BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Affirmative Action Policies

1. We both agree that slavery was a bad thing and that mistakes were made, but I am attempting to assure you that trying to make up for it via Affirmative Action (AA) is not a mistake. 2. "A school with higher diversity is almost always considered better in the eyes of applicants" Diversity should be very important to not only the applicants, but also for the college. This shows that AA is a good thing. As I have said previously, more minorities provide for alternative viewpoints for all students to consider. If all students thought exactly the same, common beliefs will only be intensified, including stereotypes. In your article, Kashawn, the "most likely to succeed" from his high school, was not admitted through the use of early action. Besides, in the end, he earned the grades he needed to continue. Also, Kashawn"s roommate and the other 50 minorities in his LLC were thriving at Berkely, a top 20 university. AA benefitted least one of them 3. This quote was taken out of context. Although I will admit that I misspoke, I did explain myself following that sentence. However, I will provide another example: Say you have three applicants. Applicant one is a white male (gender doesn"t not matter) from Rhode Island with a 3.70 GPA and a 2130 SAT score. Applicant two is a white female from Virginia with a 3.97 GPA and a 2360 SAT score. Finally, applicant three is an African male originally from Rwanda who moved to Oregon when he was nine and earned a 3.65 GPA and a 2090 SAT score. If you could only choose two, which two would you pick? AA is used primarily among mid-to-top tier universities that look at applicants holistically. Anyone, no matter what ethnicity, can get into a community college provided they pass the school"s preliminary examinations. Between the grants from the state and the will of the student to better his education, whites, Africans, Hispanics, and everyone in between can "have a chance." For these reasons, I strongly urge a Con vote.
Affirmative Action Policies

It is my first debate as well, how ironic! 1. "Affirmative Action policies do not attempt to drive race in front of one another. " Although I must agree with you, that these policies do not attempt to make one race seem better than another, that is exactly what is happening here. There are two ways to look at the past: you can either learn from it, or try to even the score. Affirmative action is trying to 'even the score' by making up for slavery and prejudice against minorities. By doing this, we are simply making the same mistakes again (obviously in a lighter way). 2. "Students that are given an advantage through Affirmative Action policies are not being used to reach a quota" Yes, there is no set quota allowed in the admissions process. But you hear all the time of schools advertising their diversity. A school with higher diversity is almost always considered better in the eyes of applicants. As for schools admitting unprepared students due to affirmative action policies: <. http://www.latimes.com...; 3. "Affirmative Action is not a deciding factor, it's just a bonus. " That small bonus can be the difference between being accepted or rejected to a university. So yes, it can be a deciding factor. Lastly, I would like to bring something to your attention. What happens to the poor non-minorities, who can't afford college or a good enough school to prepare them for college? This isn't as much of a problem for minorities; Affirmative Action is on their side. Not every White or Asian is wealthy. Some struggle to stay alive. So when colleges decide whether to choose the poor Black or the poor White, the poor White will have no chance at all. Affirmative Action fights fire with fire, but I am saying that it would be smarter to fight fire with water. We are all equal, so stop using policies to enforce racism. Thank you for accepting this challenge.
Affirmative Action Policies

This is my first online debate, unless you count arguments on Facebook. 1. Affirmative Action policies do not attempt to drive one race in front of another. The policies attempt to put all races on equal footing. I hardly think Affirmative Action makes up for the deplorable actions committed against the benefactors' ancestors over the past 200 years. 2. Students that are given an advantage through Affirmative Action policies are not being used to reach a quota, since racial quotas are illegal as decided in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. With that said, it is unlikely that Ivy League schools would accept a student if they did not believe that they could succeed at their school. After all, it is still Harvard/Yale/Princeton/etc. For example, if a student born in the Philippians had a 3.8 GPA and a 2080 SAT score, being an ethnic minority might give this student an advantage over a Caucasian student born in America with a 3.85 GPA and a 2130 SAT score. It is up to the discretion of the college what is more important. The first student's heritage allows for a different point of view to be voiced in a classroom discussion, bringing to light a new insight that benefits everyone around him, an insight that the other student just simply would not be able to provide. The Admissions departments likely would value this more than the extra .05 GPA and 50 SAT. Affirmative Action is not a deciding factor, it's just a bonus. A student with a 2.3 GPA and 1480 SAT score is probably not getting into Princeton no matter the person's ethnicity. 3. Barack Obama attended Columbia and Harvard, and both are Ivies. Since Obama's family is Kenyan, and because those schools have Affirmative Action policies, it is safe to assume that Obama did benefit from Affirmative Action policies, deeming your last premise false. Affirmative Action is more important now than it has ever been before.
Affirmative Action Policies

I would like to discuss the ongoing debate of Affirmative Action policies, especially in the college acceptance system. It seems that, in my opinion, there is a lot of reverse discrimination when deciding whether or not to accept an equally merit minority (not just the blacks, but also Hispanics) or a non-minority. My arguments for this debate: 1. Affirmative action policies help to promote reverse discrimination. In order to truly create a color-blind society, we need to eliminate all form of racism, not just switch our views to make certain races ahead of each other. This only keeps the cycle going, and we will never become equal. 2. Students accepted into a high level school by affirmative action policies are often unprepared to handle the schools they have been accepted into. If they need affirmative action policies to get in that school, they usually can't keep their grades high enough to stay in the school. It would be better to go to a lower-level school and get good grades than to be accepted into an ivy-league school and fail out of it. The workforce would be more ready to accept a hard working graduate with a 4.0 GPA from a low level school than they would be to accept an ivy-league graduate with a 2.5 GPA. 3. It is morally damaging to tell someone that they need affirmative action to succeed. How would you like to be told that you can only achieve what you want to because of your race? Or be told that, because of your race, you need an advantage to succeed in life? This is also not even true anymore, although I will not argue that there may have been a point in time where this was true. The President of the United States, also considered the most powerful man in the world, the richest man in the world, and one of the most influential people in the world are, in fact minorities. Barack Obama, Carlos Slim Helu, and Oprah Winfrey all became successful in life without any use of affirmative action policies.
is mine craft is an educational game

Building whatever you want isn't inherently educational, only if it is used specifically as such with outside encouragement/modifications, which, as I've stated, is not enough to qualify the game itself as "educational", since the educational opportunity is not inherent in the game itself.Minecraft has little to no physics that happen in real life. Examples of its awful physics and reality:1. Punching trees gives wood2. In reality, burning ores with coal does not create ingots, and is not sufficient for the whole process of smelting3. Zombies, skeletons, giant spiders, green exploding things...4. A single source block of water can release an infinite stream of water, but the water that comes from the source block cannot be gathered for whatever reason5. Water coming into contact with lava simply creates obsidian immediately6. Tree leaves give saplings to make new trees, but this is not how tree reproduction even remotely works
All minorities should have rights

My opponent has raised a fair point about indigenous south american tribes.He says that their 'culture' dictates them to:a) Tax people to use public roads.b) Bury disabled childrenc) Use illegal drugs.a) Roads were never a part of indigenous south american culture, (exception of the Incas which are now an extinct civilization). There is no concept of taxes in indigenous south american culture (again, excluding Incas). So, How can it be said that road tax is part of their culture? It's probably some sort of illegal activity, where action should be taken by the government. But is certainly not an age old cultural tradition.b)I wrote in round 1 that any sort of lifestyle is acceptable as long as they do not harm anyone, this is harming someone and it should be dealt in the same way murder should be dealt. But at the same time, we cannot deny them any human rights, after all every race has murderers. If one ultra-tradional crazy shaman does this horrendous act, we should not be taking away the rights from the entire tribe, we should just be putting the shaman in jail (or a psychiatry wing).c) My opponent speaks of Indigenous south americans using the plant coca, coca is where cocain comes from. Indigenous south Americans use coca for curing diseases and nutrition, some of the benefits of coca include: curing of toothache, a prevention for bone disease, cure for altitude sickness, improving digestion, even for treating malaria and asthma.[1][2]This plant is obviously making the lives of indigenous americans better, why should we deny them this medicine?My opponent also says that these tribes contribute little to the community, of course they do. They have seen the sudden change from stone age civilization to information age civilization, we cannot expect them to learn the modern world and contribute to it in a heartbeat. But in a the next few decades, I believe that as the tribes have more and more contact with the modern world, and hence greater influence from them, they will start to contribute more to the modern world. We must also not forget that the Amazaonian rainforest is being deforested. In the modern world, this is the equivalent to the government/contractors destroying people's houses for their own benefit. Homeless people cannot exactly 'contribute' so to speak.Sources:[1]http://www.accessexcellence.org...;[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...;
All minorities should have rights

Excuse my spelling, we can have this argument in German if you prefer. I see your point that all but criminals seemingly contribute to the community but I argue that with following example: certain indigenous tribes in south america have rights given to them to accommodate their individual culture and set of believes - which is fine so far. But this culture now includes taxing passage for others on public roads, burial of living disabled children right after birth and the use of drugs which you would go to jail for in the city. In the sense of contribution these tribes contribute very little to others apart from themselves. Now I dont think anyone would condone these acts but to end them you would need to remove required freedoms for this lifestyle from this minority. So either continue to accept these issues or face the wrath of liberalists.
All minorities should have rights

First off, let me ask Con one thing, How in the world is equality wrong? Con argues that not all minorities contribute to the community they live in, examples?Everybody (except criminals and people who do not work) contributes to the community. We cannot generalize one race/religion/etc to be all full of criminals and people who do not work and contribute.Con also argues that not all communites follow a 'healthy' and 'acceptable' lifestyle. Who determines what this 'acceptable' is? As long as the minorities are not harming anyone, their different lifestyles should not be reason enough to take away their rights. It is more wrong to take away the rights of fellow human beings just because they do not conform or melt into the culture of the majority than it is to have a different cultural background.
Atheism is Logically Flawed.

There are two in-use definitions of the word 'atheist': 1.) A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. 2.) A person who believes that no god or gods exist. I would describe my self with the first definition I have no belief in the existence of any gods. As to what or who caused the universe, an intellectually honest person would have to say "I don't know". ...." I say, everything was made by God."... It is not logical to believe a proposition when there is no reason whatsoever for supposing it to be true. Beliefs and faiths do not establish "truths" or facts. However this debate is about how Atheism is logically flawed, not about creation. The way I came to form my view of Atheism was through logic. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. It is the mental tool that sets the standard for proper thought. It is the foundation of knowledge. It is the means of understanding and clarity. Without logic, we could not distinguish between the true and the false. We could not throw out bad ideas because we could not judge them as bad. Without logic, our minds would be cluttered with so many absurdities and falsehoods that if there was some truth, it would be lost in the garbage of contradictions, fuzzy thoughts, and non-integrated mental images. Many, if not most, atheists hold that although one cannot be certain that God does not exist, there are very good reasons to believe that God does not exist - reasons good enough to justify acceptance of the proposition that "God does not exist." If we see nothing in the universe that cannot in principle be explained by natural processes, the principle of parsimony precludes our postulating a God behind it all. The Christian God has to many contradictions to be logical, the concept of god or gods is incoherent with our knowledge and understanding of our world.
Atheism is Logically Flawed.

This debate will be to show whether or not Atheism is logically flawed. I will be trying to show that Atheism is indeed logically flawed while my opponent will try to prove the solid logic of Atheism. The Basics: The concept of Atheism is that there is no God. No intelligent being behind the making of everything. I say that is flawed. No matter what point of view you take, evolution or what not. Atheism cannot explain creation. What was the beginning? I say, everything was made by God. Atheist may be able to explain the process of creation however they cannot explain what was the first thing. A bit Deeper: One might say everything just always has been. However that is no different than saying God has always been. Atheist have performed experiments with their intelligence to prove there is no intelligence behind creating. However many do not see the irony behind this. The thought that nothing created us is illogical! Our DNA is a code, every electron and proton are 1s and 0s like a computer code, they all have a "URL address" even. Every single thing in existence is balanced and mathematical. However when scientist try to figure out the universe without God then nothing makes sense. Nothing is balanced. It is because God created everything. The world is to perfectly mathematical and scientific for it not to be created. If it was a random event where a really big rock appeared out of literally nothing and exploded you would expect some obvious flaws in the universe. More Complex: Atheist at this point may come crawling to the Law of Conservation of Mass and the Law of Conservation of Energy. They might say "Nothing can be created nor destroyed so God can't have created us." Well firstly, I could say that God created us from his own self, that way it wouldn't brake this law of physics. However for the Debate's sake I won't, instead I will break this illogical law of physics using another law of physics. The Cosmic Edge Principle. It is more of a question rather a statement. Does the Universe have an edge? If not the you are implying that it is ever expanding and matter and energy are henceforth being created. This destroys the two previous Laws. If you say it does have an edge then you are simply saying that outside of it is Nothingness. This would be physically impossible because even Space is recognized as physical and something. Meaning you would either run into a wall which would require energy to push against you, or you become nothing. Either way this destroys the Law of Conservation. (Even if you say there is a Multi-verse outside, then I will ask what is outside of that, and so forth until we reach the same conclusion that the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy is broken!) Now that I have broken a law of physics, an Atheist may say since Matter can be created now why couldn't the rock be created? However that is exactly the point, this shows that God can indeed create without breaking any true science nor math.
Atheism is Logically Flawed.

In asking whether a claim is rational, one must ask whether or not there are good reasons to believe the claim is true. There is no solid or tangible evidence for God nor a logical argument for God. The existence of God is taken on faith and not by evidence. the redefining of God into an abstract principle -- so abstract that it can't be argued against, but also so abstract that it scarcely deserves the name God.( eg; god is in everything) Belief in unverifiable supernatural entities is not rational. When you look at the history of what we know about the world, you see a very noticeable pattern. Natural explanations of things have been replacing supernatural explanations of them. Now. The number of times that a natural explanation of a phenomenon has been replaced by a supernatural or religious one? The number of times humankind has said, "We used to think (X) was caused by physical cause and effect, but now we understand that it's actually caused by God, or spirits, or demons, or the soul"?................Zero, exactly zero. When you look at the history of gods we see that man has invented thousands of god over thousands of years and all have been myths......all. We disagree so radically over what god is because we aren't actually perceiving anything that's real. We're "perceiving" something we made up; something we were taught to believe; something that the part of our brains that's wired to see pattern and intention (even when none exists) is wired to see and believe. God can not be proven by science which is the main way we study and understand our universe or natural world. There is no theory of god, there is no science of god, only belief. There is no conclusive logical argument forthe existence of god. His/her/its existence is continuously debated. There is no comprehensive definition of god. There are many definitions for the same god as there are gods. This is problematic if one is to ascertain the characteristics of god to judge if god exists or not. Theists should think of a god they don't believe in and ask why they don't believe in it. Some may answer that their religion teaches them not to. Others, however, will respond that they have no reason to bother and/or they have good reasons to think that that god does not or cannot exist. Well, atheists don't believe for the same sorts of reasons. This helps reveal the fact that theists and atheists aren't always as far apart as they sometimes imagine. Most theists are monotheists, which means that they reject all of the tens of thousands of alleged gods except one; atheists simply don't make an exception for that last one. If there's no practical difference between believing and not believe in any gods, then there's no practical difference between the existence and non-existence of any gods. Therefore, atheism should be adopted for purely pragmatic reasons.
Atheism is Logically Flawed.

Atheism is not evolution, atheism is not cosmology, atheism is not science, atheism is having no good REASONS to believe in any gods. Reason is man's tool of understanding. Reason is the process of thinking. Its fundamental attribute is clarity. The use of vague notions, fuzzy feelings, or "instincts" is not reason. Knowledge is knowledge about reality. To speak of knowledge that we don't understand is a contradiction in terms. I used to be Christian, devote Christian, then I went to collage and interacted with intellectual thinkers, became self aware, learned critically thinking and intellectually honest made me question myself and how I think. I came to realize that no one can claim to know god or claim to know what god is, any such claim is made through ego, arrogance and ignorance, and is not logical. http://www.criticalthinking.org...
school discipline

The less school discipline is promoted the better? absurd statement. Look at things in the natural world around us, it goes like this; we only learn through consequence. If I do A then B follows.If you wet your hand then touched a plug socket would ou expect a shock? yes you would. If you put your hand in the fire would you expect to get burned? well yes obviously. People yearn for discipline and good order in their homes, schools, personal lives. Discipline is a lost comodity.
school discipline

Discipline (in nature) can be an effective tool in learning anything, to be quite fair. The reason discipline is taken away in public systems is really due to this fact. It may have the benefits of teaching people through a way they will remember, but it mainly causes a side effect of the person's moral. I've heard so many times how dads/moms disciplined their kid and those kids mainly result to having suicidal thoughts if not already committed that action. The less it is promoted, the better.
school discipline

I think society is winding down into chaos, becauce all discipline and all power is taken from teachers. Our society (England) has lost its way, discipline has become a taboo word almost, we say things were "just as bad" in the days teachers used the cane, but thats not the point. Discipline is for the individual, to know right and wrong. Our society has taken authority and thrown it overboard, we will grow worse and worse, human nature craves discipline to be dispensed,its a fathers job.
school discipline

First off, nobody yearns for discipline. They always want to be free to their own decisions. Secondly, discipline is not the only effective way of learning. Sure it might be ONE of them, but not the only one. People can learn through a reward system. If you do A properly, then you a get prize/gift. That is how jobs and how school works currently (if you are unaware of that). Discipline is the worse out of the "effective ways" because (again) it has side effects on the person's morality.