BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We Should Ban Affirmative Action

"Banning affirmative action would be too much government." Isn't it the governments job to protect it's citizens and promote equality. Affirmative action does the exact opposite. It does not promote equality as it makes it easier for minorities to get jobs, get into college ect. This is not equality at all as it discriminates against whites who do not get this buffer zone. "Now, in leaving money in their wills for their children, parents discriminate based on how different people were born. Only their own children get money from them. By my opponent's logic of banning prejudice, this would be illegal. I definitely don't want to see the state taking control of how people leave their money when they die, as the money would likely go to government." I fail to see what this has to do with affirmative action because what you do with your money is your business and you can give it to whoever you want in your will. "Finally, not all affirmative action policies involve appropriating jobs based on race or gender. For example, a black man attempting to disprove a stereotype or prejudice in the eyes of his employer would be actively trying to improve the chances of other black people being hired by this employer. Hard work incentivized by the elimination of a stereotype should in no way be banned." The employer can hire any one they want as long as they keep to the minority laws. These laws state that a certain amount of minorities have to be represented at your company based on the amount in your area. These laws take jobs away from more qualified non-minorities. "How does one prove an action to stem from affirmative action, rather than some other reason? Just because the employer is Hispanic, and the chosen employee is Hispanic, doesn't mean that the employee was chosen because he was Hispanic." You prove it by if someone of a different race of the employer was better qualified by someone of the same race but did not get the job. "My opponent claims that danger is a justification for banning affirmative action. For one thing, danger is not present in all jobs; therefore, this contention can't even address the entire debate." Well then lets at least ban it in workplaces that have dangerous an environment. And I yet to hear any arguments you make to justify it. All you have done so far is a poor job at countering my arguments.
We Should Ban Affirmative Action

My opponent claims that affirmative action should be banned. I have numerous contentions against this: 1. Banning affirmative action would be too much government. Why should actions that my opponent deems unfair be made banned? Just because he disagrees with its fairness, doesn't mean that other people see it that way. If AA is banned, other people will complain that it is unfair to restrict their own freedoms. Such freedoms would include the freedom of speech (as any rallies for a specific minority of people would be viewed as an effort to promote their rights, especially given how corrupt a government can become through loose interpretation), and the freedom to do what one one wants with their own property. Now, in leaving money in their wills for their children, parents discriminate based on how different people were born. Only their own children get money from them. By my opponent's logic of banning prejudice, this would be illegal. I definitely don't want to see the state taking control of how people leave their money when they die, as the money would likely go to government. My opponent claims that it is unfair for a job to be given based on race. True. However, this is not a reason for the government to step in and ban such a practice. Finally, not all affirmative action policies involve appropriating jobs based on race or gender. For example, a black man attempting to disprove a stereotype or prejudice in the eyes of his employer would be actively trying to improve the chances of other black people being hired by this employer. Hard work incentivized by the elimination of a stereotype should in no way be banned. 2. Such a ban would be impractical. How does one prove an action to stem from affirmative action, rather than some other reason? Just because the employer is Hispanic, and the chosen employee is Hispanic, doesn't mean that the employee was chosen because he was Hispanic. My opponent claims that danger is a justification for banning affirmative action. For one thing, danger is not present in all jobs; therefore, this contention can't even address the entire debate. Additionally, if a person hires a less-skilled person, that's his own problem, and he'll feel it in his wallet after the affirmative action employee falls behind due to lack of necessary skill. In conclusion, affirmative action should not be banned, because it would lead to too much government over an issue that is very minor when government does not get itself involved, and people will naturally tend not to apply affirmative action, so the issue would eventually whittle itself away.
We Should Ban Affirmative Action

Affirmative action: an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups and women; also : a similar effort to promote the rights or progress of other disadvantaged persons http://www.merriam-webster.com... Affirmative action is an unfair prejudiced of races and gender. It puts white males at a disadvantage because of how they were born. Affirmative action can also be dangerous to people around them. If a white male is the most qualified for a job he might not get it because he is white. A black or Hispanic that is not as qualified for job might get it instead. If this is a dangerous job they could put their coworkers in danger. In 1973 and 1974 The Medical School at the University of California at Davis reserved sixteen of its one hundred slots for "special case" students. In 1974 a white applicant named Allan Bakke was denied admission even though his test scores and grades were better than most of the students accepted through the "special case" http://plato.stanford.edu... It does not make since, that because of how someone was born they can either gain an advantage on everyone else.
life is a competition and you inevitably trample over others to achieve what you want....

Rebuttals: Firstly, The debate isn't that competition is good or not. It is that whether we inevitably trample others or not. Secondly, my idea of presenting the example of Bill Gates is that when he was not a known person and when he left Harvard then there were companies who had great people and money to do but he worked hard and achieved. And today many people have different goals and don't even look to achieve that high. And the one who works harder achieves. Btw, I am 16 but as I said the one of us who works harder will be the one to win. Round 2: I say that trampling is bad simply because it results in the undeserving achieving. The one who tramples is too afraid of competition. for e.g Tiger woods became a legend in golf and became so respected and then it was found out that he was doing D.O.P. And all those life time achievements,respect gone in a second. He was trampling others by taking illegal drugs that enhanced his performance so it was trampling but what did it eventually achieve him so keeping in mind the real topic of the debate. Thankyou
life is a competition and you inevitably trample over others to achieve what you want....

I will keep it short......I think that no one can trample others or even get trampled if they work hard enough because the person who achieves is the person who works harder. A person competes with himself to get better and better everyday. No doubt that competition may be healthy and promote a person to work harder but it does not mean that a person who loses or comes 2nd has been trampled over. Take the example of Justin Bieber for example (some hate him but he still has 50 million followers around the world) he came 2nd in the competition in his town in a singing competition but was he trampled? NO. He worked hard toward his goal. Another example can be of Bill gates. He left Harvard university but was he trampled? NO. He worked hard in computers and today his company(Microsoft) is one of the best in the world. Anna Jameson once said "the only competition worthy a wise man is with himself"
The Illuminati is run by the all knowing sentient cows of Canada.

The pro began the last round by saying that I am unsure of myself. I have a question for you pro, did I once say that i'm not sure of myself? Just to be clear I didn't. The statement "I am attempting to make" does not imply self-doubt, but is rather my way of saying "let me show you why i'm right". The pro then went on to mention things such the American dream (which is dead but that's an entirely different debate topic), Arbys, and then topped it all off with an opinionated graph about people liking bacon. The pro's entire 3rd round argument was filled with fallacious/irrelevant remarks, and did not help him in any way. The pro has left me with nothing to counter, so I have nothing more to offer to this debate.
The Illuminati is run by the all knowing sentient cows of Canada.

Ok, that last round... that didn't happen. As for the debate, all of those points previously stated were invalid and let me tell you why. You said, and I quote, "I will close out this round with a few charts that will assist in the point I am attempting to make." Simply put, you are not sure of yourself. You claim to be "attempting" to prove something true rather than than asserting it to be true. This is a critical debating error, I would know as I am a master debater. Nevertheless, this uncertainty of your "facts" brings down your argument validity down to a zero whereas nobody will believe that you are even "attempting" to persuade them. Because here in America, if you don't believe in yourself, then you will never accomplish your wildest dreams. The dreams your childhood was made of. The dreams wish for on your birthdays. The dreams that will be the downfall of your sanity if you don't spend the rest of your life chasing them down and living them out as you wonder what the real meaning of them are. Because in reality, life is only a temporary state of consciousness until we all die out in painful deaths filled with grief and despair. But please, enjoy Arby's™. And here is a chart that assertively illustrates why you are wrong, thank you for time.
The Illuminati is run by the all knowing sentient cows of Canada.

Although I am not a strong believer of the illuminati, in this debate I will be arguing that it would make much more sense for an organization of the caliber to be run by homosapiens rather than cows. I will close out this round with a few charts that will assist in the point I am attempting to make. . http://restoreourplanetdiet.com... . http://www.wsj.com...From these 2 charts we can conclude that as of today the average human is living almost 4 times longer than the natural lifespan of a cow. Though that's only the "Natural" lifespan of a cow, in reality we all know that most cows won't be reaching that lucky number of 20. Many cows will be sent to the slaughter house in a matter of years. In my opinion if cows can't manage to live past 5 years then they are not capable of creating an organization that "is watching our each and every movement. " Though unlike cows, humans have managed to steadily increase their lifespan over the years. Increase in lifespan show's a species ability to adapt to it's surroundings and flourish. This is why it would make much more sense for humans to be behind the illuminati rather than the species that is also referred to as beef jerky. I await the pro's response.
The Illuminati is run by the all knowing sentient cows of Canada.

Okay, let's start this bad boy off by saying that you are already wrong. The Illuminati, as we all know, is watching our each and every movement. Their ultimate reign is coming. It's inevitable. And who, might you ask, is leading this elite force of unstoppable "evil doers"? Why, it can only be the only sensible option out there: the sentient cows of Canada! Many make fallacious claims such as, "But how can one organization be run by some soon-to-be hamburgers?" These ignorant people have absolutely no idea what they're talking about because they're hypocrites who only want some more fattening hamburgers to fill themselves with because they gain pleasure from being incredibly fat. Illuminati expert, Austin Cummings, exclaimed that "Cows are our superiors and are much more intelligent than most humans and should be treated with such respect and because our lack of respect for them they have devised a group called the Illuminati and one that is parallel to that what was created in 1774. Their Illuminatious influence is present in everyday lives their evil subjects named vegans have tried to take over the world but have been suppressed" This accurate statement now proves this already know fact true because this perfectly credible source says so.
USA Education Grade Inflation

I do agree that students are more motivated today than they were 20 or 30 years ago. However, with little leeway between grades, it is not fair for the top student to receive an A+ and for all close competitors to receive A+'s or A's. In this instance, it is difficult to distinguish between the two. Take the example of a curved test score. In Class A there is a student who get a 100. There would be no curve. The highest score in Class B (let's say it's the same subject and teacher just different periods) is an 80. There's a curve. How is it fair to students of Class A? It is not at all. Students of Class A who received an 80 knew the same amount of information as the student in Class B, but the two of them will receive different grades. Curves aren't exactly the same as grade inflation, but they effect one another.
USA Education Grade Inflation

First, I want to say that I accept the challenge. Now that I have done that; let's get started. My Argument: I would have to disagree with you. Have you ever thought that maybe kids just want to succeed? Therefore, they are getting better grades than in previous years and they work hard for those grades? This system of A, B, C, D, E (or F wherever you live) is something that gives a kid the desire to do better if that kid receives anything with a C or lower. If a kid gets an A; he or she get a sense of accomplishment which would give them an enhanced desire to do better. I think it is a perfect system.
USA Education Grade Inflation

In America, more than 40 percent of students in high-level education institutions receive grades in the A range. Overtime the average GPA of students has increased. Have A's lost value over time? Do students deserve the grades they receive or do students need to work less and less to obtain A's? How can students be accurately evaluated based on their abilities and intelligence if grades are "capped" at an A+? Are there anyways to go about fixing this situation? Should grades be "uncapped" similar to the inflation of common products such as homes, cars, or bread?
Teens should have adult legal rights and responsibilities

I don't agree with you. Your theories may sound good on paper, but in reality they would not work in the slightest. Teenagers are not contributing to society with restrictive rights; why should we provide them with more rights? They have to prove themselves, like everybody has to. It may not seem fair at times, but parents are there to offer you guidance. They are there to help you make decisions on situations in which you are unsure of how to react. You go to school to gain mental ability; you experience things to better your judgment. The two are different, but you need both. The reasons that adults have more legal rights is because they know how to react better, because they have tested their judgment. Most know what is good and bad. Most teens may believe they know what is right for them. Their parents need to help guide their decisions. Anyone who has raised a teenager would agree with this. Teens' brains may be fully capable - but they still require more tests of judgment. Your argument is silly; you sound like a teenager who is complaining about not being able to get something. Why is it silly? The legal system is set up to protect teenagers - to give them a second chance in life. But this policy is not just for teens; why do you think the US offers bail? The legal system wants to provide a second chance to its victims. And not to crowd prisons. Your argument sounds good on paper. It sounds fair and just; but wait till you applied it to the real world. Wait till you saw the effect it had on our young population. I'll say this to potential voters: if you are a parent, think of your child being completely independent from you. Think about how they would utilize their legal rights. Most don't even know what legal rights they are granted under the current system. My argument might not be as fair-sounding, but it is true. Teens need parental guidance. The world has changed since the Industrial Revolution. Parents need to serve some role in their teens' lives.
Teens should have adult legal rights and responsibilities

1. How about you post some of these articles and websites that you're getting your facts from, and then maybe this debate could be a bit more honest. http://drrobertepstein.com... Dr Robert Epstein - Myth of the teen brain http://drrobertepstein.com... Dr Robert Epstein – Teen 2.0 reviews http://www.johntaylorgatto.com... John Taylor Gatto - School As Religion http://en.wikipedia.org... John Taylor Gatto – Quote from wikipedia “John Taylor Gatto (born December 15, 1935) is a retired American school teacher with nearly 30 years experience in the classroom, and author of several books on education. He is an activist critical of compulsory schooling, of the perceived divide between the teen years and adulthood, and of what he characterizes as the hegemonic nature of discourse on education and the education professions.” 2. Give me some proof about your brain development theory. Give me some proof about some of these things you are criticizing me for; and maybe they are true, but I am not going to risk being scammed by you. I won't put up with it. I just did 3. You gain knowledge from experience - or so says the dictionary. And I thought that, for most people, that was a given. Then why do we go to school to gain knowledge? 4. When politicians talk about their experience, they are talking about their political knowledge. They may be talking about their childhood experiences or past experiences working as politicians. 5. So experience does make you wiser; it can provide you with better judgement, etc. What if you don't learn anything from those experiences? You can spend 12 years in a classroom and not learn anything. 6. Without experience, teenagers cannot make true, fact-based decisions. I said this in #5, you can have all the experience, it doesn't mean you will USE your past experience later on to make wise decisions. 7. This is where a parent comes in - to offer the teenager guidance. Just like adults, if a parent is needed, the teen can ask them for advice. Adults do that sometimes, but adults can make healthcare decisions, leave home without their parents permission, and can get a job without their parents' permission with no medical papers. Teens should be able to do that too and should pay their own bills and be treated as adults. The concept of "adolescence" should be abolished. 8. Government is like parenthood - it may seem pointless, but it, in fact, makes our lives better. Government is here to make laws and parents are here to raise human beings. They are 2 different things.
Teens should have adult legal rights and responsibilities

High school was created when they wanted to keep people in schools for extended periods of time and keep them out of the workforce. Before the industrial revolution, people got married at 13 and had full adult rights at puberty.1. I may want more rights - like when my parents are fussing at me or I simply want my own space - but, I don't see why we need them.Why do adults need them? For the same reason teens need them.2. "Even at 70 your brain is still developing because the synopses in your brain reconnect constantly based on your experience..."I meant that outside factors and not age influence the brain, after the age of 12 or 13. teens experience things like going to school, which is what influences their brains. If everyone went to work at 13, their brains would look different. That's what I met by that statement.3. But, teenagers haven't had a good taste of experience quite yet.Having experience doesn't make you wiser. You can spend 12 years in a classroom and not learn anything. And I always knew what smoking can result in and never did it and never will.4. Laws will inform them what they can and cannot do; and a majority of teens do not want to break the law.Did you hear about the 18th amendment (alcohol prohibition) and people still broke the law despite alcohol being prohibited. Should we take away their rights? And age is an arbitrary, illogical way of determining whether someone should have these rights. Laws should have enough flexibility to distinguish the maturity of each individual.5. Teens are not following the rules under restrictive laws; imagine what they'll do under less restrictive laws.History says the opposite. Before the industrial revolution, people got married at 13 and had full adult rights at puberty. High school never existed. Teens did just fine. In the feudal period teens had adult rights at puberty and did just fine. There was never a concept of "adolescence" before the industrial revolution.
Teens should have adult legal rights and responsibilities

Teens have very little control over their lives. They can't make healthcare decisions, even when they have the mental ability to decide for themselves. They can't get a job without their parents' permission and permission from the state based on a medical exam, if they leave home without their parents' permission they can be reported as a runaway, returned home against their will and placed in the juvenile system and anything they buy, even with their own money can be taken from them by their parents at any time for any reason. They are forced in to a school system where their significance is diminished and they are forced to become dependent on their parents, who are only required to provide basic needs but make everything else a "privilege." The modern school system was created in Prussia to produce: 1. Obedient workers for the mines. 2. Obedient soldiers for the army. 3. Well subordinated civil servants to government. 4. Well subordinated clerks to industry. 5. Citizens who thought alike about major issues. Adolescence was created when they wanted to keep people in schools for extended periods of time and keep them out of the workforce. Before the industrial revolution, people got married at 13 and had full adult rights at puberty. Rights come with responsibilities. Teens should have jobs and support themselves, and they should be tried as adults for their crimes. There were claims that the brain is not fully developed till 25. Our brains develop throughout life. Even at 70 your brain is still developing because the synopses in your brain reconnect constantly based on your experience, when your 40, your brain will be different at 70, but it doesn't necessarily make you wiser. Someone who is always angry is different than someone who is always happy.