BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Affirmative Action

Affirmative action is not a "law" -- it's not a requirement imposed by the government -- and even if it were, it doesn't require that "businesses and schools maintain an equal amount of all race groups." Even in a "simple sense" (my opponent's words), affirmative action is not, and has never been, about admitting an equal number of blacks and hispanics as whites in college admisions. Affirmative action, per my opponent's definition, is a "policy of favoring members of a disadvantaged group who suffer from discrimination within a culture." The key words there are "policy" and "favoring." The specific policies that a university or business employs are subject to change; circumstances and history determine the "members of a disadvantaged group" and "suffer from discrimination" parts. Today, blacks and hispanics fall into that category, so that's where the debate focuses.1. Affirmative action doesn't prevent universities from considering "skill" in admissions. Universities simply consider race as one factor among many in their admissions. In fact, in the United States, universities aren't allowed to use racial quotas or set-asides; they must review candidates holistically. [6]2. Businesses and universities aren't forced to do anything; they choose affirmative action. And there are multiple reasons why they do that. Businesses want a diverse workplace because a diverse workplace is good for business. [1] [2] [3] And universities want a diverse student-body because a diverse student-body is good for learning, expands wordliness, enhances social development, promotes creative thinking, and prepares student for work in a global society. [4] [5] 3. The fact that whites are the majority -- 77.7% according to my opponent -- is irrelevant. Affirmative action isn't about giving minority groups more workspace than the majority. It's not about equal numbers. Affirmative action is about improving businesses and improving college experiences for everyone, including white folks. It's also about recognizing the adversity that blacks and hispanics (and other disadvantaged groups like women or homosexuals) face, and remedying the effects of unlawful discrimination. Also note that one of the main reasons blacks and hispanics appear to have less "skills" than whites is because they face more adversity, they're disproportionately poorer, go to worse schools, etc.Affirmative action remedies the harms of unlawful discrimination and improves the success of businesses and improves college experiences.== Sources==[1] https://www.americanprogress.org...[2] http://www.entrepreneur.com...[3] http://www.forbes.com...[4] https://www.americanprogress.org...[5] http://www.usnews.com...[6] http://www.supremecourt.gov...;
Affirmative Action

A quick debate for the first responder! I'm doing this to prepare for an argumentative speech and broaden my perspective on the topic. Post first rebuttal here if you are interested. I will be playing the con-affirmative action side of the debate, as that's what my speech is about. ==========="Affirmative action or positive discrimination (known as employment equity in Canada, reservation in India and Nepal, and positive action in the UK) is the policy of favoring members of a disadvantaged group who suffer from discrimination within a culture."[1]Affirmative action, in a simple sense, is a law that requires businesses and schools to maintain an equal amount of all race groups in their business. They do this to "keep things equal". However, I do not believe this to be true for many reasons. For one, affirmative action is a program resulting from racism, but it only highlights racism. It forces employers and college admission representatives to think along race, and not skill, when deciding who works/attends at the facility. Not only that, but affirmative action is basically saying that the majority should not dominate the work force. That's like saying that the smallest child should get the largest slice of pie, and not the large man with a bigger appetite. Thanks to quickfacts.census.gov, we know the population of whites, black, and other ethnic groups and about what percent of America they occupy. White people come out at a stunning 77.7%.[2]This is just ridiculous that they need to make a law that gives minority groups more workspace than the majority. My third and final point rests with a touchy subject. Not to be racist, but it is the blatant truth that the high school graduation percent of whites is higher than other minority groups.[3] As of 2012, the white population's dropout rate was at roughly 4 percent, while the black population's dropout rate was at 8 percent, doubling white. The Hispanic people's dropout rate trumped that at 13 percent. Them already being minority groups, even less of the percentage of them are qualified to get a position in the jobs that are heavily affected by affirmative action. In conclusion, I believe that affirmative action is, contrary to popular belief, unfair in itself to the white demographic and only highlights racism. The white population is higher, and their dropout rates are lower, so of course they will have more potential employees than other minority groups. I don't think that people should be surprised that there are more of a majority group running a business. The concept should be obvious. Affirmative action forces employers to think about race when making their decision on who to give jobs, when that is exactly what the law is trying to prevent. Sources:1: http://en.wikipedia.org...2: http://quickfacts.census.gov...3: https://nces.ed.gov...
The United States should not accept any Syrian refugees

Setting up a safezone in Syria would be far more difficult than simply letting people into this country. "Consider your families. Consider your friends." I am considering the dying, poor family in Syria, ruined by years of war, death, and destruction, who would give anything to come to a free country. I am considering the people who need our help the most. I am considering America's core principles, and our most basic values as human beings. I am fighting for humanity. I am fighting for compassion. I am fighting for freedom. Great job and thank you for the debate!
The United States should not accept any Syrian refugees

First off, this has been a good argument and I appreciate your input. America is at a crossroads. We must debate whether we want to put our families at risk or accept people who we can almost guarantee to hide terrorists in their mix. It is being made out to be a hard choice but for me the decision is easy to make. As a whole. these people are fleeing oppression and pain. We should help them. However, helping them should not mean that we sacrifice our nation's safety and sanctity. We should ensure they have a home, set up a safe zone in Syria, and look for solutions that would make their homeland a suitable home. Consider your families. Consider your friends.
The United States should not accept any Syrian refugees

First, you are saying "them." You're implying that these people are defined by the fact that they're refugees. Why should innocent people be kept out for the mistakes of others? Why should innocent people not be accepted as our "compatriots?" What you're proposing is alienating these refugees, and putting them in special "camps" because they might pose a danger to the public. That is completely immoral. All people deserve equal freedoms. By denying these refugees the freedoms they deserve, you are contradicting America's founding principles. "As to your point that terrorists can "use brute force" to enter our country, that is a reality. But these other threats can be minimized as well. Probably our most glaring lapse in security would be our borders. This threat can be minimized through increased border security measures. Will the threat ever completely disappear? Absolutely not! However, we should take this step to protect ourselves. Any reasonable step to minimize the threat to our fellow Americans is a good one." The threat is equal either way." I agree with background checks, of course a terrorist should not be allowed to enter this country. But laws like this have always had minimal effects on any crime rates, because they are fundamentally flawed and anti-human (simply think about the illegal immigrant crisis-this is essentially the same situation).
The United States should not accept any Syrian refugees

Our nation is a moral nation. This is an unarguable. Just because we turn away refugees doesn't mean we are causing them harm. We could take measures to ensure that they are not harmed while still ensuring that our fellow Americans are safe. For example, we could set up safe zones in Syria. If we were to do this, they would have a safe area for them to live in (with the added bonus of it being close to home) while at the same time, minimizing the threat to our compatriots. But in the end, they cannot come here. It is not a betrayal of American values to keep them out. It would be a morally depraved act to allow our friends and families to be put in harms way. As to your point that terrorists can "use brute force" to enter our country, that is a reality. But these other threats can be minimized as well. Probably our most glaring lapse in security would be our borders. This threat can be minimized through increased border security measures. Will the threat ever completely disappear? Absolutely not! However, we should take this step to protect ourselves. Any reasonable step to minimize the threat to our fellow Americans is a good one.
The United States should not accept any Syrian refugees

It is both completely wrong and anti-American to base a law that could harm millions of people based off of a partial result (drawing absolutes from majorities). The fact that some Syrian refugees are terrorists is not enough grounds to ban millions of innocent people from entering our nation. Lastly, criminals and terrorists who truly will use brute force to achieve their means are ignorant to the law; they will always find an alternate means of entering a country.
The United States should not accept any Syrian refugees

Thanks for accepting. Our nation is under constant threat. Few areas of the world propose a larger threat than that of Syria. ISIS and other Islamic extremist groups have been running rampant in the region for years now. They are potential threats that we cannot take lightly. Currently there is no way to ensure that we would be safe if there were terrorists in the lot of refugees. It would be impossible to predict who is and who isn't a terrorist. This has been reiterated by plenty, including FBI director James Comey, who has said that "we can only query against that which we have collected and so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing show up because we have no record of them." Being that Syria is a literal intelligence hell hole, it would be impossible to vet these people. So what would the vetting process come down to if we have no real information on the people we are trying to bring into our country? It would come down to a series of weak testing. As Time magazine describes in the article I'll link at the end, the refugees would be interviewed and their information will be run through criminal databases. But if they never made a "ripple in the pond in Syria," there will be no information to verify that they are genuine asylum seekers and not terrorists. There is simply no way to verify the asylum seekers. As Eric Bolling said in a great analogy yesterday on Fox News, would you drink a cup of coffee if you knew there was a single virus in it? Of course not! The temporary reward and good feeling would be shattered by the incoming disease and suffering. It is not a risk we should take when it comes to our friends and families. We should not put ourselves in harms way. Sources: Http://www.youtube.com.... "Jim Comey Testifies on Syrian Refugees." YouTube. YouTube, 21 Oct. 2015. Web. 03 Apr. 2016 Link to make it easier: Altman, Alex. "This Is How the Syrian Refugee Screening Process Works." Time. Time, 17 Nov. 2015. Web. 03 Apr. 2016 Link to make it easier: http://time.com...
The United States should not accept any Syrian refugees

I believe that the United States would be doing their citizens a disservice by accepting Syrian refugees. Context: President Obama has said to the people of the United States that we will accept 10,000 refugees from war torn Syria. This has been met with staunch opposition from most Republicans and even some people from the President's own party. Rules: 1. First Round is only for acceptance and making a basic statement on your view. 2. No forfeiting. 3. Be respectful, site your sources or post the links at the end of each round, make clear, valid points. 4. No trolling. Format: Round 1: Acceptance of debate Round 2: Intro into your argument, offer a broad outline of your main points with sources you plan to use outright. Round 3: Counter-Argument/Further main points, use this round to further your main points or in order to argue against my main points. (Post any additional sources) Round 4: Conclusion and closing statements
Boxing Bans

The goal in boxing IS to hurt your opponent severely that he can not get up. 1)http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com... This article explains the goal of boxing. You are right when you say that the goal in boxing is not to knock somebody out, the term Knockout is used in boxing, but not necessarily meaning that there was a knock out (this is explained the article 1.). The goal of football is to score: To Score you need the ball; To get the ball you need to tackle; Not purposely injuring the other opponent (This goes for your "American football" and for my football) 2)https://www.ncaa.org...) 3)http://www.traumaticbraininjury.net... These articles will help you compare the risk of damage between the two sports . No matter what the statistics, boxing will be more dangerous than football because the aim IS to injure, severely or not, the opponent. Football does not have that aim. As the following article will explain: 4)http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com... No that I have made counter arguments to your argument, i would like to finalize this debate with a few Points of my own; Boxing exploits young men (and sometimes women now). Some start before the age of ten. They often don"t have enough education to make a proper decision about the risks of their sport even once they are adults. Boxing makes violence look cool. The money and fame a few champion boxers get for hitting people sends the wrong message to young people. Boxing is a sport that should take no place in a modern, civilized society Boxing is unlike any other sport. The aim of boxing is to hurt the other man, and above all to knock him out. The sport appeals to the worst and most violent parts of human nature. Such a savage sport has no place in modern society. We should not let men( or women) do this to each other. We should not offer money to encourage them to fight. Thank you for the privilege of this debate, it has been fun and time-consuming.~ Voters, i would like you to vote fairly, thank you.
Boxing Bans

Some people may think that boxing should be outlawed because it is too dangerous. For example, they argue that the main objective in the game is a knockout, and you are purposely injuring your opponent. While they argue that boxing includes a great risk of head trauma, this is only because many professional boxers suffer from it. However, this claim is invalid because there is no goal to hurt your opponent. In boxing you score points by hitting the designated spots on the body, not just trying to knock somebody out. Also, in football the goal is to tackle others, even sometimes injuring them, and yet football is not banned. While people argue that the sport should be outlawed because of its danger, boxing has no goal of hurting anybody.
Boxing Bans

"Boxing is a safe way to earn money quickly"..... Boxing is not safe, period. "Approximately 500 boxers have died in the ring or as a result of boxing" According to my evidence from; http://www.independent.co.uk... SO BOXING IS NOT SAFE! Boxing can be the EASIEST way to earn money quickly, but it is definitely not the safest. Boxing is the most likely way for people to obtain brain injuries as it consists of various blows to the head. It should have no place in a civilized or a poor society. "Boxing is a special case: no other sport has the express goal of inflicting injury on the brain" Meaning that other contact sports have no need to be banned, boxing is "a special case". Boxing is a really cheap sport to get into, the only requirements are astounding body strength, amateur boxing training, and a license. But putting poverty stricken people into danger like that isn"t a good idea. Boxing is people blowing at their heads and injuries, blood and gore. Not recommended for anyone.
Boxing Bans

One reason boxing should not be outlawed is because it allows people to get out of poverty. Boxing is a good way for teens to help out in their family without too many duties or extra stress. Some teens feel the need to help their family if they are in financial trouble, and boxing is a safe way to earn money quickly. Boxing is an inexpensive and also an easy way for families to earn money. Boxing doesn't require any equipment other than a glove, meaning it's accessible for poverty stricken people. A perfect example of how people bounce back after poverty is Manny Pacquaio. Manny grew up in extreme poverty and had to live in the streets, forced to quit school. But now, Pacquaio is a known boxer, and is used as a symbol of hope for how far he has come. Boxing allows people to get out of poverty, yet many people want to outlaw it.
Boxing Bans

Wo woh woh, you are saying that children BENIFIT out of boxing! The aim of "the game" is world peace, and how can this be achieved through violence as a way to profit? Before we can get to say why boxing should be outlawed, we need to see exactly what boxing is. Evidence 1.) http://www.thesaurus.com... Boxer: a person who fights as a sport, usually with gloved fists, according to set rules; prize-fighter; pugilist. Did you see that term "prize-fighter". It is someone who uses violence to earn money. Violence (or even attempt/conspiracyto it) is against the law, but for some reason the government decided to outrule this because it makes money. The only thing that people seem to care about. Evidence 2.) https://www.hg.org... The purpose of assault law is to deter people from exhibiting aggressive, threatening behavior toward others, even if physical contact does not actually occur. You see! It shouldn"t be right to set bad examples for children. Luring them towards the path of violence. You also said that it keeps children out of trouble. Boxing is a business, just like any other. Except this one includes violence and messing with the wrong people will bring you trouble for sure. It is a violent act worth being prosecuted for-
Boxing Bans

"Boxing has kept me off the streets, stops me smoking and gives me something to do," says Billy Joe Saunders. Saunders is a professional boxer who currently holds the title for WBO middleweight champ. People have been arguing that boxing should be banned for many reasons. They say that it's dangerous and too physical, but what about other contact sports? Will those sports be banned as well? Boxing should not be outlawed because it allows people to get out of poverty, teaches young people self defense, keeps kids off of the streets, and out of problems. Although there are some dangers to boxing, it should not be outlawed.
Islam is evil

I would like to start by asking you to read a book! Preferably on the Islamic religion and you will see how incredibly similar to Judaism and Christianity it is try this link (https://en.wikipedia.org...). Then I would like to remind you that because of religious people like yourself who have no grasp of their own religion, caused one of the most bloody wars in history called the Holy Crusades. You cannot be a savage because you have a different belief than others, the religion is not evil, very much like how a gun is not evil or a sword. Its just the nutter who justifies murder and war with it.
Only In Certain Circumstances Is Abortion Ethical

I read the links you provided and they sure do give some interesting arguments. I even remember a few years ago I read a book with testimonials from street kids in Canada who discussed the horrors they experienced in their foster homes. How some girls were sexually assaulted, and such. So I definitely agree that adoption agencies are definitely not at their prime and many children in foster homes may end up turning into crime like the kids in that book I read, but does that really make abortion ethical? Does that really justify terminating an unborn child's life? Plus the world isn't black and white, its grey. While there obviously are children in foster care who get into crime, really the majority don't. The majority end up as good working citizens. Now looking at that Wikipedia article you showed on the effect of legalized abortion of crime, particularly this sentence: "it is argued that the legalization of abortion in the United States, largely due to the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, has reduced crime in the late 20th and early 21st centuries." Ever heard of the word coincidence? In Canada (where I'm from if you hadn't noticed), Liberal politicians tried to use the decline of crime in the country as evidence to prove that the Youth Criminal Justice Act the left-wing gov't had passed worked. Thing was though crime was already in the decline way before the act was enacted. This is what those who believe in this imaginary link between abortion and crime are doing as well. Using a coincidence as empirical evidence, even though it isn't. Also you state that you don't consider fetuses as human beings unless they can feel pain. Animals can feel pain, does that make them human as well? A fetus is human no matter how young they are, no matter if they can feel or not, they are composed of human DNA you know. Just like to point out that I am a woman myself so of course I am for women to have the opportunity to get a great career. And its just fine if woman want to have a sex life before settling down, just really be careful not to get pregnant. And even if they end up conceiving a child at some point again, it points back to my argument that there should be TWO lives to consider not one. The woman should (again) consider not only what's best for her but for her unwanted child. Check this out http://www.babycenter.ca... What a baby looks like at twelve weeks. I personally believe that people who are pro-choice are because they can't see or hear the fetus, so they won't care. Maybe I'm getting to emotional on this subject but again its just how I feel. Everyone has a right to live, and I don't believe that just because the what you call potential human being is inside a woman that the woman has the right to play God and terminate the child just because they don't want them. At any time of the pregnancy. Only, like I said before, when their lives are in danger or the child would end up as a vegetable for their entire life could abortion be ethical because abortion is the last resort.