BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Anarcho-Capitalism can work

Old Laws in Ancient Europe like for example in Ireland and England under anglo-saxons were based on the common law or the basic law , the objective was to protect people from abuse if someone would kill someone in anarchy there would be an investigation and he would be sent to court. 1. They had kingdoms/tribal councils, which count as government.2. An investigation by the government.3. The courst were owned by the government. That is not relevant to the debate , we are debating if the system in place would work not how we would get there i'm not proposing anything because i don't have to this is not a debate about that .1. It is relevant. For it to work, you need to convince people that they don't need government. If this were to be created, many people would just start another government to rule over everyone. For it to work, you need to make it impossible for someone to take power.I don't get what you mean1. Clarification: If two people belong to the same protection agency, will the agency pick sides. ROUND 4 COUNCLUSION: STILL LOTS OF WHOLES IN PROS ARGUMENT
Anarcho-Capitalism can work

'How would we get a nation to accept a moral principle? Can we trust people to be ethical? ' Old Laws in Ancient Europe like for example in Ireland and England under anglo-saxons were based on the common law or the basic law , the objective was to protect people from abuse if someone would kill someone in anarchy there would be an investigation and he would be sent to court. 'And how would you propose we get a nation to suddenly abandon government? ' That is not relevant to the debate , we are debating if the system in place would work not how we would get there i'm not proposing anything because i don't have to this is not a debate about that . 'Would there not be people who would just as soon establish a new one? ' The threat of war lords ? well he certinally would have to go through a lot of trouble since most of the population would be armed and he would have to deal with defense agencies and companies wanting to protect their interests . 'Who would regulate the powers of these protection agencies?' Give me an example man . ' Why cant government just provide protection? ' It can but once again this is not a debate about that this is a debate about anarchy but if you were to specifically ask me i reckon the police is just an army that the government uses to protect its interests and because i do not agree with paying taxes .'What if two people belong to the same agency? Would they pick sides? Would they run an investigation?' I don't get what you mean
Anarcho-Capitalism can work

'The non-aggression principle (NAP)"also called the non-aggression axiom, the zero aggression principle (ZAP), the anti-coercion principle, or the non-initiation of force"is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimateHow would we get a nation to accept a moral principle? Can we trust people to be ethical? Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual"s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner's free will and interfere with his right to self-determination and the principle of self-ownership.' each person would buy protection there would be many protection agencies some of which would be local and some of which would be across the country the individual person can decide which one to pay into every monthAnd how would you propose we get a nation to suddenly abandon government? Would there not be people who would just as soon establish a new one? Who would regulate the powers of these protection agencies?Why cant government just provide protection?How would the protection agencies know what is truly private property?What if two people belong to the same agency? Would they pick sides? Would they run an investigation?------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Anyways, I have not even addressed half of his arguments and I have presented a dozen questions. I will use this strategy until my opponent can give me every awnser, and fullfill the burden of proof. Which seems somewhat unlikely. Oh, and source point.... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Jade Helm 15

Hi - your message is appreciated!! ok, I'll lay out a few more oncerns and you can respond to all as you like. 1) language matters. having a government program where huge swaths of Americans are reffered to as hostiles or insurgents -- understadably terrifies a lot of people who are already distructful of government. this mental stress is a hostile act unto itself, even if it's only an excersice or war game. there is no good reason to play at rounding up your own people. 2) we have no defense. IF this game turns into something more real, based on any provocation from agrivated citiizens or orders from superiors that did not disclose their full intentions -- the people have NO DEFENSE. if our own military has us at their mercy - who will defend us?? and you can't say it will never happen, it's happened in many countries - military cues are still common place and horrendous for the civilians. for this reason we should not be infiltrated even in jest. it makes us too vulnerable for real world horrors. 3) americans should not be psychologically trained to submit to military whims. we fund the military with our tax dollars, we pay them to protect us - not use us as a playground. 4) when the military keeps secrets from the public it should ONLY be to save us undo worry, it should NEVER be to cause us greater anxiety, again - we pay for the military, they are here to keep us safe not weaken out mentital fortitude and sense of security. 5) there are plenty of places to practice, the military can afford to build temporary cities in the desert, there is no good reason to use cities filled with peole living their lives -- to presend to attack Americans. It's scary. 6) this is how Nazi germany was taken over, first the said they were bringing in the military just for show, and the flooded the towns with them in parades and what not, once the people accepted their presense - then they took advantage of their acceptenca and proceeded to slaughter much of the population. and by the time the people realized they should object they were too deeply infiltrated and there was no way to organize an effective defense from within. you could say that would bever happen here - there is absolutely no reason to think that, many of the nazis came here aftter the war , and many became part of cia, this is fact, --- so to know what could happen -- we do not -- but I know we should avoid situations that give an advantage to bad things happening.
Jade Helm 15

Thanks for accepting! I'll say this - given you're stance I hope you win!! But I'm not convinced. I'll lay our some of my fears: It is scary enough when the cops pull guns and chase a criminal in the city. I'm in LA I've seen some crazy stuff, and it gets my heart racing & I feel unwell and unsafe every time. As well sudden violence should make me feel. And that's just when every body's doing the job they need to do. There are also these crazy giant military helicopters that fly across the city most days it's really disconcerting, particularly because it is unpublicized what they are doing and why they are here! Anyway -- that's real, normal life. Now I can't imagine all that at greatly heightened levels being good for anybodies health and daily functinality. It sounds too horrible if my neighboring city were filled with military vehicles and air dropped soldiers at all hours of day and night -- how does anybody know when things are still play and when the are real? because real police and any action is still going to be occurring it's all going to get mixed up, as you sit on your home and hear noises - much less go out for the night. And given the nature of people - not all people would stay hidden away in fear - real, angry, citizens might even come out and challenge the soldiers because they feel threatened and violated by their mere presence, then you've got soldiers already play acting attack - trained to deal with any percieved threats by attacking - and real cizizens expressing anger toward them - real violence could break out and escelate --- that would never have occurred had the military not decided to treat our cities as their playgrounds. Also I can't imagine what the little kids are going to go through, they are going to get PTSD - how are their little minds gonna know the difference between real and fake war in their streets when the actions are made to look as real as possible?
Jade Helm 15

Jade Helm 15 is a Military excersice wherein the military "takes over" Texas, New Mexico, part of California and some other areas, they are also doing a similar excersice in Canada. All this Summer. Many real cities will be swarmed with real military "learning" to take them over. I think this is awful. I think if the military is practicing something it means they intend to do it for real once they hone their skills, and meanwhile it's terrifying. We have a right not to be terrified by our own military - if they turn on us who will defend us?
Jade Helm 15

I just saw this story on infowars about an AARP PSA comercial that has a "subliminal" audio track saying the president has announced martial law and everybody stay inside, etc. in the comercial there's also a shot of a bunch of green balls of yarn near a lamp that has a boat steering wheel on it -- I guess that's supposed to be code for jade helm . the comercial is real. and the audio on it, AARP even issued an apology saying it was just meant to harken another era ad not meant to cause confusion. people are like -- what other era - the martial law era is now!?---- seeeeee -- this comercial is paid for by the government -- they are conditioning us. martia llaw is coming this summer! thinking about it -- it was the first thing that actually set my mind at ease, I mean how silly!! -- to drop clues like this. i'm sure the comercial is intentional. I'm also sure it was meant to become a story to help freak people out. and get more paraniod and sure martial law is coming. it made me realize --- it's quite possibe the fear and feeling of paranioa is the point. the leaked jade helm documents showing all of texas as "hostiles" were surely meant to be leaked// maybe the point is to mke all thse people who are aready in fear of the government - sure that summer is concentration camp time --- then when it doesn't happen. "conspiracy theorists" appear more cray cray than ever . maybe its a discrediting campaign. and possible a pretty effective one. instead of a plan to physically invade america. maybe, now I hope that's all it is. either way it's something bad. I just hope it's the lesser of all possible evils.
Affirmative action is counterproductive

I would Like to Applaud TonyDJr for taking me up on this debate. He is a good friend of mine and it is, by no means, easy to argue pro affirmative action. That being said, I agree totally that many who are eligible for affirmative action benefits are those who have been at a handicap in the past, may need a little push. Let me use an example here to illustrate a point. Martha and John have been friends since childhood. Martha was of a wealthy background and therefore had better opportunities than John, who would often after school have to work to help his father feed his family. As a result John would suffer in school. Martha, being the good friend that she was, would do John's Hw and projects, practically give him the answers in all tests quizzes etc. even whisper what to say when the teacher asked him something in class. Then came college, Martha still helped John with everything. Finally today John is going in for a Job Interview. Now what, John is so used to getting help from Martha, he doesn't really know much on his own. Same applies with affirmative action. It can only take John so far, but what then. If a black student gets into Law School only due to affirmative action, how will he be able to compete with other students who, due to having better opportunities can maybe read better. If he makes it through law-school, how will he compete with other Lawyers? How about another example to illustrate yet another point. A white, son of a poor farmer from the mid-west and a black son of a rich R&B artist from NY both apply to the same college. despite having a lower GPA and SAT scores than the white student, the black student is admitted and the white rejected. not only is this the effect of affirmative action but also reverse racism. Another example, firefighters in Connecticut take an exam. Upon passing this test they are promised a promostions. Coincidentally, despite meeting the standards for black white diversity, no blacks passed the test. As a result the whites who did pass were denied the the promotion and the tests were thrown out. http://www.aclu.org...
Affirmative action is counterproductive

Supporting affirmative action is often thought as an ignorant standpoint, but rather attempting to justify its dismissal as a law or standard is rather ignorant. Our country is ever evolving and if recent actions have shown us anything it's that it took far too long to get an educated man in the White house who didn't look like our founding fathers. Before we really get into it know I am neither politically correct nor care if anyone is offended by how I formulate my opinion on the subject and will indeed justify it, welcome to America where I exercise my 1st amendment rights every second of the day. Affirmative action has allowed many people to compete in a job market dictated by racism and pure hatred, where Whites are for a majority still in control of all the upper tier ownership positions. Now one might say, well you're White, no I'm Italian who has only so recently been accepted into the "White" stratosphere since we along with the Irish were considered no better than Blacks or Hispanic/Latino people. If you want to talk about job equality, why is it that minorities can only work in mediocre to terrible jobs, why am I so poorly paid and have a college education? While the policy can certainly be improved upon, such as not using it in jobs which need the absolute best (Fire fighters might be a suggestion) it still has opened the door to allow minorities to be fire fighters, policemen and other social jobs. How many minorities do we really see as administrators, educators and high ranking social officials? Go look it up, if you think that is a terrible number then look no further to how little women hold the same. It's 2012 and the United States is way behind most modernized countries, time to wake up and all everyone else into the White social culture called the Job market. What should be pointed out is that nothing is truly lowered or slighted to allow these "minorities" into these jobs, rather it is the fact they are considered and have a much higher ceiling of growth than someone who is from the field. The fact we use affirmative actions to admits blacks for example into college over whites is because if you investigate the sociology of the Black community they are struggling and need not to be babied but pushed in order to excel. We are speaking on the lower tier o the socioeconomic spectrum when it comes to minorities not those who are blessed enough to have worked hard and succeeded much like my own family has, we need to continue to create diversity in our country not segregate it further.
Affirmative action is counterproductive

Also for the spectators/ voter let me point out that I am a complete amateur when it comes to debating. My first debate on debate. org is my very first debate ever so please forgive me for any technical errors I make and feel free to criticize the format of the debates as I seek to gain some sort of knoledge by debating on here. That being said let me begin: Affirmative action is an action, generally the establishment of a policy, that lowers the standards or requirements for entry into a field of work or education for those deemed a minority or under-privileged. The use of affirmative action to counter the problem of discrimination is like using the wrong tool for the wrong job. It is cheating and has a negative effect on those who are not receiving the benefit, the institutions forced to put the affirmative action in place as well as the beneficiaries. It is a political move and therefore is most beneficial to politicians who want voters to think they are taking action against discrimination. This way they can avoid taking any real action and make it look like they care. Lowering the requirements for entry into a field of work or an education Institution, undermines the work put in by those who don't receive the benefit of the affirmative action. The solution is just becomes the problem all over again. Saying that a group that is a minority should get extra benefits, is not only discrimination towards those not receiving the benefits but it also says that those receiving the benefits are not capable of performing at the required level. For example affirmative action for the admission of blacks in college XYZ, is not only treating every other races unfairly, but it also sends the message that blacks are simply not 'smart enough'.
Affirmative action is counterproductive

Though after four rounds you are still not convinced you have not provided a logically supported reasoning for abolishing the practice when it has in fact worked in a capacity for which it was created. The law and programs exists to provide opportunity for minorities, if that program is misused it is at the fault of the employers and business owners who are run by millionaire lobbyists. The government has created programs to allow the country to succeed throughout its history but time and time again a group of people who control the monopolies of job creation destroy the balance of equality in the job market. A.) Discrimination will exist throughout human history for the fact humans are creatures of competition just as animals are, we want to be the best and succeed regardless of the failures of others or the loss of anothers worth. Eliminating racism or hate against ethnicity is something needed in the job market, but discrimination will still occur its natural; on some levels s is racism but with freedom of speech we are entitled to hate though there are consequences. B.) The greatly talented are never handicapped, affirmative action never stopped Bill Gates, Ted Turner, Steve Jobs from reaching their potential (It was actually cheap labor, in human practice and many other terrible things). Look at Barack Obama he sure got there, the argument is just not to standard. C.) Makes no sense, because this is another field of law. D.) It's not a handout because the minorities being interviewed have to be qualified in the first place, if selected even at a slight advance because of affirmative action it is with the confidence they will succeed in the job. If they fail they will easily be fired and the next candidate hired. E.) I don' agree with that, because I've never had a bad minority teacher in my entire life of education and rarely meet one as well. I've had countless terrible "White" teachers because it is automatically assumed as a white person you can do any job possible which is not true. To end this argument, I've stated affirmative action is a system that works but requires the cooperation of the business owners and job creators to use this system fairly and not take advance of minorities or anyone else.
Affirmative action is counterproductive

After 4 rounds I am still not convinced that affirmative action, the way it is used today, is ethical; for multiple reasons: A) It simply reverses the already existing discrimination, as opposed to serving the purpose it is meant for, elimination of discrimination. B) It's intended to level out the playing field but in the process puts people who maybe greatly talented, at a handicap. C) It is not much different from punishing a 21yr old for the murder his father committed. D) It is a hand-out and therefore a sort of insult to minorities and 'puts them in their place' E) It Reduces the Quality of work by lowering the requirements of entry into fields of work or educational institutions. The fairest for of affirmative action seems to be the example provided by my opponent with the NFL coaches. Though as I pointed out, that too has some major issues.
Affirmative action is counterproductive

The issue though that you're suggesting of malpractice in the hiring of employees is not so much a problem with affirmative action but rather with business owners and politicians who hire people they already know such as friends and relatives, or recommended people of friends and relatives. It is an already broken system and affirmative action only gives a slight chance to anyone entering that workforce, take for example if a white non-Spanish speaking person were to apply for a job in a predominantly Spanish, Asian, Indian or Black community they would in that case be the minority who affirmative action can fight for but it even in optimism would not since AF is seen as a "black law" which we need to take the race and ethnicity out of job interviewing, I suppose we are in agreement there. Blind interviews would be interesting concept, though in a sense an interview is a blind occurrence and it is nearly impossible for a judge to have no bias. As you might have seen a judge on the Voice show her displeasure and unimpressiveness towards a male contestant who displayed all the talent but due to prior history was not deemed worthy enough for her. Therefore I don't believe it would work very well, especially in the educational setting which has become no better than a business, underfunded and only wanting to cater to what select committees deem correct.
Affirmative action is counterproductive

Going back to setting requirements with regards to the number of minorities to be included in the mix of people being interviewed; it sets the stage for some sort of accountability as I stated before. Take for example a particular Aeropostale store under the management of John is found to be a majority of whites. Then a rule is put into place requiring all managers to include a specific mix among those being interviewed. If after the rule is in place, upon interviewing 20 blacks John has hired no blacks or even coloreds, this is a fairly clear indication of something that needs to be monitored a bit more closely. Another point to be noted is, in a capital world where people want to make as much money as possible, if a black candidate is truly well qualified, all he/she may need is an interview where they can demonstrate why they are good for the bottom line. Though even this system has it's flaws. So I would suggest Blind interviews, where the interviewer has no indication as to what the interviewee's race, gender, sex, age, height, weight, or even disabilities are. The same tactic is seen in the new popular T.V Show, "The Voice", where contestants audition in front of judges who have their backs turned to the contestants at the beginning. When the judges are moved by the contestants' voice, they turn their chair around and admit them into their group. This solution can work for both the business and the educational setting.