will, but that doesnt mean the two cant go together ever....Peace and free will can go together, just because there are cases where they dont does not mean the two fundamentally cannot go together...
Peace and free will can't go together.

"I think people will always have different opinions and will always be willing to fight over them."If we take a look back in time we will see that people do fight over their opinions and do kill people who disagree with them. Take for example Hitler, Mao Zedong or Ludwig. Of course this is not applying to every country but it is an example of my theory."Proof is the religious wars all over the world."Al Qaeda is a good example of religious extremists conflicting over their beliefs.Also note the Israeli-Palestina conflict that was caused by difference in views by jews and palestinians.Are you also known with the Suni and the Shi'ites in Pakistan? I have more examples if you want but this proves my point I hope."Free will is more important than peace, since I personally don't want to live in a world where we have to keep our mouth shut about everything."This is more of a personal thing but I've established that there are cases of disagreements which get out of hand and innocent people die because of it.I hope I have made clear arguments.
Peace and free will can't go together.

Second, people will not ALWAYS fight over their opinions, often they will debate or argue their side but they will never organize and take up arms to fight and exterminate those that dont agree with them. Take DDO for example, we have many die hard liberals and conservatives on here with many different values, opinions, and free will to think what they want. However people on DDO are not plotting to eliminate others who dont agree with them, one side simply argues their case and tries to convince the other that their stand on an issue is wrong. They never fight over it though. "Proof is the religious wars all over the world. "Which wars are being fought only as conflicts between religious beliefs and nothing else? I fail to see any in the world happening right now" I also think free will is more important than peace, since I personally don't want to live in a world where we have to keep our mouth shut about everything"Free will does not lead to war or conflict all the time though, in fact that doesnt even happen a majority of the time, it only happens in extreme cases. I for one believe fondly that late term abortion should be outlawed but the Pro thinks it should be legal. My free will to believe what I want to believe does not = My desire to force my ideologies and perceptions on everyone else. Free will to think what you want = freedom of opinionsConflicting opinions = disagreement and maybe a debate about who is right or wrongConflicting opinions =/= all out war to force ones opinions over anotherFree will to think what you want =/= freedom to kill or maim anyone who disagrees with your opinionsI rest my case for now, back to you Pro :)
Peace and free will can't go together.

I saw this subject in Assassin's Creed, and I think it's very interesting. The templars fought for peace and the assassin's for free will since the templars were planning to brainwash the whole society because they can't believe people with free minds can live together in peace. I agree since I think people will always have different opinions and will always be willing to fight over them. Proof is the religious wars all over the world. I also think free will is more important than peace, since I personally don't want to live in a world where we have to keep our mouth shut about everything so things will all go nice and easy. I'm a new member, so try to go easy on me. I think this is more of an opinion topic than facts.
Immigrants should choose the United States over Canada to live in.

ResolutionImmigrants should choose the United States over Canada to live in.BOP is shared, as both me and my opponent will need to try convince that either the U.S or Canada is a better choice.DefinitionsImmigrant: a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.United States of America A country that occupies most of the southern half ofNorth America as well as Alaska and the HawaiianIslands; population 304,059,724 (est. 2008); capital,Washington, DC CanadaA country in northern North America, the second largest country in the world; population 33,487,200 (est. 2009);
Immigrants should choose the United States over Canada to live in.

I convinced the nurses to let me use the computer real quick. This is going to be a very rushed argument.Every contention made so far: health care, safety and security, gas prices, cost of living, etc. They are certainly good reasons for an immigrant to choose Canada over USA or USA over Canada, but these reasons can be overruled by which country would bring them more happiness. Therefore, overall, immigrants should choose Canada over USA because, as explained in round 2: overall, people living in Canada are happier than people living in USA. Rebuttal"Happiness is an aspect that solely depends on what an individual considers happiness. If an immigrant is French, it would depend on whether he would actually want to interact with French people."-Well then in that case, this would also apply to all the arguments you've just made. Universities in the US could be better than in Canada (I'm not saying they are, I'm just trying to prove a point), but an immigrant may for some reason still prefer Canadian Universities over Universities in the US. An immigrant may not care much for Freedom of Speech and thus that argument would also be invalid because as Pro says, it "solely depends on what an individual considers."-However, this debate doesn't simply cover an individual immigrant, it covers immigrants in general. And in general, people living in Canada are happier than people living in USA. "The reason why I avoided making this kind of comparison in the first place is because the argument could go the other way. What if a Spanish guy wanted to immigrate?"-It certainly can go the other way. -I'm not saying that all immigrants would be happier living in Canada than in the US, I'm saying that statistically speaking, they are likely to be happier living in Canada than in the US, and Pro has essentially already conceded to this. Happiness > Everything Else-Every decision we make is based on what would make us happier. -Canada is ranked 6th in global happiness. USA is ranked 17th. [1]-Therefore, an immigrant is more likely to be happier in Canada than the US.-Since it is more probable for an immigrant to be happier in Canada than the US, immigrants should choose Canada over USA to live in.Sources:[1] http://www.cbc.ca...I thank the instigator for a good debate.