BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Affirmative action should be practiced in college admissions.

Seeing as a judge told me not to forfeit my last round, I'll go ahead and refute my opponents arguments... < > This is a faulty analogy. It'd go more like this. Two friends are walking down a street when one of them sees a wallet filled with $50. They decide to turn it in to the authorities. After the waiting period is up, nobody has claimed the money. The person who spotted the wallet gets $30 (or even $35) while the friend gets $20 (or $15) We've given the status quo (authorities) a chance at fixing this problem. Now it's time to let affirmative action have a shot. Whites still hold a majority, because whites still have a majority of the population (the person who found it), and minorities actually get a profit out of the deal (the friend). < > While I'll admit that poverty isn't the main issue, it is definitely a huge reason as to why affirmative action is needed. We'll say poverty is a symptom of the discrimination placed upon minorities for centuries. Their oppression has driven them to an "out of sight, out of mind" mentality for lack of better words. By recognizing this as a problem, we can start correcting our mistake. < Eh, those that are actually educated and hold jobs here. We can't stereotype them, that furthers the discrimination. Any person denied a position in a college due to race is missing out on a huge opportunity, and it furthers any perception of white supremacy. This mindset forces humanity to overlook crucial ideas that are necessary for the continuance of the United States. Without taking fresh approaches and trying new ideas, we lose American ingenuity which allows America to actually create inventions instead of building them for someone else. It ensures the American economy prospers. < > As I said before, financial status is a side effect of the education discrimination present in today's society. It's a great, easily-understood-by-most idea that we can use to see the extent of the damage. The same way the DOW is used as a gauge on the stock market. Even if you don't like how affirmative action accomplishes it's goal, you have to realize that it successfully reaches its goal and wouldn't have to be a permanent institution... just long enough to change the American mindset. Look at it big picture and long term, and you'll see it's extremely beneficial to the public. Crackofdawn_Jr, it's been a great debate, I throughly enjoyed it. Thank you one and all, and let the voting begin :)
Resolved: Affirmative action should be practiced in college admissions.

Thank you for a well-thought response. < > Two wrongs don't make a right. If you take a small amount of racial discrimination that you can't control and counter it with a large, government-backed racial discrimination that is controlled I don't believe they even out. It's like two guys find a wallet with $50 in it. The first guy takes $30 and gives his friend $20. The friend doesn't think this is fair so he steals $10 of his friends money to switch it out. In this situation, neither of them did the right thing. < > You're still using poverty as a reason to back up something that doesn't have to do with income, but instead racial status. Is it fair for those 10.3% of white kids that they are in the same situation if not worse than those minorities and they don't get the same help? If ONLY minorities lived in poverty then your current reason to back affirmative action would be fine but that's not the case. <> You're main reason for backing affirmative action is an issue with the classes, not the races. For instance, asians are minorities in this country and are affected by affirmative action. However, they make a higher mean income than white people (http://www.ibrc.indiana.edu...). My main arguement against you is that affirmative action has to do with RACIAL discrimination, not CLASS discrimination. You're using the fact that a majority (BUT NOT ALL) of poverish people are minorities. Affirmative action (as you seem to advocate) should be changed to affect those in poverty, not a certain race. I'm having a lot of fun with this, thank you for a great debate so far. :D
Resolved: Affirmative action should be practiced in college admissions.

If you're okay with forfeiting your final speech, that sounds fair to me. < > You admit that there is still discrimination and so do I. However, fighting discrimination with discrimination is not the way to go. You're never supposed to fight fire with fire. Is it fair to look at something and say, "Oh yea them doing that is not okay, so let's do it back at them,"? By making minorities preferred over whites you are doing the very same discrimination you're trying to fight. This is not equality, it's cancelling out. < > So you're argument is that because they live in poverty we must be partial to them. If that's one of your reasons then it needs to be changed so that affirmative action affects though who make below a certain amount of income, not their race or culture. It's not just minorities that live in poverty, it's white people too. In a 2006 census it was shown that 10.3% of people living in poverty were white. (. http://www.census.gov...) < > Well, that depends. Historically (although it's gradually changing) whites have dominated the majority of the ethnicities in terms of percentage in the U. S. If there's 60% white people in the U. S. , 20% Hispanic, 15% black, and 5% other (making up these numbers) then we shouldn't force schools to have a 20% black population. Really though, it's a matter of taking who's best for the spot. If a white person and a black person are both going for a spot in the college, and the white person is a better choice, the black person shouldn't be chosen because of his race. That goes vice versa. If you want to make the argument that there's a rich white kid who had better oppurtunities than the poor black kid you should argue to change affirmative action to affect those living in poverty, not those of certain ethnicities. That'll be all for now. I await my opponent's response. Good luck.
Resolved: Affirmative action should be practiced in college admissions.

I was just getting ready to sit and type this when I found I had already been challenged. :) To be fair, I'll forfeit my final speech (unless you don't want me to do that, Crackofdawn_Jr). With that said, I'll go ahead and create a case. I stand firmly: Resolved: That affirmative action should be practiced in college admissions. Contention 1- The United States is a country based on equality. Evidence of our "equality" is all around us. "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal." Self-evident... somebody shouldn't have to point that out. While discrimination is certainly better today then, say, slavery times or civil rights movement times, racial discrimination exists today, and we can't deny that. The fact that this resolution exists is proof that discrimination exists. Contention 2- Many minorities live in poverty Many minorities live in a state of poverty [1]. By continuing to practice racial discrimination, we allow this cycle to continue. By not allowing minorities in college, we take away from them an idea of hope, and we close a window of opportunity that would allow them to become actively engaged in school. Psychologically speaking, if you tell someone that they're worthless, and you tell them this continually, they will start to believe it. This is what we're doing when it comes to college admissions. By not accepting a proportional number of minorities, we're sending the signal that minorities aren't as good, or that whites are better, whichever way you want to look at it. *As clarification, this debate isn't about accepting minorities for the sake of accepting minorities. We all know whites that don't measure up, and minorities that far exceed any standard placed before them. Affirmative action ensures that those at college, regardless of race, are those that strive, not only to reach standards, but to redefine those standards. Affirmative action aims to open the minds of those around us, and basically fulfill Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream. "That men will be judged by the contend of their character, not the color of their skin."* That's all I've got time for now. I'll turn the debate over to my opponent and extend/refute case in the next speech. Thank you. --SOURCES-- [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk...
moral truth is not arbitrary

Well you yourself said that God "is the arbiter of truth" and so his rules are by definition arbitrary (by God). Here is the dictionary definition: 1. subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision. 2. decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute. 3. having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical: an arbitrary government. So your argument is false that moral truth is not arbitary if the arbiter is God. ---- Now if you mean it is not arbitrary in the sense that man does not arbitrarily determine moral truth because someone else (i.e. God) is the arbiter, then you have to show with evidence that a god exists who is the arbiter of truth and man simply follows the moral law of God. This is difficult to do and you also have not done this here. You presented no evidence to show that a God who is the arbiter of truth actually exists.
moral truth is not arbitrary

con seems to be going on a hard to decipher rant. con says God is inferior to his moral rules. i think a reason con gives is because his rules are arbitrary. God's rules are not arbitrary, he is the arbiter of truth, anything else would be arbitrary. and this debate isn't so much about God. it is about truth. does it exist? if so, it isn't arbitrary. is it relative? that's a loaded word, maybe yes, maybe no. but we know enough to say truth exists, and it isn't arbitrary.
moral truth is not arbitrary

Relative truth (or morality) and arbitrary truth (or morality) are closely related. The easiest rebuttal that morality is not arbitrary is that even if God exists and is the source of morality, it is God who arbitrarily chooses what is moral. If God simply says something is moral because it is essentially moral, then God is inferior to that thing that is moral. God"s will, the standard of moral goodness, will itself be morally arbitrary.
moral truth is not arbitrary

con argues about giving relative points.... but i was arguing about arbitrary. does he plain out assert that truth is arbitrary? con argues mroality changes over time. even if it did that doesn't mean truth is arbitrary. it means some truths we perceive to be might be arbitrary. or, it means some people had it wrong. from where we sit, having sex with like boys like the greeks did was wrong. the snake point is probably better said to be an example of 'relative' truth. truth relative to you and the snake. it's not arbitrary that we'd be against being bitten and the snake would be for it.
moral truth is not arbitrary

I would counter that moral truth is relative from two different angles. First) Over time and across cultures, there are aspects of morality that change, progress, or are different. If an authoritative and consistent moral code did exist across all variable, then it would be easy to find what it is and say "this" is not arbitrary. None of the examples you give demonstrate your point. Second) Take a stupid example of a snake, and assume for a second that snakes can act morally and immorally. If a poisonous snake bites a child and kill him, does the snake behave immorally? Well, it depends on perspective. From the perspective of the child's mother, the snake's action was immoral and resulted in the child's death. But what about from the perspective of the snake? It was acting perfectly morally and was simply hungry and looking for something to eat.
moral truth is not arbitrary

people often argue between absolute and relative truth. well, relative is relative. it is better to say truth is not arbitrary. while most people may want to resort to believing in relative truth.... most people would also intuitively recoil at saying truth is arbitrary, and accept that it's not. what about examples, like the fact that the Greeks viewed sex with boys as A okay? and we see it as reprehensible? this just shows that it is not always clear to humans what is truth. that doesn't mean there isn't a truth that says sex with boys is wrong. in fact, it is probably clear to us much of natural law even if people have went against it in masses. men are not designed to have sex with boys. that is not the design of the body, or the system. and relative is relative. killing in self defense is not wrong. this is exception relativiesm. but what about killing a serial killer who is known to be such but a self defense death is not imminent? this gets into more ' non exception relativeistic' territory, but it doesn't mean there isn't a right answer. the truth, whatever it is, is not arbitrary. or what about proportionalism? if a train is speeding down a track and the only way to save the people tied to it, is to pull a level and kill one person, it is etiher true or not true that it is okay to pull the lever. i don't know what the right answer is, but thee is a right answer one way or the other. (christian marytrs seem to suggest that it's not okay to be proportionalist. or, the fact that pilate had jesus killed only cause he was following proportionailsm..... so i'm not sure the answer, but i'm sure an answer exists) to inject a bit of christian ideals, though not to hinge the debate on it. not believing in truth leads people to lies. untruths. in all the major episodes of humanity "eat of it, surely you shall not die" the snake said to eve. "what is truth?" Pilot said to Jesus. people have accepted a lie, an untruth, and we all suffered for it.
The Death Penalty

I encourage you to read the 5th Amendment. Enough said. Nope, for prison by definition takes away Liberty. Thus, if you wish to cite the DOI against capital punishment, it also allplies to all criminal sentences. Actually, yes, it does. Everyone put to death was guilty. if capital punishment is mandatory, it becomes irrelevant who the criminal is. Once the jury says guilty the sentence is death. Thus, it does not matter who the victim is or who the criminal is. To make capital punishment mandatory means that it is the only sentence that can be imposed for certain crimes. No, the families involved are irrelevant. Only justice matters. And no, morality is not subjective.
The Death Penalty

Speaking of just powers of the state, one of them is the execution of criminals. The righ to life is no more anti-capital punishment than the right to liberty is anti-criminal punishment per se. Part of the reason for the high cost us because those who hate justice have made it so difficult to put criminals to death. Last time I checked, a .45 to the head was about $0.25. But this is irrelevant. The only issue is justice. And you have run from that one. There has never anyone who has been put to death that was not adjudged guilty in a court of law. Thus, no innocent person has been executed. Again, your argument is not anti-capital punishment, it is anti-any punishment. Nonsense. Make capital punishment mandatory and race becomes irrelevant. Closure is irrelevant. Justice is all the matters. And justice is not subjective. But nice try.
The Death Penalty

Here are my rebuttals. Actually, the U.S federal government lists 41 crimes that are punishable by death. These crimes are murder related to the smuggling of aliens,destruction of aircraft, motor vehicles, or related facilities resulting in death, murder committed during a drug-related drive-by shooting, murder committed at an airport serving international civil aviation, retaliatory murder of a member of the immediate family of law enforcement officials, civil rights offenses resulting in death, etc. [1] There are even more arguments you could've made to support the claim that capital punishment should be allowed. Just because it's for only 19 crimes doesn't make it a sufficient punishment. Your argument is not only a bare assertion, it's downright false. I look forward to your defense. Citation [1]http://deathpenalty.procon.org... capital offenses
Death Penalty

PrefaceThis is a classic debate that has been going on for a while. Should the Death Penalty be used? Is it just? While my personal view is Con, I like to go back and forth while debating this topic.Good Luck to whomever accepts. =)Full TopicThe Death Penalty is justified.Format Round 1 Pro: RulesRound 1 Con: AccceptanceRound 2 Pro: Opening ArgumentsRound 2 Con: Opening ArgumentsRound 3 Pro: RebuttalsRound 3 Con: RebuttalsRound 4 Pro: Rebuttals and Conclusions [no new arguments]Round 4 Con: Rebuttals and Conclusions [no new arguments + no rebutting to any of Pro's rebuttals in round 4]Rules 1. No trolling2. No forfeiting a round3. Structure I have stated must be followed4. All sources must be cited5. Faliure to follow any of the rules stated above results in a lossCharacter Limit10,000Time to post arguments3 Days================================================================================I look forward to a great debate!
Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, it has a cause.

The three basic premises.1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist.3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.Introduction I would like to focus on the above three premises of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. You are requested to otherwise put aside the whole KCA thing, I'm just interested in debating the above. I don't necessarily agree with the whole argument to begin with, but I do believe in the above and as such I am curious as to why it would not be true. I'm debating the Kalam Cosmological Argument elsewhere and there I have for the first time heard about the A-Theory and B-Theory. I particularly welcome anyone who uses the B-Theory as an argument against the above premises. I am very interested in learning more and debating is a great way to do that. RulesThe Burden of Proof will be equal, and as such will fall on both parties. I will certainly be trying to prove the above premises, and I expect Con to actively try to undermine or disprove the above premises. Con shall begin arguments immediately in this round.In the final round Con may not bring in any new arguments. Con may however make a final conclusion based on previous rounds. I ask voters to keep this in mind, in case Con forgets him or herself. Conclusion Good luck, and I hope we can both enjoy a stimulating debate.
Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, it has a cause.

I thank Con for posting despite his circumstances and shall keep this brief. Ultimately what I "claimed" with regards to assumptions is that any assumption can be wrong. It is of course perfectly logical that what I assume can be false. Likewise not everything I "know" or believe to be true, is absolutely true. That is the nature of human experience... we are limited by our beliefs, perceptions and experiences. This applies to Con as much as it does to me or any of the readers and voters of this debate. Keep this is mind during the debate because it is relevant.I did indeed refer to KFC arguments, to put things into context. Ultimately though, as I have said and still say... this debate is focused on the first three premises, going beyond that requires another debate. Anyway... I haven't said much this round. Hopefully, the black out will not be a problem anymore and you can post a full argument. I am curious what all your comments were referring to. I look forward to reading your arguments.
Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, it has a cause.

It it unfortunate that there is a black out where I am and so I must write this round brief by mobile phone. But it is important to mention that pro is has undermined his proof in many ways. The first is his drop from a logical proof to a mere possibility.. He claim that not only what he assumes can be possibly false but what he"knows". He extends this claim universally,but he is not warranted to conclude from his knowledge that others don't have true nicknamed..He has also went against his own request to put aside the KFC argument and focus on the argument
Happy Tree Friends is a good influence on children (continued).

Now, how much is too much? Sure, it is practically necessary to convey emotion, but it is possible to go too far. Audience, are phrases such as "get real" or "AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA" really necessary? This is not a contest of displays of disdain or scorn. Sure, my opponent is attacking my points, but that does not mean that she does not aim to attack me. The phrase, "that's the stupidest idea I've ever heard" comes to mind. Consider that. Two of my opponents points have remained standing: health and what not to do. Health. Laughter helps health. Sure, but that's not all there is to it. Now, what is it that makes Happy Tree Friends stand out from other cartoons that children might watch? Its violence. Russia, a country in which thousands of people die of domestic violence, has banned Happy Tree Friends for its brutality and violence. [1] In 2008, the video game, Happy Tree Friends: False Alarm was released. It was rated M for blood, gore, and violence. [5] Numerous studies have shown that violent television shows and video games increase aggression. [2][3][4] As I stated, Happy Tree Friends and its video game fall into those categories. My opponent seems not to understand my analogy comparing Happy Tree Friends to fast food. Clearly, I must spell it out. Happy Tree Friends brings short-term benefits (happiness / savory taste), but the long-term effects are bad (aggression / generally low health [6]). Additionally, my opponent seems to insinuate that I believe that children are going to exactly mimic what they see on screen. Clearly, she didn't read the sentence, "While it's not likely that children will act so extremely, such hostile, violent behavior will still be embedded in children's minds. " [7] If she didn't read my argument, what else do you think she didn't read? What not to do. There are many things that one should not do. However, children will not learn from the Happy Tree Friends characters' mistakes. Why? Because children see them as role models. Yes, they do. Even cartoons such as The Simpsons and Tom and Jerry, which both feature violence, serve as role models. [8] [9] If children learn from the explicit violence in such cartoons, they can also learn from a cartoon of similar style known as Happy Tree Friends. I have refuted the majority of my opponent's points. Thank you, and please vote for the con. [1] . http://english.pravda.ru... [2] . http://dailyuw.com... [3] . http://www.trutv.com... [4] . http://www.aacap.org... [5] . http://www.esrb.org... [6] . http://www.newscientist.com... [7] . http://www.debate.org... [8] . http://abcnews.go.com... [9] . http://hubpages.com...
Happy Tree Friends is a good influence on children (continued).

My opponent has not yet stated his second argument, so I have created this continuation to be fair. Please do not vote on the first debate sequence, only this one. Thank you, and sorry for the inconvenience. For those of you who have not yet seen the other debate, before reading these arguments and voting please visit <http://www.debate.org...;. I await Fuchsiania's argument with anticipation.