BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Racial/Police Profiling cause more bad than good to society.

Now, in my case, I will prove that this polic/racial profiling is a no-no to the community, why? First, it is mainly discrimination and the core of racism. It is used to judge and show prejudice than to identify or distinguish a certain person. I believe that practice is a violation of a person's individual rights. "Discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion, nationality or on any other particular identity undermines the basic human rights and freedoms to which every person is entitled. " -ACLUSometimes the police decide to question/interrogate a person about a crime based entirely on race because they believe a particular race is more likely to commit said crime. This prejudicial concept is inconsiderate and is a careless method of detective work for any crime, especially in some cases if the suspect is racially tracable. It is blatantly ludicrous. It is also an abuse of power to use this as a practice, it is also an abuse of trust, which affects society. To make law enforcement be effective in a certain place, there must be trust between the authorities and the people they are serving and supervising. This cannot happen when there is this conflict and racial mistrust. Sure, let's hold a white redneck when some white punks were behind a bar beating a woman, or arrest a German with a Hitler mustache when a Jew mysteriously died nearby, arrest any catholic priest for every child raped (hypothetical examples), let's arrest these people without cause. Terms like DWB (Driving-While-Black), it's unreasonable! . .. .To expect people to have their liberties taken away and be held liable for the actions of other people over whom they have no physical control, influence or knowledge whatsoever. Thanks. Goodluck to my opponent. SOURCES USED:Source 1: . http://www.helium.com...Source 2: . http://www.helium.com...
Resolved: Racial/Police Profiling cause more bad than good to society.

Ok so I'm assuming that I have to debate that Racial Profiling is good for society and that It should be legalized. Im not quite sure how I'm going to go about doing this but I'll give it a shot. Im new to the site( R2 of my first debate) so please forgive me for any errors in structure of the debate. I look forward to your opening statements.
Resolved: Racial/Police Profiling cause more bad than good to society.

Standard rules apply. R1- Acceptance. R2- Opening Arguments. R3- Continuation of Arguments. R4- Last round, only rebuttals and summary/closings (No new arguments are to be made). Racial/Police Profiling- refers to the use of an individual’s race or ethnicity by law enforcement personnel as a key factor in deciding whether to engage in enforcement. (Wikipedia)Good luck!
Resolved: Racial/Police Profiling cause more bad than good to society.

I shall now end my argument. But first a small response: We can never be sure mistakes based on ethnicity and or what you describe as police carelessness, won't be repeated. It's the nature of systems, like that of the law to be wrong at times, and be wrong again. What we can do is realize that what sometimes may appear to be racial profiling, might just be good policing. I gave an example of this in round 2. But regardless of that we are still putting the wrong people in prison, and as advanced our law systems may seem, domestic and international, we still are making mistakes with or without racial profiling. Thanks to everyone who's been following this, and also to my opponent for taking time in replying and constructing his arguments.
Resolved: Racial/Police Profiling cause more bad than good to society.

Thanks to con for his reply, now for my rebuttal for this round.To your hypothetical, I just wanna point out that the patrol cop needs search warrant, unless the guy acted suspiciously (since we're talking about police ethics). Anyway, you said that it would be bad for society if the japanese thief was set free, yes it's good from another point of view, but the society I am talking about is the legal definition, which is "A number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine and act a common goal." (1), which is the law. The policeman might've did the wrong thing which can affect other people's lives but he just followed the law and did his ethical duty. The law is not perfect, I know, there are rules and process we have to follow. Now about the quote, that one innocent man and his family is not only affected, but the whole legal system may be affected too, let's say that that man was executed, then further investigations revealed that he was innocent and that the racial profiling was connected to the case, it will make others furious, what if we live in a society of mixed people, they will sure be angry. As I said, the law enforcement and the community need to have trust among themselves. Some states/countries don't give compensation to wrongful convicts, which is the sad part. What makes us so sure that this kind of thing won't happen again? So, I think the real question is, What's more worse, 10 negatively affected families or one innocent man who's family grieving for him and suffering from the fault of the law enforcement and the legal system. I say this innocent man deserves better. From being judged by his ethnicity to police carelessness to wrongful conviction and punishment.I thank the readers for reading my arguments and urge them to vote pro.Thanks to my opponent and good luck to him on his closing.(1) http://en.wiktionary.org...
Resolved: Racial/Police Profiling cause more bad than good to society.

Ok I'll have to agree with con about the facts/statistics statement. My counter to Pro's 2n'd statement: Ok the statistics I displayed in the previous round state obviously that certain demographic groups are more likely to end up in jail than other demographic groups. Ill give a hypothetical example, say in a city with a mainly hispanic population, there has been a recent rise in... home invasions. Now the police capture 50 criminals, and all are ...Japanese. Then on a routine patrol a cop sees a Japanese man, carrying a large bag, who was heading in the direction of a house. He opens the bag and it contains hammers, crowbars, and gloves(or whatever is considered robbing equipment). Common sense would tell the cop to arrest the guy, because of the observations he has made. Now we can debate that this suspect could be a plumber, but because of his ethnicity its most likely that he is a thief. Had that japanese guy been a thief, and let go because the cop does not want to be seen as practicing racial profiling, that would definitely been bad to society. However, like you said, had that man been innocent and arrested, that would be bad for society as well. But in the first situation, that japanese man would go rob other people and effect lets say 2 families. Had he been innocent and arrested only he and his family would be effected. So the saying 'it's better to set 10 guilty men free than let 1 innocent man suffer in prison', is actually contradicting what were talking about, which is the effect on society. Those 10 guilty men would go effect another 10 families, whilst that 1 innocent man and his family would be the only ones effected. I hope you know what I'm trying to say. Criminals are known to repeat crimes, so what really is worse for society? 10 negatively effected families or 1? Also might i add, that if they are incorrectly sentenced, once the authorities realize that they are innocent, they compensate by a cash sum(not saying that makes up for 20 years of prison). So therefore racial profiling is indeed better for society in certain context's such as the ones i provided above. Now to round 4. I await your reply :D.
Resolved: Racial/Police Profiling cause more bad than good to society.

Also, it's nice to see a person playing devil's advocate. Now, I'd like to point out that the point of this debate is weather or not profiling is good or not, I've stated at the first round my arguments which were not really convincingly refuted by con. He states that we simply can't look at the issue from the a frame of reference, but says that we need look at the statistics which he reffered to as 'facts'. But sorry, statistics aren't gerenally facts. Facts are things that can really be proven (e. g: Hitler is dead, Obama is the US President). Whereas statistics are somewhat the equivalent of stereotypes, which is the identification of easily observable characteristics of groups of people, except statistics have possible proof to back it up, but it is still not a fact. Yes, justice is extremely complex, we want that bad guy caught so we can live in peace, but I believe it shouldn't affect innocent people with different races, question them for a long time then eventually let them go, wasting their valuable time, or maybe frame them for a crime just because of their race. There's a saying, that 'it's better to set 10 guilty men free than let 1 innocent man suffer in prison'. Now, can you explain how these statistics affect your argument that profiling is bad? It may influence people on the society about other races (if that's where you're going), but of course, some people are bigotted, gullible on these situations and can be prejudiced immidiately. That's all my arguments for this round, good luck to my opponent for the 3rd round. =)
Resolved: Racial/Police Profiling cause more bad than good to society.

Time to unleash my inner arrogance :D Ok so It's obvious that racial profiling is not the best way to deal with an investigation, nor any law enforcement activities for that matter. But lets see a possible example of this : Recently released data compiled by the Los Angeles Police Department as part of a federal consent decree show that the city's officers are more likely to ask black and Latino drivers to step out of their cars after stopping them than their white counterparts. Once out of their cars, members of these minorities are more likely to be patted down or searched. Ipso facto, say the critics, L.A. cops discriminate against minorities." (*1) Now that is obviously a case we can't really decide on who's doing the wrong here. As these days it's a common conception (or misconception) that minorities and/or people with low income are most likely to commit offenses.But that kind of thinking is judged as racist, ignorant or biased. So i can't debate a sensitive issue such as this based on negative values, so instead I'll use statistics. As of 2001, by using a mixture of UCR (Uniform Crime Reports) and BJS (U.S Bureau of Justice Statistics) data gathered concluded that the likeness of being incarcerated based on your demographic group was 32.5% Blacks, 17.5% Hispanic and 6% Whites.(*1) I don't need to explain what these statistics obviously state. So in essence racial profiling can actually be justified, but there is a very thin line between pure ignorant racism and investigation based on legitimate statistics. Therefore we can't simply view this issue from the moral/ spiritual and or racially sensitive perspective, we need to understand that justice is an extremely complicated issue, and defining what justice is, or whether it has been carried out on lets say a racially sensitive situation as this, is simply not good enough. We need to look at the statistics, and facts, and that's what i hope to do in round two of this argument. If we simply look at the moral side of this, I have lost this debate already. Sources: (*1):http://en.wikipedia.org... *note to readers: This debate does not represent my true views and/or opinions on this matter. I had no choice but to take the con side, and debate that racial profiling is somewhat good in society. So please don't be offended by what i might include in this argument. Thanks :D
Government should restrict same gender marriage.

Rebuttal I: Constitutional Right.Con does not understand the premise of not being in the Constitution. Being a Right in the Constitution means it can NOT be restricted, with exception of course. Not being a right means it can be restricted.The Government does protect the rights of the people, all 25 or so of them (1). Marriage, not being in the Bill of Rights, isn't a right. Con can not claim the Government should protect the right to Marriage, when there literally is no such right. In order for Con's argument to stand, Marriage must be made a Right. This requires an Amendment, as I've already said. An Amendment requires a super majority, but we aren't even close to one. Making an Amendment protecting the right to marriage would be unconstitutional without the support of a super majority.Rebuttal II: The States.I've already stated that 20 states do not approve of Gay Marriage. Making them approve of Gay Marriage is unconstitutional. The States shouldn't make Gay Marriage legal, they should do what their constituents want, while keeping Practical. The Majority wants X, but the Government can't give X because it's not practical. Those 20 states shouldn't legalize Gay Marriage because theirpeople are against it, and the other 30 shouldn't because it's not practical, as mentioned in Argument II. Con brings up how Gay Marriage only effects a few. That isn't how laws work. If the majority in a state is against Gay Marriage, that state can't legalize it. Doing something against the will of the majority is unconstitutional. The Constitution applies to everyone, even those against it. This is why people completely against it still have the Free Speech to talk bad about it.The next restriction to Gay Marriage was the role of Marriage, which was entirely dropped by Con. Government doesn't control marriage, it just invests in it hoping to make a profit off the creation of new children. That is the ONLY reason Government recognizes marriage. Gay Marriage goes entirely against that principle.Conclusion:Con has dropped my entire Argument II case, and argued that Marriage was a right, when I've already proven it wasn't. Since Gay Marriage is outside of the practical purposes of Marriage, Government has no place recognizing it.
Government should restrict same gender marriage.

Exactly, same gender marriage is NOT a Constitutional right, so government doesn't have the power to restrict it. Giving government this power will go against the whole purpose of government! You talk about how being denied marriage is not unconstitutional, but it is. Government should protect the rights of the people. By not letting you marry who you want, you are denying the people's right to get married. Honestly, that sounds unconstitutional to me, since it is going against the whole freaking purpose of the Constitution. In Amendment 10, it says all power not given to the federal government will go to either the State or the people. In this case, it went to the state. So the states should be the one to decide if they want same gender marriage. In your last paragraph of Argument 1, you state that same gender marriage would force them to allow it, but that is not completely correct. Like the Constitution, it will only apply to the people who agree to it. Plus, if the majority of the states don't like same gender marriage, then mostly the people won't do it, and only a small minority will have same gender marriage. So it shouldn't be a problem in the states. Same gender marriage is a power given to the states, not the federal government, and if the states are so against it, there would be a very small amount of same gender marriage.
Government should restrict same gender marriage.

Outline:To prove the Resolution false, I will first prove that Gay Marriage isn't a protected right in Argument I, then move to show why the Government acknowledges Marriage in the first place in Argument II, showing that acknowledging Gay Marriage is outside the Governments reason for acknowledging Marriage.Argument I: Right To Marriage.The US is a Constitutional Republic. This means that the will of the people can not go against the Constitution. However, Marriage isn't a Constitutional Right.Doing a quick Word Find on either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, we find the words Marriage or Civil Union are brought up not once.(1,2) Neither documents ever granted the right to marriage. Marriage isn't implicit, either. The 9th Amendment only works if the right is implicit, as of United States v. Vital Health Products(3) There is no right to marriage, therefore being denied marriage is not unconstitutional. Passing such an Amendment requires a super majority, but only half of Americans support any such law to make it legal.(4)Because the right to marriage doesn't exist, the states are free to decide. 6 States have slightly less than 50% approval, 10 states have quite a large majority opposed to gay marriage, and 4 states are widely against Gay Marriage (5). As is the law of the Constitution, those 20 states should NOT legalized Gay Marriage, as it would go against the will of the people. Making them approve of Gay Marriage would be unconstitutional, until an Amendment is passed making them, and without a super-majority, passing such an Amendment would also be unconstitutional.1) http://tinyurl.com...2) http://tinyurl.com...3) http://tinyurl.com...4) http://tinyurl.com...5) http://tinyurl.com...Argument II: Purpose of MarriageThe law has one job, to accomplish a practical goal. This is the only reason the law recognizes Marriage, and to recognize Gay Marriage would be outside of it's place. Marriage is to encourage the creation of new children. Gay Couples can not produce new children. Therefore recognizing Gay Marriage goes against the law's main job.The Government invests in Married Couples. Tax Cuts and benefits that cost a lot of money. Just one child will make that back many times over, so it's a valuable invested. One that can not be accomplished with Gay Marriage. Since Gay Couple can not produce new children, it can not pay back the investment made. Gay Marriage goes against every practical reason behind the Governments recognizing Marriage in the first place. And would be very costly.Conclusion:Gay Marriage is NOT a Constitution Right. It is recognized, and invested heavily in, for one reason. The creation of new children. Without that ability, Gay Marriage goes against every practical reason Marriage is recognized by the state, and would cost the Government a lot in Tax Cuts ans Benefits that they can not pay back in new Children.The Resolution does not hold.
Government should restrict same gender marriage.

Suppose you are a boy and you just happened to fall in love with another boy. After a couple years of dating, you want to get married. Then you go to the state authority to get your marriage license...only you can't. The government is not allowing same gender marriage. First of all, government doesn't have this power and secondly, they can't limit our rights. In the enumerated powers in the Constitution, government was never given the power to limit same gender marriage, so why should we give it to them? The answer is we shouldn't because of the following. The purpose and function of the Constitution is to protect the rights of the people. This would be achieved by limiting the power and abuse of power of the government. However throughout the years, government has went against the purpose and used implied powers (powers twisted that is not an enumerated power) and, in some cases, didn't protect the rights of the people, which could be the result of letting government restrict same gender marriage. Same gender marriage is legal in only a few states. In these states, the government is not protecting the rights of the people; they are limiting it. If we give the government this power, they are only limiting the rights of us, the people. Plus, if we give the government this power, we are giving government the power that they don't have. This expansion of power is not limiting the power government has. Plus, the government my abuse this power. Therefore, the government shouldn't restrict same gender marriage.
TV is a bad influence

Alright, before I begin refuting my opponent's arguments, I must state that television sets do not turn themselves on, people do. With that said, I will explain that later and will continue with my opponent's arguments. 1. -Various studies have linked greater amounts of television viewing to all sorts of problems; among them attention deficit disorder, violent behavior, obesity, and poor performance in school and on standardized tests. - A widely accepted fact is that these studies are biased and untrue. The linked problems to these tests can be seen in several million people across the nation. One in five people have attention deficit disorder, violent behavior I'll get to later, obesity is seen in one of three people, mainly due to fast food and hectic lives, and poor performance in school has been rising due to the increase in drug and alcohol use. Three out of every four high school students have reported to have drank excessively once or more before graduation, ten percent of teenagers have been reported using an illegal drug and those are just the ones that have been reported. In comparison, the rising problems with drugs and alcohol are far more important than the few affects of television. Thus, even a random study would most likely include many of these types of people. Furthermore of this point, even if there was a likely hood between television and these problems, which is not what I'm saying, parents should be monitoring their kids and keeping them involved in extracurricular activities, homework, chores, etc. Which brings me to the second argument. 2. -According to the National Institute of Mental Health, there is a consensus developing among members of the research community that violence on television does lead to aggressive behavior by children and teenagers who watch the programs. - Psychologists across the world agree that causation does not equal correlation. Many studies have proven that aggressive acts, although cause by television, cannot happen unless they live in a bad environment. Thus the environment is the reason for the aggression, not television. In conclusion, rather than focusing on television, we should solve the real problems at hand, for example, bad environments, underage drinking and drug abuse. Only until these problems are solve can we examine the truth about television viewing. Saying that television has these affects on people is like saying that with one match we can melt the polar ice caps. Thank you
TV is a bad influence

Thank you for joining this debate, First I will state a couple of my points and save the rest for later. TV is bad and gives children lots of problems POINT SUPPORT- The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends no TV at all for children under the age of 2, and for older children, one to two hours a day of educational programming at most. STATISTIC: Various studies have linked greater amounts of television viewing to all sorts of problems; among them attention deficit disorder, violent behavior, obesity, and poor performance in school and on standardized tests. Given that kids watch an average of around four hours of TV a day, the risks would seem to be awfully high. Television makes children violent and aggressive. POINT SUPPORT: According to the National Institute of Mental Health, there is a consensus developing among members of the research community that violence on television does lead to aggressive behavior by children and teenagers who watch the programs. STATISTIC: VIOLENT IMAGES on television and in computer games can increase aggressive behavior among young children. Researchers have found that violent imagery in the media had a "substantial" short-term effect on children's arousal, thoughts and emotions. Kevin Browne and Catherine Hamilton-Giachritsis, from the University of Birmingham, analyzed data from six North American studies, which looked at the effects of media violence on children. They found consistent evidence that young children who watched violent television, films and video games showed more aggressive play and behavior. The study, which is published in The Lancet journal, showed that the effect was "small but significant", and more relevant for boys. Thank you,