BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Lowers Standard of Accountability

The affirmative team claimed that the application of the special recognition method leads to affirmative action towards the minorities, but failed to support the claim with logical reasoning, causal links or evidence. In fact, the usage of the affirmative action in one country is the result of government policies within that country. These policies aim to make reparations for past injustices done to a group (not necessarily a minority), or protect present vulnerabilities within the group. Furthermore, affirmative action policies can be implemented regardless of the presence of special recognition of minority clauses in the constitution. Based on the above, we believe the affirmative action policies are not a direct result of special recognition, ergo special recognition does not decrease the competency of minorities to compete for political influence in the community. Finally, the application of specific recognition of minorities as defined by the negative team aims to ensure and fortify the basic rights of the minorities that the majority already has, not to award privileges. These are the freedoms to cultural, religious, and ethnical expression, not privileged access to educational institutions, state workplaces etc. Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language.
SUMMARY

Every human being craves for recognition as part of his/her well being but that in itself should not jeopardize his/her peaceful co-existence with other people. For a group. it also crave for recognition especially if it is in the minority where it is based. However the rule of co-existence and democracy says that the majority will have their way and the minority its say. As a document binding groups, the constitution spells out the principles of co-habitation, governance and entrenches fundamental human rights. To seek to give special recognition to minority groups come with its own problem of creating sectionalism, unnecessary squabbles, lowering standard of accountability, preferential discrimination, separative tendencies. History have shown that when recognition is given to any group at all, whether majority and minority, it leads to problems highlighted. This the opposition have inadvertently brought to the fore. We propose that to ensure that the rights of the minority groups to be preserved, every nation should entrench the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights in its constitution and also insert provisions to strengthen / deepen the rule of law. This we believe will give every person whether from the majority or minority a sense of belonging thereby promoting national cohesion.
Special recognition protects and fortifies minority rights

Minorities fulfill their obligations to the state and society in the same way as the majority; it is only fair that they receive the same treatment concerning their fundamental rights. Minorities pay taxes, serve in the military, serve in juries, respect the laws and the principles of the country etc. Unfortunately, certain minority groups do not enjoy the freedoms to cultural, religious, and ethnical expression as well as other political rights. We offer two examples where the specific reason for this is the lack of special recognition in the constitution. In Bosnia and Herzegovina prior to 2010 citizens were denied the right to run for high elected office solely because their ethnic origin was not specially recognized in the constitution. Only Croats, Serbs and Bosniaks had the right to run, because they were the only ones recognized in the constitution. Finally, in December The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, in the cases of Jakob Finci and Dervo Sejdic (BiH) brought a verdict binding the government of BIH to change its constitution and recognize minority groups specifically as the only way to ensure equal rights.[[http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/features/2010/01/15/feature-02]] Roma people in Hungary were not listed in the constitution of the state, unlike the other minorities. This resulted in lesser protection of their rights, a steep decrease in their living standard, segregation and alienation from the society. The recognized minorities on the other hand, saw an increase in the living standards, acceptance from the majority and integration in the society. [[http://countrystudies.us/hungary/50.htm]] This is a clear example of the impact special recognition (and the lack of it) has on minorities.
Lack of special recognition disables the acquisition of constitutional rights

The purpose of the constitutions is to guarantee the rights, but the prop can’t take the definition as a factual confirmation that rights are protected completely simply by having a constitution. We explained the possibility of minorities not getting recognized as existing in the country, disabling the acquisition of constitutional rights. Evidence confirming our claim were provided, but were not given appropriate attention by Prop., the problem of lack of recognition was fully ignored so far. Another example on the subject is the status of the Roma people in Romania. They are not specially recognized under the Romanian Constitution as a separate minority and are not allowed to work regardless of the determination and qualification, leading to poverty, prejudice and eventually segregation. [[http://bit.ly/oNEeRX]] The Roma people are also facing horrible conditions in Greece as well; they are completely ignored and unprotected in this country. Many of them are not even given the citizen status even though they reside there [[http://bit.ly/n4gO2Y]], and having no other option, some are forced to change their cultural identity and declare themselves as Greeks in order to get their basic rights protected under the constitution. This clearly proves how the lack of SR in the constitution could result with the phenomenon of “modern assimilation” forcing minorities to give up on their culture and heritage in order to survive. Concerning the prop. claim that judicial protection without SR is sufficient: We believe that the courts can’t protect the rights of a minority that is not recognized as existing. Even if this is not the case, the example of South Africa clearly shows how the constitution stood strong against sectionalist legislature, while the courts were the first one to be corrupted. Finally, it is in the minority’s best interest to have rights guaranteed by the constitution rather than going through lengthy and expensive trials to affirm each and eve
Reality shows are driving out other sorts of programmes, so that often there is nothing else to watc...

Reality shows are driving out other sorts of programmes, so that often there is nothing else to watch. Reality TV is cheap and series can go on for months on end, providing hundreds of hours of viewing to fill schedules. TV bosses like this and are cutting back on comedy, music, drama and current affairs in favour of wall to wall reality rubbish. This is even worse when reality shows crowd the schedules of public service broadcasters. Stations such as the BBC in the UK, France Télévisions, or Rai in Italy have a duty to inform and educate the public. They should be made to meet that responsibility – as Rai has by saying it won’t have any more reality shows.
Reality TV is actually getting worse as the audience becomes more and more used to the genre. In a ...

Reality TV is actually getting worse as the audience becomes more and more used to the genre. In a search for ratings and media coverage, shows are becoming ever more vulgar and offensive, trying to find new ways to shock. Already some “Big Brother” programmes have shown men and women having sex on live TV. Others have involved fights and racist bullying. Do we let things continue until someone has to die on TV to boost the ratings?
Reality shows are bad, lazy television. They mostly show ordinary people with no special talents do...

Reality television programmes are very popular with audiences of all ages and types. They may not be high culture but most people do not want that from television. Most viewers want to be entertained and to escape for a while from the worries and boredom of their everyday life. There is no harm in giving the people what they want – that is what the free market is all about. Reality shows are also popular because they exploit new technology so that millions of people can participate in the programme – typically by voting.
Reality TV is dishonest – it pretends to show “reality” but it actually distorts the truth to suit t...

Reality TV actually has a lot of value to our society. Humans are endlessly different and endlessly interesting to other humans. In these programmes we see people like us faced with unusual situations. That makes us think about what we would do in their place, and about what principles should govern human behaviour. It also shows us people who look very different from us, and helps us see that actually we have a lot in common with them.
Reality shows send a bad message and help to create a cult of instant celebrity. These programmes s...

Reality TV provides an important social glue. Once upon a time there were only a few television channels, and everybody watched the same few programmes. The sense of a shared experience helped to bind people together, giving them common things to talk about at work and school the next day – “water cooler moments”. As the number of channels increased hugely, this sense of shared experience was lost and our sense of community went with it. Big reality TV programmes have brought that sense of shared experience back, as viewers from all social groups follow the twists and turns of each series together.
Reality shows are corrupting as they rely on humiliation and conflict to create excitement. The pro...

Reality TV programmes are not corrupting. They do reflect our society, which isn’t always perfect, but we should face up to these issues rather than censor television in order to hide them. On the other hand, reality TV can be very educational. Programmes such as “The Apprentice” have made people think about business. Jamie Oliver has raised issues of youth unemployment and poor diet, and “Fit Club” has got people thinking about health and fitness.
Reality shows are driving out other sorts of programmes, so that often there is nothing else to watc...

Television provides a wide mixture of programmes, including reality television. For those who want it, there is high quality drama such as “The Sopranos” or “Pride and Prejudice”. The BBC and other international broadcasters cover news and current affairs in great depth. Wildlife programmes bring the wonders of the natural world into our living rooms. More sports are covered in more detail than ever before. So reality shows have not ruined television as a whole. Indeed, because they make a lot of money for broadcasters to spend on other types of programmes, they are actually good for television.
Reality shows are bad, lazy television. They mostly show ordinary people with no special talents do...

Reality shows are bad, lazy television. They mostly show ordinary people with no special talents doing very little. If they have to sing or dance, then they do it badly – which doesn’t make for good entertainment. TV bosses like them because they are cheap compared to putting out shows with proper scripts, actors, musicians, etc. Even if they are popular, that doesn’t make them good programmes. It just means that some people have no taste and will watch any old rubbish. Broadcasters should be aiming at excellence, giving their viewers quality programmes which expand their cultural horizons.
Reality TV is dishonest – it pretends to show “reality” but it actually distorts the truth to suit t...

Reality TV is dishonest – it pretends to show “reality” but it actually distorts the truth to suit the programme makers. The shows are not really “real” – they are carefully cast to get a mix of “characters” who are not at all typical. Mostly they show a bunch of young, good-looking self-publicists, who will do anything to get on TV. Usually the programme makers try to ensure excitement by picking people who are likely to clash with each other. They then place them in unnatural situations, such as the Big Brother house or the Survivor island, and give them strange challenges in order to provoke them into behaving oddly. Finally the makers film their victims for hundreds of hours from all angles, but only show the most dramatic parts. Selective editing may be used to create “storylines” and so further manipulate the truth of what happened.
There is little need for academic skills without knowing how to apply them

Employers do not want people who can sit read and regurgitate well in their own words. They do not want to employ computers; we have the relevant technology for that now. Instead what we need is people who have the necessary skills to apply what they are taught academically. This is where the University system is failing. Students may have the knowledge but they do not have the skills to apply – and this is what employers need! Therefore, we should change the University system so that students are taught how to apply their knowledge.
We should not spoon feed adults

There is a huge unemployment crisis in our midst. We can not simply ignore this by claiming something along the Neanderthal lines of : every man fend for himself. As Thomas Hobbes declared and I paraphrase: Institutions bring out the civility in all of us; where civility is covering our short,mean,ugly and competitive selves with a veneer of kindness. If we forget to care; we all lose out as in Prisoners' dilemma: Nash equilibrium. We cannot let the brutish spirit that rots our very souls deny justice and humanity towards fellow human beings. We are aware of corruption/nepotism/luck/the-continuing-stable-discrepancy-between-economic-classes. We know that life isn't fair and therefore cannot stand and watch as these factors, which are no fault of the students; determine their/our fate.
It is a logical fallacy

By the argument on the right; those with natural cannot and should not be taught any thing. If someone who is naturally a brilliant writer/painter/dancer is never taught to write/paint/dance; are we not doing this person a great disservice? How can someone who isn't literate be expected to write? there are only rare cases in which novels are penned by literate persons for illiterate ones. None of these are successful works; why? As illiterate writers are never given the opportunity to perfect/hone their writing ability. Abilities are awakened and protected through training. You maybe a natural business person but if you are not aware of current contract/corporate laws then your accountant will scurry off with your money/profits. You may also go to jail for averting the payment of taxes you weren't aware of. You might also face bankruptcy because of a change in business rules.
There should be a consistent approach to both academic and entrepreneurial skills

Psychological illness, suicides/petty-crime/theft/murder/drug-abuse by the unemployed is on the rise. It is easier said then done to take the initiative. Some people apply to a hundred jobs and land squat. Others get the first job they go for. To claim the former are lazy, demotivated and not taking an initiative is just wrong. Life is unfair and it is up to Samaritans such as universities; to narrow down the gap caused by this unfairness.
It will eventually lead to the same problem.

What the problem we are facing now is that there are so many students that have degrees that there are increasingly fewer jobs for these people to fill. Instead, employers look now for entrepreneurial ability. Only a few candidates will have this. However, if Universities start gearing more and more of their resources into initiating such skills, then we will be left with the same problem. Employers will then have an abundance of students with the academic records and the entrepreneurial skills. There will then be the same problem of too few jobs for students who have the same skill set.
There is little need for academic skills without knowing how to apply them

Different universities are in different positions on the matter. A number of universities stress on skills by promoting career- counseling/related activities/groups/efforts. Lectures by successful people in your field are made compulsory. Practically usable skills: such as training to use new software related to your subject areas are also made compulsory. The claim that all universities ignore the importance of career skills is an incorrect assumption. Dartmouth in the United States for example is an employer favorite because students are not just smart like all other IVY league colleges but very well equipped with job-skills. For this reason; on average Dartmouth graduates currently make more money than alumni from any other American university. But before you start thinking I'm for the motion. Universities cannot help you once you get a job; why should they help you get one in the first place. This is an issue of independent learning versus pedagogy. Mothering students every step of the way, softens them/us.This unnatural dependence on your Alma Mater after graduation is not usually appreciated for good reason. Graduation means you've been through the ropes, you have the wings and it's up to you to fly.
We should not spoon feed adults

The age of youth is ever increasing. That comes with increasing education. We seem to be fixated with nannying any person who attends full time education. In the 60’s when most people left school when they were 14, this seemed appropriate. Then when O’ levels became increasingly accepting, even to women, the age opened to 16. Then came the widening culture of continuing education to A’ levels, this increased the age in which we nannied our children until 18. Now, because so many pupils are attending University, we are considering nannying those children till 21! The nannying should stop here. At the age of reaching University we should stop spoon feeding and leave the students to source their own skills. University is supposed to be about own study. The same should apply to the entrepreneurial skills that could be learnt whilst there.
It is a logical fallacy

It is a logical misapprehension to believe that entrepreneurial ability can be taught! The idea of being an entrepreneur is to seek opportunities, to spot niche markets, to be resourceful. If Universities start to provide lessons, if they start to provide more opportunities for students to partake in ‘entrepreneurial activities’ then there is no entrepreneurial skills required to take them! Entrepreneurial promotion by Universities will in fact lead to the demise of the resourcefulness and therefore entrepreneurial ability of students.
There should be a consistent approach to both academic and entrepreneurial skills

At the time of reaching University, students will have left an environment with pushy teachers and mere information regurgitation. University is supposed to be more about private study and taking one’s own studies into one’s own hands. The same should occur with the skills learnt. This should be down to the students own initiative rather than a University shoving ideas down the student’s throat. We should ensure a consistent approach at University, both to the academic side and the entrepreneurial side – get up, take the initiative and do it yourself!
The rebel flag's modern association with white supremacists makes it a flashpoint for racial confron...

This is an issue of freedom of speech. First Amendment rights are being trampled in the name of political correctness - hence American Civil Liberties Union opposition to banning plans. It is especially unreasonable when other flags - those of Iraq or Palestine, for example, highly contentious symbols themselves - are not subject to such bans.\ Furthermore, slaves were brought to the USA on ships sailing under the Stars and Stripes - there is no suggestion that that should be banned; rather, in many states the national flag is present by statutory requirement in every public building.
The rebel flag's modern association with white supremacists makes it a flashpoint for racial confron...

The rebel flag's modern association with white supremacists makes it a flashpoint for racial confrontation. Many support the viewpoint of the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People, who hold that it is unreasonable to ask African Americans not to react to someone wearing the rebel flag. To ask black people to respect a flag that was flown by a group whose political priority was their desire to totally subjugate and dehumanise them is unreasonable.
What is the positive contribution of this symbol? Why should the Confederate flag be regarded any di...

In a nation that encourages minorities to celebrate their own cultures more and more, to demand a cessation of such celebration regarding the culture of the South (of which this is the most vivid symbol) is little short of perverse. The Confederate flag forms a significant element of several state flags, Georgia’s being a prominent example. As such it means more than Confederacy of the past - it also means pride in the south of the present. Slavery ended nearly 150 years ago; the flag means something very different to the people that proudly display it now. A comparison with Nazism is both repulsive and unfair.
Schools should be able to outlaw this flag just as they might ban gang colours or miniskirts: all ar...

This is very different from the other ‘disruptive’ influences identified here. They have no positive contribution. On the other hand, pride in one’s region is a legitimate, even laudable passion. This is an attempt to refute Southern heritage; it shouldn’t be allowed in schools or anywhere else. In 1969 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District that school officials could not prohibit students from wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War - why can’t students show their support for their home?
Those who wish to flaunt the Confederate flag in public are backward-looking, rejecting the diversit...

It is discriminatory to ban Confederate symbols because they do not fit in with some people’s views of what the South should be like. Southerners who respect their Confederate heritage and wish to preserve traditional ways are now an embattled group, assaulted by politically correct liberals and others who want to publicise their own minority rights agenda. If we value diversity and respect each other’s cultures, why should that of the old South be uniquely singled out for attack? If others did not claim to be offended by traditional symbols, then there would be no negative publicity.
Parents who want to send their children to a fee-paying school are making a decision based on what is best for their children.

Parents who want to send their children to a fee-paying school are making a decision based on what is best for their children. They decide to use the money they have earned to give their children the best opportunities in life. What right does anyone have to tell someone else how to spend their earnings? Private schools provide parents with an alternative to the state sector, and a learning environment, which might better suit their children. All they are doing is using their money to help their children. . In addition, whilst there are many bad state schools, there are also bad private schools, and some excellent state schools which compete with the best private schools. It is clear from this last fact that state schools can be the successes that we want them to be, whilst still allowing others the right to choose a different option.