BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Affirmative action is counterproductive

While I will not get into the argument of what is besides the point or relevant to an argument, the addressing of key issues which affect any form of this "affirmation" are indeed relevant. It is an understood point that people who cheat there way to reach the top tier of the job market will indeed fail and cause problems not only for themselves and their company but as we've seen the country as well. The issue at hand is that affirmative action does work but I only used as a method of interviewing minorities and then never hiring them, they only fulfill the process which is required by law. That for me is really an end to the argument of that point, we've addressed the flaws and negatives of the matte of people succeeding and failing in regards to that. My new argument since well the con-artist has yet to e challenged, would be what would you do in place of affirmative action? This is not just fair and equality in the workplace because minorities will receive even less opportunity to obtain these jobs if any jobs at all which pay a sustainable living wage. So how will you replace a "flawed" system with one which will improve upon this?
Affirmative action is counterproductive

I think my opponent may have taken the law school example to litterally. Perhaps it wasn't as clear as I thought. With that example I was trying to compare affirmative action to cheating on tests and having a friend do one's homework for he/she through out college. The point is, while one may get by fine and maybe even make it through college, there will come a point when your knowledge comes into scrutiny. With affirmative action, if someone is not qualified for being admitted to a college and gets in due to affirmative action, it is important they recognize that affirmative action wont get them in everywhere. Lowering the standards for someone is not really something that will help them. Also whether or not GPA and SAT scores are the right measure for determining a student's worth is besides the question and does not fit in to the debate. With respect to the affirmative action put into place to allow for diversity in NFL, that maybe the best example of the closest affirmative action has ever gotten to being good. The link provided by my opponent also explains what this particular affirmative action calls for. The Rooney Rule mandates that for every open coaching position a colored person be interviewed. Skeptics point out that just because a rule mandates the interviewing of colored people for a field of work, it does not guarantee fair hiring of coaches. This is a good point however let's not forget that any rule like the Rooney Rule calls for accountability. If 20 coloreds are interviewed, for any position in any business, and yet none are hired, it is quite obvious someone has some explaining to do. yet this logic is clearly failed by the example I provided in my previous argument with regards to the firemen in Connecticut. At this point I am running out of new support and am waiting for my opponent to deflate my arguments or pose some new questions for me to address
Affirmative action is counterproductive

While it is understood--and stated by myself-- that affirmative action is a system with it's flaws, that does not mean it isn't working. Racism is another realm of discussion probably best left out due to the fact that most minorities are in fact the priority when it comes to politicians and the government not the Middle class average person. The arguments you put forth are very textbook, it's difficult to get into law school from a finical standpoint and most people who've even cheated their way are unlikely to bother taking on a substantial debt. As for the educational system GPA and SAT's scores should have never been a factor in weighing a students worth, that is a creation of a lazy and under funded American educational system which continually refuses to conduct personal portfolios interviews with each candidate. Once again higher education universities such as grad school do not abide by affirmative action as they are usually private and can take whoever they choose too accept. Another proof that affirmative action is indeed allowing new opportunities is in professional sports in the United States, take for example NFL coaches such as Tony Dungy, Lovey Smith, Raheem Morris and Mike Tomlin. Or even General Manager of the NY Giants Jerry Reese, all these men have been part of Superbowl winning teams or built them, but without being interviewed due to the "Rooney" rule they would've most likely not have received this opportunity sooner if then at all. http://colorlines.com...
The Soviet Union did not have a capital city.

Capital: the most important city or town of a country or region, usually its seat of government and administrative center.*Rules as stated in Round 1 demand that no strict defenitions be established* Therefore we cannot take this defenition of capital as set in stone, word for word. The noun capital refers to a city or town that is the seat of government.The word 'capital' as used in the debate resolution is used as an adjective for the noun 'city'. Capital itself, for the purposes of this debate is not a noun. Con's arguments are therefore invalid. Con goes on to make an assertion to show that the city of Moscow could be described as capital of the Soviet Union and quotes the following statement from Encyclopedia Britannica:"The capital was Moscow, then and now the capital of Russia." Notice that Con's own source says Moscow was the Capital of Russia, not the Soviet Union. Moscow has been the capital of the Russian Federation from 1991 to Present (then and now). This does not prove that the Soviet Union described this city as the capital (Even IF that were possible, which it isn't thanks to the contradiction between socialism and capitalism). Even before 1991, consider this. The USSR was not a single entity but comprised of many member republics. They are listed Below alphabetically organized with their capitals on their side.[1] 1. Armenia - Yerevan 2. Azerbaijan - Baku 3. Belarus - Minsk 4. Estonia - Talinn 5. Georgia - Tblisi 6. Kazakhstan - Alma-ata 7. Kyrgyzstan - Bishkek 8. Latvia - Riga 9. Lithuania - Vilnus10. Moldova - Chisinau11. Russia - Moscow12. Tajikistan - Dushanbe13. Turkmenistan - Ashgabat14. Ukraine - Kiev/Kharkiv15. Uzbekistan - Samarkand/TashkentWhilst these individual republics had capitals, there is no proof that the Union had a capital city. As doing so would contradict Socialism. Con essentially loses all credibility when making the following statement:Socialist states can have capitalismWoah woah hold on there. Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production whilst socialism is its abolition. I do not mean to give strict defenitions but there is no way the two can reasonably co-exist. It is like saying a person is a convinced atheist and a prious christian.I negate the credibility of Con. gg vote for Pro.Sources:[1]http://geography.about.com...
The Soviet Union did not have a capital city.

Capital: the most important city or town of a country or region, usually its seat of government and administrative center.wealth in the form of money or other assets owned by a person or organization or available or contributed for a particular purpose such as starting a company or investing.These two defiitions are from Google. http://dictionary.reference.com...The noun capital refers to a city or town that is the seat of government.http://www.thefreedictionary.com...A town or city that is the official seat of government in a political entity, such as a state or nation.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...The most important city or town of a country or region, usually its seat of government andadministrative center.USSR did have a capital city, as Moscow was the capital of the USSR. http://www.britannica.com... "The capital was Moscow, then and now the capital of Russia."http://englishrussia.com...https://www.marxists.org...Both sources state that Moscow was the Capital City of USSR.My opponent refers to the second definition, of relating to money or assets. This is false. He refers to CAPITALISM, not CAPITAL.They may look similar, but they carry different meanings, Capitalism:an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.The resolution is not "Did the USSR have a city that was capitalist?" The resolution is "The Soviet Union did not have a capital city", and if you use the economic definition of capital, which is "wealth in the form of money or other assets owned by a person or organization or available or contributed for a particular purpose such as starting a company or investing", you find that the Soviet Union had cities with capital in them, such as Moscow because people in Moscow had capital. Notice the difference between capital and capitalism, as Socialist states can have capitalism. It would be like saying "Butterflies must have butter in them because it says so in the name".I negate the resolution.
The Soviet Union did not have a capital city.

Let me just put out a few indisputable facts here.1. All capitalist countries have capital cities (Washington DC, London, Paris, Tokyo, Seoul, Canberra and countless others).2. All capitalist coutnries lean towards free market economies. The USSR was NOT capitalist and did everything in its power to lean away from capitalism.Capitalist countries leant towards free market, USSR would opt for command based economy.Therefore if Capitalist countries have capital cities, USSR CANNOT have a capital city (notice the corelation between the prevelance of capitalism and number of capital cities in the world today). capitalist countries have capital cities. The connection between the words is apparentMy opponent will argue that Socialist countries have capital cities? I fail to see the connection between capital and social.Therefore the USSR could not, by defenition have a capital city. By defenition because USSR has the word Socialist in its name (Union of Soviet Socialist republics).Surely Con cannot defeat my logic skills in this debate! Muwahahaha!!
The Soviet Union did not have a capital city.

*Warning, Some of you may facepalm upon reading this debate*1. This debate is not meant to be serious.2. Despite the non-serious nature of the debate, voting is encouraged. 3. Did you take the first point seriously? You did? Why so serious mate? Anyway, this debate does have some serious rules4. Round 1 acceptance by Con5. There shall be no strict defenitions.
Chess (Full resolution in first round)

It appears rather evident from CON's response that he hasn't even read my arguments properly. Nonetheless, I will begin by responding to his arguments. "Here's the brutal truth: if Michael Jordan hated basketball, he'd still be just as good. Want to know why? Michael Jordan isn't particularly gifted at basketball in particular, he is (even in his famous quotes) merely a man of hard work for success. He could have succeeded at anything had he worked just as hard and stayed focused." CON argues that "IF" Michael Jordan (although I find it barely related to the topic itself) hated basketball, he'd still be just as good. Looking at it from a wider angle, common sense would tell you that if a man actually hated something, he would be rather stupid to try and aim for it. "A chess player needn't have an ounce of love for the game of chess and a chess coach has no duty whatsoever to instill this."This point is more or less a copy of his previous. Therefore I would have the same responses. If you hated something, makes no sense why you would do it. "Better to be the best and hate the game than be the worst and love it" - Me"Just your opinion. Doesn't make it right. "As for the example of the Kasparov 'wild move' you showed, a player trained vigorously to see any and all victory strategies in the blink of an eye would have been able to think that move through (I don't mean to show off but even I would have realised that move)"My opponent has clearly not read my arguments properly. Allow me to briefly go over the documentary as it is clear that CON has not understood the full extent of that argument. Garry Kasparov, a Russian chess GM (Grandmaster) was challenged to a match against the strongest chess machine during that time (Named Deep Blue). The first time he smashed the computer gaining victory. He was later on rematched to a "New and improved" Deep Blue. During the match, he smashed the computer in the first game, like he did during the first match. However, in the second game, he believed there was human intervention during the game, so his "anti-computer" strategy costed him the entire game. It was also not part of the rules that a human can intervene with the game, so he believed it was cheating. His opponents were not able to compromise. With this in mind, he was always thinking of his loss (where he believed human intervention was invovled). That costed him the entire match. There was no such thing as a "wild" move, as outlined by CON. "Think of it this way: No matter how much a student loves a subject the ones who get A*'s were always the ones who trained to be at their full efficiency for the exam, not the ones who spent their time fulfilling their love for examinations."Although this point may hold some substance, it is not directly related to the topic. Another point, CON has not responded to most of arguments. Most importantly, he has not responded to my points on why it is more beneficial to appreciate the game over being a chess player. He has not responded to my points about pyschological stress and violence that chess players are obliged to deal with. Over to CON...
Chess (Full resolution in first round)

Here's the brutal truth: if Michael Jordan hated basketball, he'd still be just as good. Want to know why? Michael Jordan isn't particularly gifted at basketball in particular, he is (even in his famous quotes) merely a man of hard work for success. He could have succeeded at anything had he worked just as hard and stayed focused.A chess player needn't have an ounce of love for the game of chess and a chess coach has no duty whatsoever to instill this.A quote that's relevant here is as follows:"Better to be the best and hate the game than be the worst and love it" - MeAs for the example of the Kasparov 'wild move' you showed, a player trained vigorously to see any and all victory strategies in the blink of an eye would have been able to think that move through (I don't mean to show off but even I would have realised that move).Think of it this way: No matter how much a student loves a subject the ones who get A*'s were always the ones who trained to be at their full efficiency for the exam, not the ones who spent their time fulfilling their love for examinations.
Ghosts are real

Yes your eyes may trick you into beliving something is there, but there very well could be something there that you just can't process what it is at that moment. "Energy can"t be created or destroyed; it can only change forms " that"s a law of physics. Not a theory of physics " a law. It"s called the law of conservation of energy. It means that if you take an isolated system, such as a person, the energy contained in that person can"t be destroyed. It can change forms from chemical energy " like the signals that travel down your nerve pathways " into kinetic energy, the energy required to move your arm, for example, but the energy is always there. This law makes sense to me. It means that when we die, our energy must go somewhere. The flesh and bones " the empty vessel " is left behind, but the energy survives." (3) I would still reference this statement.
Ghosts are real

Ghosts do not exist as they have never been scientifically proven. If you don't know what something is The human brain will sometimes compensate and create something to be scared of. You may see a faint woman or something in the distance. This may be a person or mist that your eyes deceive you into thinking there is something there. "The energy within your body is largely found in three forms: heat, chemical and electrical. When we die the electrical energy, which is used by nerve cells to transmit signals around the body, dissipates in to heat as the electrical potentials required to maintain it are lost when the body"s cells die. The heat energy trapped within the body dissipates into the atmosphere so that your body cools to the temperature of its surroundings. The chemical energy is maintained within the chemical bonds of the substances that make up the body. These bonds are broken either by burning during cremation, which releases the energy as heat and light, or through decomposition. The bacteria and other organisms which decompose dead organisms use the energy to grow and develop. Therefore, although the energy in our bodies can"t be put into a new baby, it does get used to generate new life and will pass on up the food chain potentially to be reincorporated into another human being." (1) http://11-19.imascientist.org.uk...
Ghosts are real

"If you are interested in whether or not ghosts are real, the answer is likely "yes". There are many types of documented evidence that cannot otherwise be explained. The question, really, is not "Are ghosts real?" it is more " "Are we willing to accept the truth?" (1) I am willing to accept the truth because I absolutely believe that ghosts exist. There are a lot of unexplained occurrences throughout country that nobody have been able to disprove were not ghosts. "At its most basic, the reason you can be aware of a ghost is because its attention is focused at the level of physical world reality. There can be many reasons why ghosts do this. They may be unaware they're dead and staying close to familiar surroundings or people. They may be aware of their death, but confused about what they're supposed to do. Some ghosts may have a message they want to give someone still living in the physical world. There are lots of reasons why a ghost's attention may be focused at the level of physical world reality, but that focus of attention is what brings them to your awareness and keeps them here." (2) "Energy can"t be created or destroyed; it can only change forms " that"s a law of physics. Not a theory of physics " a law. It"s called the law of conservation of energy. It means that if you take an isolated system, such as a person, the energy contained in that person can"t be destroyed. It can change forms from chemical energy " like the signals that travel down your nerve pathways " into kinetic energy, the energy required to move your arm, for example, but the energy is always there. This law makes sense to me. It means that when we die, our energy must go somewhere. The flesh and bones " the empty vessel " is left behind, but the energy survives." (3) Seems pretty logical to me. Our bodies energy has to go somewhere after we die, sometimes it stays here not wanting to move on, therefore: Ghosts. (1)http://www.areghostsreal.org... (2)http://www.afterlife-knowledge.com... (3)http://961wodz.com...
Biblical Contradictions

1. Most of the Bible was written pre-Christian: Believers in Christ were first called Christian in the Book of Acts. Therefore this debate has two parts- a. The 'contradictions' before Antioch Example: 1 Chronicles 21:1 and 2 Samuel 24:1 In the 1 Chronicles verse Satan initiates the census. In the 2 Samuel verse it is the LORD who initiates the census. b. The 'contradictions' after Antioch 'The soul that sinneth shall surely die...' (Ezekiel 18:20) was written pre-Christian. The contradiction is that Jesus of Nazareth knew no sin. He fulfilled every bit of the Law both the letter and the spirit of the Law. And yet the Law executed Jesus the same as it has every other sinner. Either Jesus had sin in His life or the Law committed the unlawful act of the taking of an innocent life.
Biblical Contradictions

2 It is not that the Bible cannot be "perfect" as the Instigator states. It is the people who cannot be "perfect". Therefore the Law of Moses has convicted the people. "But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people." (Jeremiah 31:33) Now the pre-Christian part of the Bible states that the LORD will put His law inside the people, the very people who stand convicted by the Law. If this is not a contradiction then there is no such thing as a contradiction. Let me ask you this- a. Pre-Antioch Are we to really expect God to write in our hearts animal sacrifice? Wanton waste is illegal. If the Mosaic system of animal sacrifice was to be enacted today it would most certainly meet with powerful opposition. Cruelty to animals is wrong. To kill animals just to fuel a fire so as to create a certain type of smell is beyond barbarism. b. Post-Antioch Human sacrifice is illegal. From the Christian perspective the taking of an innocent life is immoral. In order for Jesus to be convicted and executed the Law of Moses was bound to give just cause. Otherwise Jesus should have never died. But Jesus did die. So the contradiction is clear- Either Jesus had sin in His life or the Law of Moses is immoral for the taking of an innocent life.