BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Affirmative Action is Good

The focus nowadays seems to be strictly on racial categories, in fact a study in 2005 found that: "being an underrepresented minority increases one's chance of admissions by 27.7 percentage points; that is an applicant with a 40 percent chance of admission has a 68 percent chance if she is black, Latino, or Native American. By contrast, being in the bottom income quartile (relative to the middle quarters) has no positive effect". What we are seeing then is that the middle and upper-class black, latino and Native Americans are benefiting significantly. However, the people whom affirmative action was designed to help, the economically disadvantaged, are having no real benefit. In fact: "the representation of poor and working class students today is lower, not higher, than if grades and test scores were the sole basis for admissions, the researchers find". "As a result, Carnevale and Rose found that on America"s most selective 146 campuses"virtually all of which practice race-based affirmative action"74 percent of students came from the top socioeconomic quarter of the population, and just 3 percent from the poorest". Further to the above: "Sander also notes that racial affirmative action racial affirmative action in legal education has done little to indirectly promote socioeconomic diversity. At the top twenty law schools, 89 percent of African Americans, and 63 percent of Latinos come from the top socioeconomic half of the population (along with 92 percent of Asian Americans and 93 percent of whites)". "Astoundingly, Sander found that just 2 percent of students at the top twenty law schools come from the bottom socioeconomic quarter of the population, while more than three-quarters come from the richest socioeconomic quartile". It seems clear that the only students affirmative action has advantaged are those whom are already advantaged. Therefore, what is the solution? Stop looking at racial categories and start looking at socioeconomic categories. These are the categories that show those whom are advantaged and those whom are disadvantaged. Kahlenberg and Halley Potter found that "seven out of 10 leading public universities were able to maintain, or even increase the proportion of African American and Latino students among their ranks by replacing race-based preferences with strategies that target socio-economic inequality". Reference: Kahlenberg, R. (2012) A Better Affirmative Action: State Universities that Created Alternatives to Racial Preferences.
Affirmative Action is Good

This policy was designed as a means of helping to compensate for the fact that because of many years of oppression, some races are being "held back in the race". Again, the policy makes sure this does not happen.During the first several centuries in the US, white people were seen enslaving and oppressing Native Americans, black people and other minorities. These minority groups had their lands taken, had given decades of unpaid labor, subjected to brutal punishments and denied most of the Constitution"s fundamental rights. Now, Affirmative Action is implemented to also provide a way to compensate their descendants for the wrong-doings suffered by their ancestors. 8. It lets minority students get into advanced education. Students with ethnic minority backgrounds need a helping hand to enjoy privileges that are generally ignored by other races. With the policies behind Affirmative Action, all deprived students are encouraged to enter an advanced educational system. It assures equality in the workplace. When implemented inside the workplace, this policy will be the most effective way to ensure the candidates from ethnic groups are provided with the chance to prove themselves as having efficient capabilities as the candidates from other races. It offers protection from hatred. Though nothing can shield every individual from all the hatred they would encounter in life, Affirmative Action can at least help tremendously by enforcing strict and even harsh punishments on anyone who is found guilty of personal assault due to race, gender or sexual orientation. The law makes many people think twice before committing an act that is filled with hatred or violence. Affirmative action is a way to ensure that diversity is obtained and maintained in schools and in the workplace. In so doing it also helps create tolerant communities because it exposes people to a variety of cultures and ideas that are different from their own. It helps disadvantaged people who come from areas of the country where there are not very many opportunities be able to advance where they otherwise could not. In other words, it gives everyone an equal playing field. Affirmative action is a way to help compensate for the fact that, due to many years of oppression, some races "started late in the race." Again, it helps level the playing field.
Affirmative Action is Good

The decision to emphasize diversity over fairness is one that affirmative-action proponents have long made and it is reflected in your argument. Firstly, I think these arguments are based on a false dichotomy. Going back to the perspective of the economy, most economies in the western world live in free, open and fair economies. Is there a lack of diversity? No, the opposite. In fact, we often find we have too much choice. People can buy products from their own country, from neighbouring countries and from countries on the other side of the world. Was affirmative action required for this? No. What was required was policies based on freedom, on open trade and competition. The original idea of affirmative action was about disadvantage, not racial and gender diversity. As President Lyndon Johnson said in 1965, "You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say you are free to compete with all the others, and still just believe that you have been completely fair." Unfortunately, institutions could not feasibly claim to be bringing everybody " rich and poor, white and black, native and immigrant " up to the same starting line, as in Mr. Johnson"s formulation. They instead fell back to racial categories, and this is when they forfeited fairness. Even proponents of equal opportunities, such as Martin Luther King, warned against this: "Many white workers whose economic condition is not too far removed from the economic condition of his black brother will find it difficult to accept," he wrote in a private letter, "special consideration to the Negro in the context of unemployment, joblessness, etc. and does not take into sufficient account their plight (that of the white worker)". Affirmative action now boils down to a diversity program and it finds itself in retreat. Five of the six states that have held referendums on racial preferences have banned them, including California and Florida. The Supreme Court limited the legal forms of preferences in 2003 and suggested that they had only 25 years left. If the courts and voters continue to restrict racial preferences, supporters will have three options: they can give up, they can quietly subvert the law, or they can attempt an overhaul of affirmative action.
Scientific Evidence Supports Macroevolution

There has been no found evidence for Macro-Evolution, in order for there to be evidence or proof for it, it must only lead to One Conclusion, that is Macro-Evolution, For Example, Substance Dualism leads us to no other conclusion other than we are Immaterial and not material. Transitional Fossils(If they existed) would still not be proof, Why? because those "Transitional fossils" could easily just be that YHWH(The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit) created us(all life) similarly, and it appears to be evolution, when it's really just life being created in similar forms and at different levels(For example, YHWH created us similar to apes but we just have less hair and we have intellect, similarities don't mean we evolved from apes, simply that YHWH(The Father and The Son(Jesus Christ) and The Holy Spirit) created us similar to them) So "Transitional Fossils" wouldn't be proof as it would lead to two conclusions, meaning it's not evidence for Evolution, it doesn't prove evolution, just leaves us with no further knowledge(as it can still be Creation or Evolution), even if there was evidence to support it, it still couldn't be a fact, in order to be known to have happened/Scientific Fact it must be observed, One Species must be observed to evolve into a New/Different Species. Unlike evolution where it 1, cannot be observed, and 2, has no known evidence(all the supposed evidence leads to different conclusions, if it was evidence it would lead to only 1 conclusion, evolution) Creation can be observed under a microscope, that being DNA, we can observe intelligent coding in DNA and unlike evolution "evidences" the Intelligence can only lead to one conclusion, Creator(YHWH: The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit)
Abortion is Generally Immoral

I would like to debate the proposition that abortion is generally immoral.I do accept life-saving abortions as morally jusitified, in cases (such as ectopic pregnancy) where the woman's life is in immediate jeopardy and the child cannot also be saved. This is because it is better to lose one life than to lose two, even though losing one life is still tragic. This can be seen in triage, that if two patients are morally wounded and only one can be saved, the one with the greatest chance of survival is saved.First round for acceptance.Second round for opening arguments/rebuttals.Third round for rebuttals.Fourth round for rebuttals/closing statements.
Homeschooling is better than Public School

I will start off by countering my opponents points (point 1) and follow by presenting my three points to strengthen my argument. 1.a: Although you will be given the opportunity to adapt the curriculum, it's hard for a parent to match the nationally recognized curriculum with examinations and accreditation, no matter how many are available. Furthermore, a flexible schedule may lack structure and cause problems for the family. It also puts a lot of pressure on the parent who not only has to choose which schedule they think will be best for their child, and their child's entire future. They will also have to research these subjects enough to be comfortable to teach it and answer potential questions. 1.b + c: It's very time consuming for parents to be their children's teachers, and not all are fit to teach. If a parent fail to create a proper schedule for their child, the child may blame the parent for their frustration. This may put a strain on the relationship between parent and child. I will now state my points to strengthen my argument: 1. Home schooling isolates the child. 2. Home schooling causes stress withing family and for the parent. 3. Home schooled children do not get certified teachers and can be taught plain wrong information. 4. If home schooling becomes more popular public schools will loose funding. I, too, will proceed to use only one point. As I argued in my opening statement, I agree that home schooled children probably won't suffer social difficulties, but they will be left out of opportunities to interact with other children. Instead of being surrounded by children their own age, home schooled children rarely see other children during their weekdays. They will miss out on the schools field trips, events, sports practices etc. Of course, they can do this with the parent, but they will still be unable to experience it with other children their age. Also, as any other activity that challenges mainstream thinking, you child may be seen as an oddity to other children, especially at a young age. Like anything else, home schooling has both pros and cons. However, the cons weigh more in this particular case if you ask me.
Homeschooling is better than Public School

The first thing I want to point out is that you claim that 73% of all home schooling parents say that "displeasure with our schooling system is one of the reasons why they home school", without directing me, or anyone else, to any sort of source for you statement. Then, after this, you claim that studies show that "homeschoolers outscore public" etc., and you don't provide a source once again. How big was the study? Where was it conducted? By who? When? You arguments become useless until such information is provided. That being said, I fully agree that home schooling gives you more options, opportunities and potentially more freedom, however I assume that these will depend on who teaches you. Neither do I disagree with that home-schooled children don't lack social skills. However, school is an important place for a child to get friends and discover who they are. Also, home schooling creates bigger gaps in society. Unless you want to fund this publicly, only children with well paid parents are given this opportunity. Is that equality? Instead of focusing on this, public schools should be improved.
Homeschooling is better than Public School

I, IceeeStorm1816, will be taking the pro side of this argument. 73% of homeschooling parents said that displeasure with our schooling system is one of the reasons why they homeschool. With homeschooling, you get more freedom, more options, and more opportunities. One of the most common myths about homeschoolers is that they have little or no "social skills." Studies have proven that homeschoolers actually outscore public schoolers in not only socialization, but also in daily living, communication, and maturity.
How to stop illegal immigration: penalize employers who hire Illegals, more effective than a fence

I don't understand your argument that part of the country would enforce the laws and part not. The US is one country and we should all have to obey the same laws. I cannot accept a solution that will keep encouraging business owners to break our laws to be competitive. How far do you go with this, where do you draw the line? When it starts looking like Mexico with all the corruption ? Currently some business owners pay lobbyists to protect them from being raided by ICE for their illegal work force. ICE and every body in the industry knows where most of the illegals are working, It would be easy to enforce if they would keep the lobbyists out of this. Show some teeth with the law, and the business owners will stop hiring the Illegals and instead hire Americans or legal workers. Yes it will take some courage, It is much more effective and cheaper than the illusion of a wall. Put a wall up, they will come in by boat, or jump or fly over the wall or dig tunnels under it. I would feel much better knowing that our country is protecting us and our interests by enforcing the laws then building walls around us. A wall does not solve the problem of the 11 millions already here. We have to be honest, if we need this work force, then we need the immigration process to be legal and effective. This is the solution, not a wall and keep breaking the laws and closing our eyes to all the corruption developing around the immigration activities. Because we don't have politicians who have the courage to enforce our laws or refuse the lobbyist funds, we are building a wall (more income to those building the wall and lobbyist money for our politicians) I, myself am a legal immigrant (Resident Alien or Green Card). My employer sponsored me. Because of the free trade agreement, my employer decided to close all their Canadian operations and manufacture all from the USA. I was offered a job in the USA to help facilitate the transition, but had to do all the legal applications to become a legal worker and resident in the USA. If the business owners believe they need these workers, then they should sponsor them and help them get their legal status in the USA instead of breaking the laws and pay the lobbyists to have ICE look the other way. I am for Law and Order instead of Corruption and Walls.
How to stop illegal immigration: penalize employers who hire Illegals, more effective than a fence

While I agree that our work visa program needs to be revamped, your argument does not address the concern that many places would not enforce the law nearly as strictly as other places. This would lead to businesses in liberal areas being able to operate with cheap labor while those who are obeying the law would be forced to operate under stricter enforced laws. This effectively punishes those obeying the law, the very same thing you accused my argument of supporting. Should our work force be supplemented by legal immigrants? Absolutely! That is not what I am debating. My argument is based on the thought that it would not be enough to simply impose stricter fines on businesses. It will not stop the flow of illegal immigrants into America and it will create a divide in our country where this is enforced and where it is not, and the former will suffer for it.
How to stop illegal immigration: penalize employers who hire Illegals, more effective than a fence

What you are proposing is to support employers who are breaking the law (hiring Illegals). Most of the western economies and culture are based on respecting the law, USA, Canada, UK, Europe, Japan, etc .... This is why they do better compare to South America for instance where the culture is it is OK to break the law, just don't get caught. This culture is their worst enemy. We are heading in the same direction with ignoring illegal activities. It is hard to get anything done if laws are not respected and enforced. You have to revert to solutions like fences. For instance if people start breaking into houses or cars to pick what they want, will the solution be again building fences around the houses? This is what they do in South America, or they lived in fenced sub divisions with security. We have to put a fence at our border because we don't enforce our own laws. And they will find ways to get around any fence. Stop the Illegal employers hiring Illegal employees and the Illegals will stop coming here because they will not find as many jobs. Set up a decent and responsive system to make it easy to obtain a visa for an immigrant if he has a job. Germany have been doing this very successfully. They have almost 0% unemployment because the use the migrant work force to fill in when their work force is not enough. They don't have a fence at their border. There is a system available in the US to employers called eVerify, to verify that applicants are legal. It is voluntary, Why not enforce it? My wife owned a temporary staffing company and was only hiring legal employees. But it was unfair to compete against other staffing companies who did not. Also several staffing companies prefer to hire the Illegals because they don't have to treat them fairly. What is better, (A) punish business owners who break the law and Illegals as you suggest my solution would do or (B) punish business owners and Americans who want jobs and are respecting the laws ? It is one or the other, your are choosing B.
How to stop illegal immigration: penalize employers who hire Illegals, more effective than a fence

My main point of contention is that many small and large businesses regularly break regulations in spite of the threat of a fine. This would mean that businesses would continue hiring illegals and those caught doing so would pay the fine. This would hurt business without stopping the practice of employing illegals. While it may lessen the practice, that would not have such a large effect on the flow of illegals into the country as completely ending it would. Another point is that this policy would likely go un-enforced in those areas of the country where cracking down on illegal immigration is not the common consensus. This would draw illegals from our southern border yet farther into our country (being that this mindset is common farther north) because of more readily available employment in the northern regions. Because business owners would favor employing illegals for cheap labor, there would certainly be an increase in attempts on hiding their employment status, making it harder to one day deport those who are in our country illegally. Lastly, Because their employment would be under the table, it would be much easier for them to be exploited by their employer in unsafe conditions, lack of on the job accident insurance, etc. A fence would be easier to monitor and although it may be more expensive, the alternative would be inhumane and make American business suffer.
Does this poet defeat Shakespeare in this poetry competition

con says "4. I would like to bring back my opponents original third argument which stated: " his poems have more desire in them than Shakespeare's sonnets" My argument against this was that there was no link from desire to poetry or to the resolution. My opponent has dropped this argument, showing that he concedes to my arguments against it, which I can therefore extend. 5. My opponent has posted several examples of the poetry which we are comparing, however he has not shown how it is relevant to the debate, or even proven that what he is saying about it is true, therefore you cannot look to this as evidence for his case, and you must drop this from the debate." my closing argument is i have given evidence con has not sufficiently refuted that evidence any one who read Dean's and Shakespeare's poems out aloud would here hear Dean's are more emotional and full of desire these debate is about subjectivity i.e the subjective experience of the poems not about word definitions con is an cons head playing with word definitions all con had to do was read the poems out aloud con has not read the poems out aloud if con had he would hear the emotion desire
Does this poet defeat Shakespeare in this poetry competition

firstly get over your addiction to definitions just read the poems out aloud and you will clearlyhear the emotion and lyrical/musicality of deans poems-which are superior than Shakespears 1)it is common knowledge amongst poets that lyrical refers to musicality thus deans poems are more musical than Shakespeare example Shakespeare Sonnet 128 How oft when thou, my music, music play'st, Upon that blessed wood whose motion sounds With thy sweet fingers when thou gently sway'st The wiry concord that mine ear confounds deans lines are obviously to any ear more musical/lyrical -all you have to do is read both poems aloud example lay thy languid neck upon my lap that I may kiss its pulsating vein to run my tongue along thy flesh to hear thy lusts refrain give me thy lips that I may kiss suck from thee thy heated breath give me thy face that I may in its sight gain paradise 2) you can ompare emotions a sobbing girl is less emotional than an hysteric crying girl thus deans poems are more emotional than Shakespeare example Sonnet 145 Those lips that Love's own hand did make, Breathed forth the sound that said 'I hate', To me that languished for her sake: But when she saw my woeful state, Straight in her heart did mercy come, now deans-s clearly more emotional example give me thy lips that I may kiss and bask in the radiance of the ineffable splendor of thy beauty to hear the wild beating of thy heart to warm in the effulgence of thy smile oh that I would be crushed in thy arms like a flower such that in the heated paroxysms of our ardor the shuddering of our vein sets us aflame