BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
racism should be punished more than any other discrimination

Pro continues his unsubstantiated conjecture and ignores all of my counter-examples, mindlessly restating his old arguments without adding anything to them. I provided the example of South Africa to illustrate why what group is the minority and what group is the majority does not necessarily determine who is oppressed. Pro is advocated that people be given special privileges if there are fewer people like them in a given area. Moral rules are supposed to be universal, not contingent on such irrelevant factors as what race people near you are. He just randomly asserts that a hate crime should be doubly punished. Why? Does a person suffer doubly because of the motivation of their attacker? Pro's idea of majority rule and minority rights has no justification. He has not provided us with any framework for establishing rights. There is nothing for me to refute. He hasn't even made it clear what the resolution really is.
racism should be punished more than any other discrimination

The thing about hate crimes and white men is that most white men don't live in substantiated fear of being murdered for their ethnicity, whereas black people can't even trust the cops. Very few white people are even threatened for being white because in america they are the majoritie. it is common logic everyone should relaise this. the main point is minorities will always be weaker than majorities because they are smaller therefore minorities like black people and mexicans require more rights to make the majorities not hurt them because they are smaller and weaker. having equal rights cannot balance the fates of majorities and minorities. if there is acrime against a rarer person and a smaller communtiy the crime should be doubly punished than that of a normal crime. and racism just happens to be the main catogory when this happens it is all about majorities and minorities. It is called Majority rules, minoritie rights
racism should be punished more than any other discrimination

My opponent has not justified why crimes committed by a majority against a minority are more damaging. It is the same crime and the same amount of damage needs to be repaid. The idea that the perpetrator had in mind is not the determining factor in decided what compensation is required. Compensation is based on damage. My opponent is totally wrong in asserting that majorities cannot be persecuted. White people are persecuted for their race and there is discrimination against Christians. In South Africa, blacks were brutally oppressed though they were the majority. Where the crimes committed against them less significant because of this? I see no reason to accept such "differences" between people where justice is concerned. A crime is a crime no matter what color someone is. I don't believe in majority rule and minority rights, I believe in rights for everyone. My opponent is just inventing reasons to have racial discrimination. Women have not had equal power through history and homosexuals can hardly be expected to hide who they are. Not only does my opponent's system of justice not make sense, he is not able to apply it fairly. I see no reason to punish discrimination over plain crimes. I certainly see no reason to consider some acts of discrimination more significant than others.
racism should be punished more than any other discrimination

I argue that racist hate crimes are right to be punished the way they are and more harshly if possible it is all about majorities and minorities. In america white people are the majority but black people, Latino people and Asians are not. The fact that they are manoritys means they are more likely to be targeted for attack. White people are not usally attacked for being white because they are the majority in the country and non-white people are more likely to be attacked because they are minority. think about it, people don't kill heterosexuals for their sexual orientation. However, there have been cases where homosexuals were killed for their sexual orientation. Christians make up the majority in the country - they are not targeted for their religion People are not treated the same because we are NOT the same. People have different religions, people have different sexual orientations, people have different ethnicities, etc If we were treated the same, there would be no hate crime, In the world. It is called Majority rules, majority rights The reason i choose racism over sexism and homophobia is because woman are an equal majority to men and homosexuals are able to hide they're sexuality. People of different races cannot hide they're skin color so they are more important because they are more targeted for hate.
racism should be punished more than any other discrimination

It is unclear whether Pro has argued that racism or hate crimes should be punished more harshly. They are not the same. Hate crimes are crimes committed because the victim is a member of a certain social group. Racism is obviously discrimination based on race. Racism should not be punished more harshly than other forms of discrimination because it is not inherently worse. Discrimination based on sex, religion, sexual orientation, etc. is just as harmful as racism. Hate crimes should not be punished more harshly because the motivation of a criminal in committing an intentional act is unimportant to serving justice and cannot be accurately ascertained. The purpose of justice ought to be to compensate the victim and deter additional crime. Punishing someone more because of why they committed their crime for a certain reason does not help achieve either of these goals. It is also impossible to tell if a hate crime was actually socially motivated. In a diverse community, people may commit crimes against members of different social groups all the time. Are we to randomly assume some crimes are worse because of who they were committed against? We cannot look into a criminal's mind and find the truth, so we would be stabbing in the dark. That's not a fair system of justice. My opponent's supporting points seem rather weak. The purpose of the law is not to protect people's feelings, it's to protect them from violent acts by others. The crimes themselves are already punished, so my opponent is effectively arguing for thought crimes (thinking the wrong thing will committing a crime). I think we can see why that is absolutely unjust. I support the utmost fairness to the individual, not the unjustified use of legal force to control people's thoughts in the name of improving an abstract "society."
racism should be punished more than any other discrimination

Justifications for harsher punishments for hate crimes are right because they focus on the notion that hate crimes cause greater individual and societal harm. It is said that, when the core of a person's identity is attacked, the degradation and dehumanization is especially severe, and additional emotional and physiological problems are likely to result. Society then, in turn, can suffer from the disempowerment of a group of people. Furthermore, it is asserted that the chances for retaliatory crimes are greater when a hate crime has been committed.
I do not exist.

"I can assure that I am not a figment of anyone's imagination no matter who asserts such a thing" -> You do not sound very assuring, since it is possible that the dream troll may have programmed you to say that. "The topic is not specific to how one exists" ->Actually, this topic is about "I do not exist", therefore it is in regards to your existence "If I am a part of a dreamland, it still means that my essence exists" ->Actually, assuming that you are a figure of my imagination, and that my brain has been manipulated through an evil dream troll drug to just imagine that you exist, you really do not exist Conclusion: My opponent has not given any evidence proving he/she exists, and has not proven that he/she is not a figure of my imagination created by an evil dream troll through a strange drug that science does not yet understand.
I do not exist.

I can assure that I am not a figment of anyone's imagination no matter who asserts such a thing. But what do we think of when we think that something exists? The topic is not specific to how one exists. If I am a part of a dreamland, it still means that my essence exists, but not on the same plane of reality as the one who thinks up the dreamland. So I exist, but possibly not in the same way as you might think.
I do not exist.

Thank you for accepting. The burden of proof being on me, I shall try my best. How human perceive existence is all about Point of View. To me: I am a conscious, living, breathing bundle of biological matter than possessed a unique personality, mindset and values. But to anyone else, I may as well be a mentally robotic unit, existing for the sole purpose of deceiving the sentient into believing that they are part of a huge world that we all experience. What an individual thinks is real does not alter or influence what is actually real; while what is actually real can alter and influence what an individual thinks is real. The short answer to the debate is that I cannot prove to you that I exist, as it is logically impossible to do so. But the same goes for proving that a person does not exist. The best evidence I have for my proof is my word and the fact that I am experiencing reality. But once again, it's all about Point of View.
School needs more Homework.

It seems my opponent has forfeited yet another round :( I hope he’s well.These are the reasons to vote for Con: Conduct: I did not forfeit a round, while my opponent forfeited two rounds.Spelling and Grammar: My opponent made several mistakes in spelling and grammar, which I pointed at in the previous round. The previous round has a correction: "my iopponent" should be "my opponent."Arguments: My opponent has not provided a single legitimate reason as to why school needs more homework. I have provided several reasons as to why schools should not have more homework: more homework means more stress on the students, family, and society; it takes time away from developing future skills and passions; and most important, more homework =/= smarter students.Sources: I have used five reliable sources, while my opponent has used none.Thank you for reading and voting! :Dhttp://www.youtube.com...
School needs more Homework.

It appears as though my iopponent has forfeited. :(Does school seem to give you the right amount of homework? No it's too much and too inefficient, particularly because of abject public schooling in America. See the video for more information--->http://www.youtube.com...In fact, the homework giving to you in China is twice as less than Canada! There is no reason that you have presented that even implies that we should adopt the level of homework assigned in China.Students need more schoolwork, because there are many good advantagesThis is an assertion with no warrants or implications. Especially under the implicit assumption that this new homework will be funneled to kids through the inefficient, bureaucratic public schools that continue to fail and cause educational ruin wherever they are implanted. The public schools are failing even the most gifted students. Clearly this is not the solution.http://www.suntimes.com...http://www.nj.com...If we don't have the right amount of homework, the people we see in the future would be homeless people out in the streets begging for money. That is an irrelevant conclusion fallacy. People will self-educate in the absence of state-education, people can be taught at home by parents and online, or enroll at institutions that teach trades: vocational schools, which students want. http://onegoodmove.org...http://articles.latimes.com...This will also affect the students knowledge. Every school needs more homework.You have presented no warrants except for unfounded and irrelevant conclusions muddled with a host of spelling, syntax, and grammar errors.Spelling and Grammar Errors"the homework giving to you in China is twice as less than Canada!" should be "the homework given to students in China is half the amount given in Canada.""affect the students knowledge" should be "affect the students’ knowledge.”Thanks!
School needs more Homework.

1) There is an insignificant correlation between more homework and better test scores. Also, more important, there's no reason to link that higher achievement in students to homework. http://www.scholastic.com...2) Homework is time consumingThe way homework is set up currently, there is a deficient economy is learning. The time that is spent on homework is rising every year. There are many negative externalities to this homework trend such as less sleep (causes more car accidents) and less time with family (weaker familial bonds). And you want to bring upon these kids more homework?? That would cause an undue burden of stress and a weaker family. Kids should use time to discover their passions, for which they will allocate time more efficiently.
Objectivity promotes demonization.

Thank you for joining this debate. I'm not sure exactly what your argument is, so I will be paraphrasing you in order to attempt to clarify your approach. Please add your own notes in the next round if you believe I have misunderstood your intent.You might be trying to say that I am demonizing "objectivity"(?) and that (may or may not be true, but) really does nothing to dispute the fact that "objectivity" promotes demonization. Your round 1 response appears to be an attempt to use the logical fallacy of "tu quoque" to derail the topic. "Objectivity" is not the only possible justification for demonization. It is simply not adequate logical justification. I even address this concern directly in my round 1 argument by stating quite clearly that "...In order to properly justify such a hypothesis (like "they deserve what they get") would require significant and detailed philosophical exploration..." which your response seems to be lacking.Additionally, your bald assertion that you are somehow "more objective" and that this is somehow "undebateable" would seem to be begging for any shred of rational support if it was not also utterly and obviously beside the point of this discussion.Regardless of how "objective" you think you are, the topic demands logical refutation. Nobody demands that you be "objective" here and I make no claims to "objectivity" myself.Think about the idea "objectivity promotes demonization" and decide if you agree or disagree and then write down your reasons.
Presidential Power in the scope of Foreign Policy

The format sounds fine. Rebuttals are part of the same round or begin a new one? Also, I hope this system does not call for total opposition, because I feel we will overlap in some respects. I will argue that the President, though the highest ranking military and diplomatic official in the US, is still part of a democratic system and must defer to expert (be it ambassadors, military officials or ranking members of other fields) and/or majority (namely Congress) rule on most issues (which further depends on specifics, as foreign policy encompasses a diverse array of scenarios as well as exceptions to said rule). Further, I too shall argue that the President ought keep within the rights endowed to him by the Constitution, yet interpretation should encompass Supreme Court rulings in addition to precedent (since not all Constitutional quandaries have made it through the Supreme Court). Just for clarification: we shall use only real (past or present) systems, no theoretical ones as examples, but in the end still must defer back to the present political system in the United States. Correct? Wholesale revamping is not on the table. Good luck to you too!
Presidential Power in the scope of Foreign Policy

To lay out the format, we will each make opening statements, followed by three rounds of debate (each with a rebuttal if you want, followed by a statement) and then each get closing statements. The topic: The proposed boundaries of Presidential Power with respect to Foreign Policy, should the current foreign policy system be totally reformed, with all other elements of governance remaining equal. I will be arguing that the President will have supreme power on certain matters of foreign affairs. Additionally, certain other phases of foreign policy will be held strictly in the hands of the Congress, Ambassadors and the United Nations (or other international bodies). The delegation of power from the Federal State to the international body (or Ambassadors) will be at the discretion of the Congress, with Constitutional boundaries recognized by the Supreme Court. This enables a framework for how the powers are delegated. The detailed description of each of the powers that will be delegated will be given in the arguments. In setting up boundaries on this debate. .. we are free to use reference to any government in history (source upon request). The closing arguments should consist of a direct comparison of the two frameworks. The only added arguments in the conclusion will be the logical conclusion of the frameworks (meaning what would happen in the future as a result of the proposed policies). Neither closing statement is meant to be a rebuttal of either the opponents arguments, nor their closing statement.
"welfare" "spending on poor" as primary cause of gov spending problems is a misconception

"we just disagree that X percent of the budget is signifcant or not. i also dont thinkwe can say 450 billion or X amount is a lot when it's only a fraction of the budget. it might be a lot and seem like a lot, but proportionally it's nothing. 10-15 percent is relatively nothing. "Every X amount will only be a fraction of the budget. It doesn't make it negligible. Also, I already showed that it isn't 10-15 percent. It's about 25.1%.
"welfare" "spending on poor" as primary cause of gov spending problems is a misconception

Rebuttals"you showed student loans as being billions but as a percentage only like three or four of the federal budget. aside from that, social security is supppose to be self sustaining, you get what you pay into it, for the most part.the state budgets, if i assume are accurate, are telling, i concede. they show states spend maybe a fifth or so on that. but state spending v federal is a lot smaller. percentage of overal spending puts poor spending at a small fraction."Well now that you concede that spending on poor is a problem in state governments, and not a misconception, I shouldn't really need to show anything beyond that. But to make it clear that, even on the federal level, much of the spending is on the poor, I will continue to show statistics.The federal student assistance programs accounts for $38 billion for 1.1% of the budget in 2010. (1) Federal spending on vendor payments(welfare) is $330.7 billion, or 9.5% of the budget. Federal welfare spending is $502 billion, or 14.5% of the budget.(2) This all together adds up to $870.7 billion, 25.1% of the federal budget. To put into perspective, this was more than the entire defense budget. It's evident that this is part of the spending problem we have in America."let's say each state spends 30 billion a year, pretty standard. times 50 states. 1.5 tillion. and the fed spends 3.5 trillion. that means twenty percent on teh state side, 10 on the fed side, we're talking like 13 percent of total ependitures. you said ten was a lot, i simply disagree and im sure most people would. 13 might be pushign it more, but it's still not a ton of money or at least not of realtive significance."Even though it's about double what you thought the total expenditure was, 13% would have still been a very significant amount of money. Thats enough money to give $1,459 to every single citizen of the United States in 2010. Its triple what the federal government spends on education. To think that $449 billion isn't a significant amount of money is absurd. Even if you think that the other 87% is a bigger part of the spending problem, that 13% is a problem nonetheless. 1. http://www2.ed.gov...;2.http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...;
"welfare" "spending on poor" as primary cause of gov spending problems is a misconception

you showed student loans as being billions but as a percentage only like three or four of the federal budget. aside from that, social security is supppose to be self sustaining, you get what you pay into it, for the most part. the state budgets, if i assume are accurate, are telling, i concede. they show states spend maybe a fifth or so on that. but state spending v federal is a lot smaller. percentage of overal spending puts poor spending at a small fraction. let's say each state spends 30 billion a year, pretty standard. times 50 states. 1.5 tillion. and the fed spends 3.5 trillion. that means twenty percent on teh state side, 10 on the fed side, we're talking like 13 percent of total ependitures. you said ten was a lot, i simply disagree and im sure most people would. 13 might be pushign it more, but it's still not a ton of money or at least not of realtive significance.
"welfare" "spending on poor" as primary cause of gov spending problems is a misconception

i would like to debate someon who thinks "welfare" and spending on poor is the cause of our federal or even state governemnt fiscal problems. i'll accept most state budgets as examples except maybe california as examples of state budgets if someone wants to get into state specifics. i'll focus on fed budget with sometimes references to states. this website expands a few more expenditures on the poor... but even it with thwith the formal analysis doesn't put spending at much more than ten percent. http://www.motherjones.com...... this graph breaks down what we spend money on. http://www.federalbudget.com...... we could break major spending into somewhat equal sections, general spending, health spending, social security, national debt, defense. the health spending is a bit bigger, but all are roughly ball parked the same. most general spending is on things like EPA or adminstrative stuff... not poor stuff. SS is a middle class and everyone issue, and in theory is suppose to be self supporting by pay roll taxes. same with medicare, which is probably atleast half of the health spending. medicaid is for poor people, is probably less than half of that healthcare spending. but perhaps we could account it for half for the sake of argument? if health care is twenty to tewnty five percent of our budget, that's like ten to twelve percent of our budget. food stamps are only a hundred billion out of a three and a half trillion budget. two to three percent maybe. national debt and defense are for everyone. not to mention, most of the national debt is due to borrowing against social security. which is an accounting issue more than anything that has to do with the poor. welfare is a program that in most states, at least ohio, is a woman can only get cash assistance for three years if shes poor and has kids. that is the maximum. this was a result of welfare reform during the clinton admin, ie the feds do match some money spent. but i belieeve this is part of health spending and not much more than a few billion per year. there's also section 8 housing which is a marginal amount compared to the overall budget. (not that i woudln't mind redireecting this money somehow else but that's beside the point) grants to college students only add up to a fraction of the education budget which is eighty billion... maybe thirty billion max? (not that i wouldnt mind cutting this too but aaginst besie point) maybe a percent? so if we add it up, we got medicaid food stamps section 8 student grants matches for welfare. not much else? that adds up to like fifteen, sixteen percent of our budget.?? these are rough estimates. but enough to show it's not poor people as our problems and "welfare" etc. it's mostly governmetn mismanagement, borrowing against programs, not paying for what we spend, cutting taxes while running deficits, not keeping overall spending lower, etc.