BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Competition in sports while in school improves team building in the work place later in life

When kids grow up playing competitive sports, they acquire the team aspect that later in life will help then in the work environment. Growing up playing competitive sports kids learn how to work together as a team in order to be successful, this is important because when you are in the working environment you need to be able to count on your other co-workers to do their work and if by chance the need help you know that you may need to "take one for the team" and help your co-worker out in order to get the job done. this is important especially when you are working to a deadline and need to get your "teams" or groups work done, this is where the team aspect that you learned growing up playing sports come in handy because you are willing to make the sacrifice in staying late at the office to get the work done and have the project done by the deadline, if your group is cutting it close. This is important because if you do not finish the project by the deadline then the entire group suffers. In addition, when you play sports growing up you may acquire the leadership role. This also helps out your team at work because everyone needs at least one leader in a group to look up to and head the group in completing the assignment that your boss assigns you.
Such a policy would be good for the economic welfare of the country in the short term since it unloc...

Such a policy would be good for the economic welfare of the country in the short term since it unlocks potential that would otherwise be unrealised. Minority applicants are just as skilled as those from the majority but that talent is frequently untapped due to lack of opportunity. Moreover, we must also recognise that every social groups has its own unique skills and talents and that we could gain enormously by using them more.
In any multicultural society the ideal for which we should strive is that the mix of races and sex i...

In any multicultural society the ideal for which we should strive is that the mix of races and sex in any particular job or position is the same as it is in the wider population. At present the under-representation of minorities and women in certain fields (e.g. the police force and judiciary) leads to perceptions of institutional racism and sexism, undermining their credibility. It is generally agreed that the extra women in the UK parliament due to Blair’s all-women shortlists have done nothing but good, bringing fresh ideas to a very traditionalist atmosphere and improving its image.
Minority applicants who were successful would become role models for future generations. This would...

Positive discrimination undermines the achievements of minority applicants who are accepted on their own merits; it is patronising and suggests they cannot be employed on merit alone. It will also create the impression that a minority applicant was successful only because of positive discrimination. In addition, minorities themselves see positive discrimination as being condescending. It is rarely advocated by the minorities themselves but almost always by the majority out of a misguided sense of guilt. It is nothing more than tokenism.
By getting minority candidates into top jobs now, they will able to manipulate the system ‘from the ...

There is at the moment a strong move in higher education to broaden access. The undergraduate population is becoming more culturally diverse all the time. This will lead to increased diversity in senior positions as these undergraduates enter the job market. Although the pace of change is not as fast as it might be there is change and it is in the right direction. Positive discrimination could in fact damage this trend because of the resentment it will cause. Instead we are better off improving access to education for all.
Applicants from minority backgrounds have frequently had to surpass many more obstacles and difficul...

Applicants from minority backgrounds have frequently had to surpass many more obstacles and difficulties than applicants from the majority. These obstacles might include, for example, poor schooling and poor training. Positive discrimination therefore levels the playing field. It would ideal if such measures were not necessary and everyone was presented with the same opportunities early on in life, but given such inequalities do exist this action is necessary.
The international system is anarchy

There is increasingly global governance, the UN is just one facet of the architecture that encompasses the world in treaties that reduce the power of bigger states compared to the smaller ones. The WTO means that it is much harder to use economic policy as a weapon. The EU acts in the interests of all its members, not just the biggest or richest members. Regional groupings pool the power of the smaller nations. This does not mean that they are only bound at the international level. Most powerful countries are western democratic nations, such as the United States and the United Kingdom. In these democratic nations, the people have the most power. Politicians who are trying to get reelected for offices will try to do what people petitioned for. Protests and Court cases can mobilize the people to take action and change government policies. Key issues such as climate change can have a big impact through such movements that can persuade influential actors within a state, even increasingly internationally as well, such as corporations to lobby for change. Although the international systems is rather weak against the powerful countries it is the people, through grassroots movements, who can limit the actions of the powerful countries. Furthermore, we mustn't confuse the lack of formal hierarchy with anarchy (the negation of all hierarchy). While the international system may not have a formal government, it absolutely does have a hierarchy, by virtue of the fact that some states have larger economic and/or military might than others. Also, increasingly the role of States is being superceded by that of large corporations, and the international investment community, who control the majority of capital.
The international system is anarchy

There is no hierarchy in the international system, the closest thing there is to a police force or governing body is the United Nations Security Council, which is itself a club of the most powerful. In almost every area of international affairs the richest countries hold all the cards and are not afraid to use them. The gap in power between countries is immense.The powerful only pay attention when the weak have a powerful backer themselves or the powerful are being generous, usually for selfish reasons, to show they are being generous. This means that the difference in influence wielded by countries is equally vast. War is no longer an option that is resorted to for countries to get their way but there are many other ways of playing power politics; finance, sanctions, trade agreements, citing human rights abuses, technology, energy etc.
Simple numbers

The size of population is not everything. Having a population may give a state more say but no one life is worth more than any other. Even worse if a country is not a democracy there is no way of knowing if that country is following a democratic path in representing the wishes of its people in the negotiations. The chinese negotiatiors and the Chinese Communist Party may well represent 1.3billion people but we do not know that they speak with the voice of the people. Big industrialising nations may represent half the worlds population but pursuing a policy that allows one country to industrialise helping to lift millions of the people of that state out of the poverty cant be considered to balance out the loss of lives in those states that would be adversely affected by climate change.
The cost is higher than the gain

Everything depends on how you measure gain and how far in to the future the calculations are done, power might not influence what is right but it can help change what is percieved to be right. It is very important that developing countries reinforce their economies, this is so they can have the resources to provide for the population in need, also the need the resources and knowledge to reduce the impacts of climatic change. This could be just as effective as a deal in Copenhagen, the richer the developing world the better they are able to stand up on their own against climate change so reducing the cost from climate change as well as gaining from development. So is it right that industrialising countries should give up this opportunity to in the future reduce emissions on their own backs.
The cost is higher than the gain

Although there may be many more who gain from the increasing wealth of the industrialising countries each is much less affected by this gain than those living in those states that are going to be affected by the costs of climate change. How can a gain in wealth be compared to the loss of lives. Power has no impact on what is right and no matter how politicians dress it up the majority of them know that the right thing to do is to get an agreement that reduces the number of lives lost by being tough on emissions.
International agreements have to suit all parties

There is no point in going to all the effort of involving every country to create a deal if that deal is finally decided by only a few countries. In order for a deal to take place all parties need to be happy, only the very smallest can be safely ignored, there are many states even in the G77 and AoSIS that cant be ignored. For example the U.S. cant ignore Pakistan or Afghanistan due to their ongoing involvement in the war on terror. If either wanted they could link cooperation there with a deal on climate change. As the most powerful states regularly use such linkage this would not be out of the question if their backs were up against the wall.
Why is it legitimate for the government to ban drugs

What we think you are proposing is a unnecessary control of the country over people what basically means that you are forgetting the main human rights we cited you in our arguments. We live in the century of democracy. We are sure you will agree with us that people are well aware of the fact that alcohol and cigarettes are bad for their health. However, they are legal and people have the right to decide whether to buy and use them or not. The same is with drugs. People who have been using drugs illegally will start taking them legally while people who have never taken drugs and are against them will certainly never try them, although they are legal. So the consumption will not rise like an avalanche. It will not rise at all. The only thing that will change is that people who have been considered to be criminals for taking drugs will no longer be considered criminals and that way they could even look for help. Because one of the main reasons for taking drugs is not deriving pleasure from them but escaping from a world which does not understand these people. The opposition states the people exhibit myopic behavior when taking drugs because it will cause them harm in the future. What about drinking? Are drunken drivers not myopic? Do you think that they are conscious of the consequences that can follow? No, they are not, and they can kill not only themselves but many other people. It is fundamentally wrong to believe that the government knows what is best for its citizens. Different governments all over the world have made many mistakes and have paid heavily for them! One such mistake is the prohibition of alcohol in the USA in the 20s of the previous century. Did the government at that occasion take the right decision? We do not think so. To recapitulate, we do not think that government should strict individual choices of its citizens. On the one hand, governments have made many mistakes and will continue to make. On the other hand, we think it is impossible for a government to protect its people from any harm. It is impossible to restrict the cherished freedoms of people in modern democracies because this will threaten the democracy as a system!
In addition to our first argument: There is no legal bar on the purchase of alcoholic drink and cigarettes, though both are often addictive

First and foremost, we would like to remind the opposition that we are not leading a Karl Popper debate and that is why we do not necessarily need a policy case. In the regulations of the completion it is not written that the debaters shall offer a policy or plan for solving a particular problem. We are debating whether all drugs should be decriminalised or not. So we are proving that legalization of drug trade can bring only benefits to the society as a whole. In your first counterargument you state that drugs are significantly less addictive and harmful compared to alcohol and cigarettes. Well, that is obviously rather simplistic view. Let us remind our honored opposition that alcohol and cigarettes can cause much more harm to society as a whole while drugs can be detrimental only to the individuals that use them. Alcohol is responsible for the deaths of millions of people worldwide. However, it is responsible for these deaths not only directly but also indirectly. Alcohol does not easily kill people itself but drunken drivers kill about 185,000 each year ‘[[http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_were_killed_by_drunk_drivers_last_year]]’ Only in the USA 41,059 people died in car accidents in 2007 and 15,387 of these people died because of drunken drivers ‘[[http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html]]’ We would also like to mention that cigarettes substantially shorten the lives not only of people who smoke but also of people who inhale the smoke produced by smokers. Meanwhile, drugs do not cause any harm to people who do not use drugs themselves. The opposition states that alcohol and cigarettes are much less harmful than drugs. However, we were unable to see any evidence that defends their claim. That is why we offer clear statistics which show the approximate number of people killed by alcohol, cigarettes and drugs in the USA every year ‘[[http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/library/basicfax3.htm]]’ It seems obvious that since much more harmful goods like alcohol and cigarettes are available on the market there is no sense in banning drugs that cause definitely less harm to people and society. So, to recapitulate, we refuted the opposition’s first counterargument by proving that drugs are much less harmful compared to alcohol and cigarettes, they cause much less deaths and therefore since they are legal drugs should also be legal!
In addition to our third argument: Individuals should be free to do whatever they like with themselves as long as this harms no one else

So in their third counterargument the opposition is also arguing that drugs are very dangerous. This time they assert that people under the influence of drugs can be very hard to control and can be dangerous to other people. Well, as they confessed the same thing can happen with drunken people. As a solution to that problem they proposed restrictions on selling alcohol during the night. Firstly, I would like to point out that the example of Latvia offered by the opposition is everything but global and cosmopolitan. Even if we assume that many countries around the world will set restrictions on selling of alcohol during night it is ridiculous to think that this will solve the problem. After all everybody can buy alcohol in the afternoon and drink it in the evening. Everybody can get drunk even in the morning and cause public disturbances. We would also like to add that we do not agree with the belief of the opposition that the state should limit individual freedom. However, we will prove that we are right later when refuting their argument. So, with their third counterargument the opposition once again proved that alcohol is similar to drugs. Both can lead to the same consequences and therefore since alcohol is legal, drugs should also be legal!
The forbidden fruit tastes the sweetest

Many psychological studies indicate that when something is prohibited it becomes very temping and everybody wants to see what is it like, why is it prohibited. We consider that history can teach us best how to handle such issues like the prohibition of drugs. In the USA during the 1920s there was a very similar problem. In fact it was almost the same as the problem with drugs nowadays - alcohol was prohibited and the results were only negative. [1] The prohibition added to the problems it was intended to solve. The biggest problem of the prohibition, however, was that organized crime grew into an empire, disrespect for the law grew and the per capita consumption of the prohibited substance – alcohol – increased dramatically. So potential prohibition of drugs will not decrease the consumption of drugs, it will not solve the current problems. On the contrary, it will only aggravate them. [1] http://www.geocities.com/Athens/troy/4399/
Why is it legitimate for the government to ban drugs

Now that we have demonstrated the huge associated with the use of drugs, it is now time to ask a bit more philosophical question - can the government restrict individual choices of its citizens? After all, individuals can derive pleasure out of consuming drugs. We say yes. Bear with us for a while. Let's start by recognizing that human beings are quite bad at making decisions. Psychologists and behavioural economists have in many different contexts repeatedly shown that human beings are irrational and often make decisions that lead to outcomes that they did not want in the first place. People are not perfect machines that can evaluate the costs and benefits of every decision - they lack the knowledge, willpower and rational thinking necessary for all of that. These biases make the human beings quite poorly placed to understand what is going on. People do not go to the gym, even though it would pay off in the future. People are too averse to losses to make investment decisions that would benefit them the most - this is the reality of human behaviour. This is particularly true with drug use. There probably is no other area in life where human beings exhibit behaviour that is so myopic. We see it all the time - individuals constantly underestimate the future costs of trying out drugs. When a human being wants to try out cocaine at a party, he does not consider the addiction or harm on his health that tend to follow. If he would initially be asked, whether he would like to die from an overdose, he would definitely say no. However, his inherent inability to objectively evaluate future consequences does not allow him to make the right decisions. So why can government rule to limit people from hurting themselves because of their own behaviour? What is so special about it? We believe that government has better knowledge on what is good for people and what is not. They have doctors, research on the harmful effects of drugs and many other things that an individual would never have access to. It also can, with the help of law, develop rules that lead to the best possible outcomes for the individuals. Only a strict rule, based on the knowledge posessed by the government, can prevent human beings from harming themselves. We think that, in general, human beings accept their own nature and give the state a right to partially control themselves. In general, the whole point of creating society in the first place is to reap the advantages that would not be available when trying to survive alone. Protecting human beings from their own irrationality is another example of these benefits. On a final note, we think that the negative spillover effects on the 3rd party caused by the use of drugs is another reason why government is justified to limit individual freedom. We have already demonstrated the possible violent behaviour, strong correlation of crime, spread of diseases and other externalities caused by the consumption of drugs. Even if you do not accept our paternalistic approach to dealing with human irrationality, this alone is a good enough reason to ban drugs.
Decriminilisation of drugs will diminish organised crime

Public alarm has been stirred up more by the undesirable side-effects of the illicit trade in drugs than by any knowledge about the drugs themselves. Since the law bans them, it is inevitable that a black market should have grown up to meet the considerable demand that exists. If their sale were made legal, at officially-controlled prices, the black market would disappear overnight - and with it would go the theft, blackmail, drugpushing and other evils which surround it at present. In view of the widespread, albeit illegal trade in drugs (soft and hard), fully effective control of this illicit market is in any case currently almost impossible, in practice — seizures by police and Customs amount to only a tiny fraction of the whole trade. The Netherlands, which has allowed the possession and retail sale of marijuana since 1976, is actually lower in the rank than the United States in the percentage of people who have ever tried marijuana in every age category. Moreover, those who have tried have done this at an age higher that the average age of the people in the United States who use other illegal drugs. Toleration of drugs in the Netherlands has not led to a massive rise in consumption, as critics feared, and the police have found it much easier to keep an eye on the trade.
There is no legal bar on the purchase of alcoholic drink and cigarettes, though both are often addictive

First of all we would like to point out that the proposition didn't tell us anything about the problem under the status quo, which made them to strive for their plan. Secondly, their plan could have been more detailed as well. Ok, now after we have dealt with some technical issues, it is time to get to the principles and start debating over them. We believe that the proposition misused the examples of alcohol and cigarettes. Let's expose the most important problems in their reasoning: (1) We want to point out that alcohol and heavy drugs are not similar at all. There are some similarities between them (they are both addictive), but that's it. Firstly, drugs are far stronger in their addictive effects. Normally it takes a lot of time and effort for someone to get addicted from alcohol or cigarettes. It is not a single accident, rather a long chain of decisions made by the individual. On the other hand, heroin, for instance, requires to be used a few times to have an addictive effect. Secondly, drugs clearly cause far more harm to the user. For example, long-term effects of using heroin can include infection of heart lining and valves or arthritis and other rheumatic problems [[http://www.heroinaddiction.com/heroin_heroin.html#long]]. Yes, alcohol and cigarettes are legal, but it is because they are significantly less addictive and harmful. (2) Yes, we do concede that marijuana is not too harmful. However, we would like to remind the proposition that they are planning to decriminalise all drugs, not only cannabis. The harmful effects of stronger drugs which fall under their plan, like heroin or cocaine, are far bigger and have a devastating effect on the lives of people who use them. Simply arguing that cannabis is not that bad will not help government to win this debate; their burden of proof is to show why decriminalizing ALL drugs is such a good idea.