BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
race should not be a factor for college admission

Final conclusion The forfeit of the entire debate by Pro can be seen as concession to my arguments. While none of my arguments were refuted, all of Pro's statements were. The resolution can be seen as having been negated. Even though Pro forfeited the debate, I still want to thank him for instigating it, and I hope my argumentation was at least interesting for any potential reader. Race should be a (minor) factor for college admissions.
race should not be a factor for college admission

Pro forfeited his last round. Still hoping for his return, I will however go on to present one more argument. I consider this to be fair, as my opponent provided three arguments in his first round and as I was further able to refute all of them in only one round. I will therefore try to keep the argument short enough for Pro to answer to, should he continue the debate. (A 2) Argument 2: Race should be a factor for college admission because of moral considerations In the course of this argument I will not necessarily assume that (A 1) is true, so that if Pro refuted (A 1), (A 2) would still remain a valid argument. Having said that, up to this point (A 1) still remains valid and unrefuted. Several studies point out, that members of ethnic minorities will almost generally be paid smaller wages for working in the same jobs as members of the ethnic majority, even if both have exactly the same educational background [1].Let us take the example of a black and a white US American person both applying to college with the same grades. Since only one college admission can be granted, one of them can attend college, whereas the other will have to live with a high school degree only. Two cases can arise, which I will shortly analyze: (i) Case 1: The white person is granted the admissionWith regard to the average income of a white person with a Bachelor's degree and a black person with a high school diploma only, the eventually poorer person of them (the black one) will have an estimated work-life earning of 1.0 million dollars [2]. (ii) Case 2: The black person is granted the admissionEquivalently with regard to [2], the white person being likely poorer in the future will have an estimated work-life earning of 1.3 million dollars. Morally, the second case is to be preferred, as the unfairness arising from the limited number of possible admissions will be at least a bit less severe, if the person deemed to be the poor one in the future will wage most of both cases.Surely, neither case is perfectly fair, but this debate only centers on the procedure of college admissions and not on whether everyone being qualified should be granted one.Consequently, if the differences of the grades between two college applicants are not too large, and further differences in average wages among ethnic groups only due to racism exist - which is the case - race should be a (minor) factor for college admissions. Conclusion All of Pro's arguments have been refuted. Pro forfeited and thus my argument (A 1) remains unrefuted. Independently, I presented another reason (A 2) for which race should be a factor for college admissions.I hopefully await Pro's return, and I want to thank him if this is not in vain. Sources [1] http://www.econ.berkeley.edu...[2] http://www.census.gov...
The United States Federal Government should increase Gun Control

Last round my opponent tries nothing but only quotes Tim Lambert trying to smear my Lott source, though I do have multiple others, but I'll get to those when I'm done at this point. Lambert is incorrect when he states that we cannot draw this corrilation because we don't have evidence of more guns equalling less crime, but we actually do. Thanks to the National Rifle's Association as they have provided a graph bellow showing a time period of 20 years from 1991 to 2011 showing that as crime went down guns. Further to added to what my opponent had stated not only does Lott draw the corrilation to crime in general, which is what Lambert is refutting, but he also draws the connection to homocides and gun related deaths. That graph is also down bellow. In the above graph you can see that Lott points out that the Gun Control still increases with Violent Homocides. This above graph shows it for all developed nations and the graph last round was all nations. You can concider my opponent's point here refuted. My opponent has dropped key arguments from my last round showing that the existing Gun Control laws do nothing to change the crime rate and have no effect. He has also dropped the argument last round ban on fire arms also dramatically increased violence in Great Brittian. He also dropped my Harvard study and my Kates and Masuer study which also enforced everything that Lott stated so even if Lott is concidered disproven then you can see that the argument would still stand as these highly valued sources also proved the same thing, but were dropped. In conclusion, we can see that my opponent has not given a reason this entire debate as to why we should increase gun control other than we can do it, and it's popular. While I on the other hand have proven that it is inefficent and counterproductive and my opponent has dropped a large portion of my arguments which stiill stand here at the end of the debate. Thus the resolution is negated.
The United States Federal Government should increase Gun Control

Rebuttal That the source is poor (it is – it’s a person’s blog) and the author known for basis (he is [1]) I am inclined to listen to my own advice, and not bicker about the statics. It is incumbent on me to provide a rebuttal, so I must give it due attrition. 1) The stats referenced only discuss criminal activity, not touching on any other problem associated with guns. Societal problems with guns run deeper than simple criminality. 2) The study cited attempts to connect more gun ownership with crime. As someone has come before me has done to the work to eviscerate the poor work of Lott, I will quote from Tim Lambert’s rebuttal. “Even if we decide that there were more guns and less crime it is wrong to conclude that ‘more guns caused less crime’. The mechanism for causation proposed by Lott is not consistent with the empirical evidence on how often criminals encounter armed permit holders. The observed changes in crime rates are consistent with past changes in crime rates caused by factors other than concealed weapons…” [1] “No matter how you interpret the phrase “more guns”, it remains true that there were not a significant number of “more guns”. This fact alone is sufficient to destroy Lott’s case” [1]. [1] http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au... Conclusion and summary. All the gun statists aside. All the bickering over validity of one data set or another. All the disagreements over interpretation of data. All of it can and should be ignored for the answer to the question of this debate. Congress, and in specific “the peoples house” has a responsibility. Written by our founding fathers “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” The congress enacts laws that the governed request. The limit to the laws they wright is the constitution. Provided there is will, and the proposed law fits within the constraints of the constitution, it is the responsibility of the legislative making body to reflect the will of the governed. State by state, support for additional gun control is supported, with few exceptions. It is subversive for our representatives to ignore our will. It is un-American. My thanks to my opponent for this debate is more than just opponent perfunctory. The passions run high on both sides of the debate. I acknowledge and respect his thoughtful debate.
The United States Federal Government should increase Gun Control

Contention 1: What the studies show. For this first portion of my argument I'll show that when observing other nations we can see a correlation that the more Gun Control that you see that the higher the crime rates end up becoming. First let us observe economist John Lott in The Bias against Guns where he was quoted saying, "Suppose for the sake of argument that high-crime countries are the ones that most frequently adopt the most stringent gun control laws. Suppose further, for the sake of argument, that gun control indeed lowers crime, but not by enough to reduce rates to the same low levels prevailing in the majority of countries that did not adopt the laws. Looking across countries, it would then falsely appear that stricter gun control resulted in higher crime." He goes on to say that, "[t]o resolve this, one must examine how the high-crime areas that chose to adopt the controls changed over time —not only relative to their own past levels but also relative to areas that did not institute such controls." This is further backed up by his imperial evidence and studies as shown in the above chart. The nations with more Gun Control have higher crime rates. Where is the United States on this graph you may be asking yourself? It's that far outlier on the far lower right. You can see that Lott's evidence shows this correlation that the more gun control one has the higher the crime rates. (http://johnrlott.blogspot.com...) Another study done by Harvard they have found similar results in that nations with higher and stricter gun control than the US actually have a higher crime rate. Well how's this you may ask? Well it's the fact that the public is losing deterrence and a way to defend themselves and criminals who still want to commit the crime use other weapons like knives and axes. If Less guns solve the problem then let's just get rid of all of them right? Wrong! The study also finds that the small nation of Luxembourg had banned all small firearms and the crime rate skyrocketed that of 9 times Germany's. (Kates and Mauser, "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide") Another key area is the Brady Law. This is something that many people champion as being the crown jewel in Gun Control. Though the fact is that it really hasn't done anything. Researches Jen Ludwig and Phyllis Cook, both of which who are strong anti-gun advocates, found that the Brady Law has had no effect on murder rates and the only category that there was a change was a slight In the United Kingdom during the early 1990's Crime including robberies dropped significantly, 50% to say the least. But in 1997, the United Kingdom banned Guns outright. This caused crimes to rise back to their pre-1992 status and averaged a 32% in the span of the law before it was repealed in 2002. (http://johnrlott.tripod.com...) To come full circle we can see that though we can do something and the public wants it does not mean that we should do it as it causes nothing but problems here for us. I'll now pass things back off to my opponent.
The United States Federal Government should increase Gun Control

I accept and bellow are a list of definitions that we are to use throughout the debate. United States Federal Government- The United States Federal Government is established by the US Constitution. The Federal Government shares sovereignty over the United Sates with the individual governments of the States of US. The Federal government has three branches: i) the legislature, which is the US Congress, ii) Executive, comprised of the President and Vice president of the US and iii) Judiciary. The US Constitution prescribes a system of separation of powers and ‘checks and balances’ for the smooth functioning of all the three branches of the Federal Government. The US Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government to the powers assigned to it; all powers not expressly assigned to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or to the people. (http://definitions.uslegal.com...) Should- Used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone’s actions: (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...) Increase- Become or make greater in size, amount, intensity, or degree: (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...) Gun Control- Gun control laws aim to restrict or regulate the sale, purchase, or possession of firearms through licensing, registration, or identification requirements. (http://definitions.uslegal.com...)
"God Bless America Should stay on our Money

Although I aprreciate the effort. You have failed to refute any of my points. The Pilgrams and the Natives Americans both belived in God(s). They were all differernt or might of had more than one we all had a God of some sort. The US currency isnt saying on it the Christian God or Islamic Gods its just saying God, so all religons can work on this. The Pilgrams were accually nice to the Natives and they both helped each other out with living.In god we trust is singular. This means that we are saying no to multiple god belivers which is completely unfair. To many people who live in america and exercise their free will. There is still seperattion between church and state which means that on goverment issued bills there should not be anything about god.The United States of America was built of religous foundings.I already adressed this. In my last argument. It doesnt matter what happened in the past for this argument. It only matters about culture today.We have seperation between church and state. Its says so in the constitiution. This is what america is built on. Not religion.
"God Bless America Should stay on our Money

They came and joined forces with a native american tribe to overthrow a different one.The Pilgrams and the Natives Americans both belived in God(s). They were all differernt or might of had more than one we all had a God of some sort. The US currency isnt saying on it the Christian God or Islamic Gods its just saying God, so all religons can work on this. The Pilgrams were accually nice to the Natives and they both helped each other out with living.It would of been acceptable for early americans becuase they were all christians but Now america is full of different people.The United States of America was built of religous foundings. In the Northern States or New England or Middle Colonies they Christians skirmished to the new world to find religous freedom from the English King. Farther South people wanted to settle the land for agracultural uses to grow plants like Tobbacco and Cotton on Plantations. Just Saying. The currency is defianly recuring to the Christian God but the Jewish God Yahweh is still a God too, same with the Native Americans, they belive in some sort Gods as with the Muslims.http://www.catholic.com...
"God Bless America Should stay on our Money

Alright now to refute. I will use a big font also as not to confuse the reader.You bring up the fact that the united states of america was founded mainly by christain pilgrims. They came and joined forces with a native american tribe to overthrow a different one. They later regrouped and had a feast. SO. Before pilgrims were in america there where native americans as discoverd by coloumbus. Theses tribes were polytheistic and did not have just one god. If they had paper money it would say "in GOD'S we trust." But, Christian pilgrims came to america instead. They overthrew the native americans and adopted christian ideals. SO, is this why we should have in god we trust on our money? The awnser is a solid NO. You talk about a christian god that we trust in. Your reasonign for that is due to a majority of christians in america. It would of been acceptable for early americans becuase they were all christians but Now america is full of different people.you forget that things have changed now. We have a right to freedom of religion and a seperation between church and state. America is full of jew's, Christains, and many other religions. Money issued by the government should not have religious meaning attached to them. You might say it honors the lands history. If it does it then should say In gods we trust on our money becuase of the native american people who lived here.
"God Bless America Should stay on our Money

The United States of America was founded by mainly by Christianity, The pilgrams came for religous freedom from the king of England in the early 1600's. They today are celebrated on Thanksgiving for having the first Thanksgiving and for giving thanks what goes backs through Christian roots. Also Many states where founded of Christian coustoms like Maryland. It was a Cathoic Colony founded by lord Baltimore and got its name after The Vigin Mary. This Here is the Cossland Banner witch is on the state flag of Maryland and was a secessioist flag during the Civil War too. s://upload.wikimedia.org...; alt="" width="495" height="330" />This Country is quite religous too if you think about it. The Southern states contain the "Bible Belt" The South hold abouts 15% of the county be area so think about the people that will be more religous than the others outside of the Bible Belt.
The Government Should Not Censor Racial or Hateful Speech

You say that you have been a victim of racism and like an ideal person you have dealed with it in a graceful manner .You suggest that if someone insults my skin ,colour etc.I should either try to resonate by telling him why he is wrong or walk away ,while a sensible person would do that..let me give you a reality check...people are not the same! An excellent example is the recent london riots,where the police shot a 29 yr old black person and there were nationwide riots and violence.Nobody sat for a discussion or even waited for investigations.There are lots of lunatics out there who find violence as the ultimate argument. You say that shutting people up would only make them anti government,while thats ture ,but should the government think about the sentiments of the racial extremists or about the peace of the society? You also suggest that the laws against racist speeches are a result of intellectual sloth..you sure have created a new debate here..whether parliament debates over a bill before it is made into a law or there are simply parties happening at the government`s office! The laws are not due to intellectual sloth but they are lessons learnt from the past. I have to agree with you on the point that many a times the government has taken advantages of cultural and racial differences for their own political benefit,but not all political parties are racist.Political leaders like Eleanor Roosevelt,Mahatma Gandhi,Nelson Mandela etc.have promoted antiracism.The decline in racism over the past centuries is also credited to various political leaders apart from social activists. And even if the government were being hypocritical these laws when implemented have protected the societies from riots.If freedom of racial and hate speeches was more openly promoted the situation would have gone completely out of hand because not all people believe in discussing and sorting out problems like we do. I thank my opponent for the interesting debate and I hope the readers get to learn as much as I did.This is my first debate so I regret any errors in the format.
The Government Should Not Censor Racial or Hateful Speech

First of ,let me apologize for my delay as i have been busy for the past two days.Let me start my argument saying that man is a social animal.We are a part of a society and adjustments have to be made to live peacefully.Lets take this example,Can you just land up in your boxers at your work because you feel like it?? Even when we are with our freinds,there are always somethings which we keep to ourselves,we dont say everything we feel just because we dont want an argument.Imagine what would happen if for one day you spoke everything you felt about the people you meet on their face!Not a pretty picture,is it?(Your vedio,lol)There are so many things in our daily life where we donot give ourselves the freedom to do things as we will,we adjust because we are a part of society.And this is the whole nation we are talking about!! I think there is a lot of freedom of speech in the world.Critics are present in every feild be it literature,arts,Science, finance etc. Even before you go for a movie or visit a hotel or download a song or go to a collage you look for reviews in papers ,internet from people etc.There are debates happening on news channels,websites like these and all over the media! However,there are some issues sensitive to every nation which are better kept unsaid to maintain peace and harmony in the community.Do you not remember killing of millions of jews in holocausts because of the hate speeches by hitler??About two thirds of the jewish community was cleared off!Hate crimes have a history longer than the US itself with genocide attempted against Native America by the Dutch, French, Spanish, and British colonists and later American citizens for over three centuries...More recently in Rwanda, hate speech lead to genocide 13 years ago, when Hutu(majority) killed 800.000 Tutsis in a FEW months. Before it, Hutus & Tutsis had lived in peace, speaking the same language & inter – marrying. Yet hate speech helped turn neighbors into enemies. Media campaign exaggerated their cultural differences. Hutu extremists through radio & TV announced that the Tutsis were subhuman traitors & called them ‘ cockroaches’. As a result, it led to genocide.Nearly 8,000 hate crimes reported to the FBI of the US in 1995, the most frequently reported motivation was bias against blacks, almost 3,000, other frequently reported bias motivations were anti-white, Jewish, Gay, Muslim, Asian, Native American, and Hispanic.I woldnt say hate crimes would be completely over or hatred completely lost if hate speeches we to be banned.But surely lot of lives would be saved if such speeches are dicsouraged by government action.Also if government does not supports anti racism then how will the problem ever be eradicated?? Prevention is always better to suffer later.
The Government Should Not Censor Racial or Hateful Speech

I agree with you that prohibiting people from talking the way they wish will not solve the problem of insults and hate. But i also believe that allowing them to use these words freely will only root these words deep in our literature which you surely dont want. Lets take your example of drug addiction, Surely war on drugs isnt solving the problem on drug addiction but it has lead to a decline in deaths due to addiction. If people are allowed to use drugs like marijhuana,cocaine,LSDetc. openly then it will only become more deeply rooted in the culture,it will become a rising trend unless not questioned.What is needed is a more comprehensiva approach involving education.Also MORE IMPORTANTLY the problem of drug addiction is more complex as these drugs lead to physical and psychological dependence (unlike abusive words) and so a mere ban is much more ineffective than it would be in case of words. Similarly,in case of words., Lets say that peole were allowed to use words like as***** or f*** in their speeches...with the justification that ,"its the way i talk"..then it would only get more rooted in the regular conversation and tomorrow you might just have your boss sayin "where`s your report as**** " even if casual ,you surely donot want to be named after a body part,do you? As for the peole using the word in protest if it is supressed, I think that even if the word nigger was used widely and if it lost its meaning as a bad word over the years, some other word will end up evolving as a bad word and protesters will then use that word .What is an abusive word now was not anabusive word in the 18th century. A logical argument does not need to be an abusive one.:)