BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Multiculturalism promotes healthier new generations

The proposition has built this argument over a major assumption- that multiculturalism will lead to harmony. The idea is attractive. What could be more harmonious than marriage? However the reality is somewhat different. Inter-ethnic marriages did little to lessen conflicts in Rwanda, Ireland, and the former Czechoslovakia. In European nations such as France and UK, the clash of values and the promotion of differences through multiculturalism have drastically increased right-wing sentiment, evident in the rise of populist governments led by politicians like Le Pen. We would like to point out the fact that the proposition has provided why genetic diversity is good, but has not given a link to multiculturalism, further than that it facilitates the proximity necessary for cross-breeding. Cultures themselves are not genetically encoded, and will not automatically be passed on. In fact, we argue that the likelihood is a mass assimilation into pop culture, and a blurring of cultural lines as they fail to be passed on. Will the child of an intercultural marriage be expected to maintain both cultures in any sort of depth? How about the grandchild whose parents are both of mixed ethnic descent? What we have seen in North America and Australia is that by the 3rd and 4th generations, cultural heritage, heroes, and perspectives have been subjugated to an almost tyrannical pop culture. Many have mourned the loss of a sense of community and traditions. Sure, it’s fun to walk down the street in Vancouver with a samosa in one hand and sushi cone in the other, but cultural symbols like these can hardly replace the richness of perspective, history, and shared experience they represent, nor can the reality of such cultures be appreciated by the casual consumer. We beg the Proposition to make it clear whether they are advocating for genetic diversity or cultural diversity, as the likelihood of multiculturalism bringing about both seems naïve.
Summary

The main contention of the proposition in this debate is that multiculturalism is a very succesful policy because it promotes the well-being of a society by facilitating advancement and progress by advancing cultural exchange in both products and ideas, by increasing the tolerance in societies and by promoting healthy new generations. The opposition stated that problems of discrimination or language barriers will be the basic obstacles to implement such policy. However, we believe that discrimination level at work depends on how much people educated and tolerant are and the problem of language barrier is not sufficient enough to reject all the benefits that we get. Multiculturalism policy is exactly aimed at reducing discrimination and promoting open-mindness thinking. The opposition stated that multiculturalism is fundamentally incompatible with the idea of liberal democracies. However, we tackle this argument by stating quite the opposite: multiculturalism is in fact essential for the development of a liberal democracy because it makes people constantly question, adapt and change their values as well as accept new values which is what the definition of a liberal democracy entails in the first place. While we acknowledge that there might be a clash of different values, we say that this clash is fundamentally solvable because as members of different cultures interact with the society, they also tend to change shift some of their own values and adapt new ones. Finally, the opposition stated that if this happens, it is a bad things because cultural values are universal and they should be preserved but we do not agree with this contention. We submit that all cultural values are means to an end and while cultural values might not be "universally bad", cultures might outgrow some of their own values and change them and if this happens, this is a positive thing.
Multiculturalism is antithetical to liberal democracy‏.

Multiculturalism as a policy is founded on an impossibility, since in making space for all values, it provides support for none, including those behind multiculturalism itself. Prop has pointed to liberal democracies as the focus of their argument for multiculturalist policies. Ironically, the reality of multiculturalism is antithetical to the principles of liberal democracy, in that providing support for all cultures to operate freely in the same framework entails a tacit acceptance of oppressive practices such as genital mutilation, the suppression of women’s rights, even child abuse. These stand in direct opposition to liberal ideologies. Britain, with its ethnic pluralism and openness to different religions, provides us with a good example of the naivete of multiculturalist policies. The London bombings of 7 July, and the abortive bombings of 21 July testify that truly open and egalitarian policies are overly optimistic. “In particular, the fact that most of the individuals involved were born and/or brought up in Britain – a country that had given them or their parents a refuge from persecution, fear or poverty and a guarantee of freedom of worship – has led many analysts, observers, intellectuals and opinion-formers to conclude that multiculturalism has failed; even worse, that it can be blamed for the bombings.” [[(http://www.futureislam.com/20051101/insight/tariqmadood/remaking_multiculturalism_prn.asp)]] The unfortunate fact is that multiculturalism in its most desirable form – that is, distinct cultures existing side by side and yet interacting and influencing each other – is a pipe dream. We all think some cultures are better than others. We might value them because they are more favorable to progress, more just and free. Globally, there is room for these differences, and room for people to make choices, and room for ideas to compete. Within a single nation, there is not. Laws have to be based on a set of ideologies that are at the very least
Multiculturalism doesn't create diverse societies; it creates politically correct societies.

The idea behind multiculturalism is that it will result in a rainbow of skin hues, native fabrics, and foreign foods. It all looks very promising on paper, but the reality is somewhat less picturesque. Canada’s introduction of aggressive multicultural policies thirty years ago continues to be what is considered a highly successful experiment, and we are proud of that. So why wouldn’t we want the whole world to turn into one big Canada? We’ll try to explain why not. First of all, everybody would end up speaking English, even if French or other minority language laws were enacted. A few generations of children would simply be unable to communicate with their grandparents; later generations would lose their heritage languages completely. Second, cultural traditions would be suppressed in order to avoid conflict. In Toronto’s York region, school Christmas concerts and some Hallowe’en activities have been banned. Other examples of this trend can be seen throughout Europe as some countries ban the wearing of religious symbols in public. Laws like these are sometimes necessary in order to help diverse societies avoid conflict, but they don’t encourage expression or diversity. With multiculturalism, as with most things, we are forced to choose. Do we want people to live in the same society and become similar, or do we want them to form individual societies and maintain the uniqueness of their cultures? We say the latter, or when the current rate of globalisation makes that impossible, then cultures should be integrated – that is, people in a national community should be encouraged to place the core values of that community before those of their ethnic or individual cultures. People who live in liberal democracies should be encouraged, as much as possible, to share liberal, democratic values, including respect for difference. Overall, this is what we see happening in the status quo. It is not perfect; humanity is messy - but it is preferable to universal multi
Definitions

Before moving on to our reasons for negation, we would like to emphasize that we are not against the concept of global multiculturalism- a practice that embraces the different cultures that exist on a world scale. However, what we are against is multiculturalism on a national level. What we see with national multiculturalism is people moving out of the haven in which their cultures are safely preserved- the plan that the proposition is promoting in this round. We would like to also emphasize the fact that current multiculturalism is failing in some countries such as UK, Australia, France, and Germany. We will prove to you that the most ideal way of viewing multiculturalism- having a multitude of different preserved cultures living peacefully together- is impossible to achieve in real life further on in our first contention. In our second contention, we will talk about how we should focus on integration rather than multiculturalism that which leads to assmiliation, and we will explain why assimilation is bad. Lastly, we will explain why multiculturalism will eventually result in a loss of diversity as it represses cultures than expressing cultures.
Multiculturalism greatly facilitates advancement and progress by advancing cultural exchange in both products and ideas.

Workplaces in multicultural nations have been greatly negatively impacted. Diversity can lead to increased misunderstanding, conflict, and decreased productivity. First of all, language barrier can be a significant problem in increased conflicts and decreased in productivity. It is inevitable that these migrants will struggle with trying to communicate in their workplaces since majority of the migrants speak in different languages and are not fluent in the host nation’s language. Mecklenburg Schools reports that over 84 languages are now spoken within the international student population. Because of this language barrier, the work system will be slowed down. Migrant workers will be working in a new environment, language, and cultures. They will not be able to work efficiently and productivity will be decreased. If the productivity in the base of the workers’ pyramid falls, the entire economic system will become chaotic. Multiculturalism leads to discrimination at the workplace and slow down the productivity level. Muslims, like other minority groups, often experience discrimination on the job, such as the termination or denial of employment because of religious appearance, the refusal to accommodate religious practices on the job, or biased behavior by co-workers or supervisors. Such actions are commonly due to misconceptions or ignorance about Islam’s religious practices, rather than intentional prejudice. This means that merely putting all these different people together won’t make them understand each other. If we merely view everyone as equals and not understand the differences between these people, we will be increasing the discrimination, and decrease significantly the productivity for these workers.
Multiculturalism promotes more tolerant societies

We believe that almost all conflicts within the multicultural communities emerge because of misunderstanding, suspicion and lack of confidence. Lots of people with different cultural backgrounds tend to misinterpret or do not realize the essence of foreign traditions, religious beliefs and attitude towards various things. Often, what is considered to be perfectly normal in one culture, may be seen as completely ridicilous or even offensive in another. For example, critizining religion can be fully understandable in Europe but completely innapropriate in the Islamic world- controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad was supposed to be a Danish political joke, however for Muslims it was humiliation of their faith and they way to discredit their communities. As the result, it creates a social precipice which takes away most of the possibilities to live and cooperate peacefully and leads to automatic violence, anger and tension. For example, a suicide bomber inspired by other insulting drawings of Muhammad attacked a busy shopping street in Stockholm and a court in Copenhagen sentenced a Somali man to nine years in prison for attempting to kill Kurt Westergaard. We argue that sustainable multiculturalism policy is specifically aimed at helping people with different cultural backgrounds to understand that their cultures do not contradict but contribute to each other by encouraging them to interact and get involved into various cultural activities, perceive the origins of their local values and traditions. We see it as a starting point of shaping a critical thinking and creating an open- mindedness society since it gives people the incentive to question widely accepted prejudices, search for reasons and get a lot more diversed experience. For example, in Canada the multiculturalism policy was adopted in 1971 and is thought to be successful - it recognizes Aboriginal rights, minority rights and equality rights regardless of color, religion and culture.
Multiculturalism is morally justified

Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution." However, UDHR does not state that there are obligations for well-developed countries to provide one. Country willing to accept refugees encounters at least many economic problems like provision of food and shelter, financing integration programmes, etc. Yet, there are countries still willing to do so. Let’s take the examples of Georgia or Libya. People from all over the world were scared of events happening in those countries and trying to help suffering people living there by providing food, medication, even coming themselves as volunteers to the hot spots. It comes quite naturally that people tend to do things that brings them pleasure and benefits to themselves. In this case, providing humanitarian aid or even accepting people from different culture comes easier since people doing “a good job” are proud of themselves and tend to accept new culture easier than in any other circumstances. In addition, people are not unfamiliar with mixing of cultures. From the ancient times, it was acceptable to get married with another person from a royal family or to run away from war in your home land. Even in middle ages it was morally accepted to leave your land and ask for asylum in a church. To sum up, many refugees were accepted to the countries meaning one thing: people tend to help others in pain and suffering no matter what their religion, education, and skin colour is. Therefore, this type of multiculturalism is common and morally acceptable.
Know what they want.

I am afraid you are confused between the roles of a Minister and a Dictator. A dictator is free to act in any way he likes, to strive forward with his own plans based on nothing more than his own desire, and in this respect, yes celebrities are like this. Without a brazen thought to what this country needs, these people just do what they want with no consideration of what is required of them by a society. However, the role of minister is very much different. A minister needs to listen to the advice of those who know more, they need to balance the needs across the nation. They cannot steam ahead based on a determination founded on nothing more than what they want. Celebrities jobs are what they are good at. No one asks would a librarian or a teacher make a good prime minister. Just because they are famous does not make them able to run the country, celebrities and prime ministers are two completley different things and we need to stop confusing them. Whilst celebrities are good at acting, or singing, or cooking, none of those skills would come in handy in ruling. A minister should be made of people who knows what they are getting themselves into when they venture into politics. They must be formally educated politically, the least is they know law, so that they know how to manage the mass for entertaining is not at all intertwined with managing people's rights and opinions and turning them into an action that can lead to better harmony.
Know what they want.

Most stars that are self made (as opposed to those that are manufactured by the industry) have strong views about the direction they wish to go in. This is precisely what is needed in a minister. Too often ministers are simply lackys of the Prime Minister or the party machine, doing what they are told. Instead they should have a vision about what they want to achieve in order to be able to achieve it. While many celebrities would not be any better at this than many ministers there is no reason why they should not be at least as good at defining what they want to get out of their ministry. Counter : Self-made movie/soap-star/sitcom stars are being referred not the spoiled brat princes & princesses of the industry with their many excesses or publicity stunts in a number of cases. Every actor has to follow a script(written by someone else), be on set on call, listen to the directors and producers. But they are more than lackys/yes-men in the sense that they must improvise what is on their plate to make something of themselves, they have to be in the picture and being bland mindless drones does not help them. And it does not help ministers either, ministers need to be great public speakers and have certain ideals/beliefs that they hold dear for them to be passionate and convincing much like actors do. And only this with help them achieve objectives otherwise they could take a backseat and say nothing doing as is the case for most mediocre ministers. Acting requires the sincerity & the passion that a good minister must possess to get anywhere. Acting requires research.Acting requires memorisation..Acting requires following orders while still making your mark. bad actors lack in the same things that bad ministers do. terrible PR,not convincing,not invested, not reading your lines and not ambitiously goal-oriented.
It will inspire children into politics

Currently, Britain is suffering from apathy towards politics. We have a 60% voter turnout the abstaining votes come from mainly the youth. They do not see the point in voting. They see politics as not being in touch with their lives. If we got celebrities into Government, celebrities of the calibre of Stephen Fry and Ricky Gervais, intelligent perspective celebrities, then we would inspire the young to vote. Not only is voting important, but young adults will grow up in a political world they are interested in. The will want to listen to the political strategies, they will want to read the newspaper, this ironically result in a more intelligent and percept nation than that we have now under the rule of Oxford/Cambridge graduates. Counter: Political harbingers do not automatically have blind faith in what they perceive as dumb actors. Look at Arnold Schwarzenegger, and all the critical hype around his character. Has he done anything more foolish than his counterparts in office? No, there's nothing spectacularly newsworthy in his policies but he has a Hollywood biopic.
Celebrities are generally selfish

Lots of celebrities are engaged in selfless activities as well, it would be unfair to simply categorise all celebrities as selfish. Many celebrities are involved in campaigns using their celebrity status to do good works around the world. It may not be as selfless as throwing everything away to be a doctor in some remote part of Africa but when acting as an ambassador they are promoting issues and at the same time giving up time they could be using to be bringing in their next paycheck. Second Counter: most men/women in office are thought of as being selfish and their words are digested like hollow corks and empty bottles.Nobody trusts politicians, people play party favorites but nobody says "A politician said it so it must be true no political agenda attached" Since when are politicians not image conscious? Umm to win votes one must win public/party support. This comes from impressing people and not reveling the skeletons in one's closet. People in general enter professions with their image in mind and sometimes with heart. Celebrities are programmed to incorporate hearty/sincerity/believability/credentials/ credibility/credo into their performances if they want to be any good. The modern acting mantra is:To be convincing, you have to convince yourself and you can't speak to a role you move onto something closer to your heart. .
Celebrities are generally selfish

If you ask any politican, they will say they entered politics to help others, improve their local area or to make a difference. These are all commendable reasons for entering politics. Despite the intense media scrutiny, the majority of MP's go generally unnoticed, on relatively modest wages. A Celebrity on the other hand, in most cases will enter politics for some sort of personal gain - increased publicity or improve their image for example. These are the totally wrong reasons to enter such a profession and could do real damage to a constituency.
we need good all rounders to lead us forward

Whilst I agree that ministers need to be good all rounders, I disagree with the fact that qualifications are necessarily a requirement. I firmly believe that people should not be excluded from a position merely because of a lack of qualifications. Many famous and successful people have gained these "qualifications" via real life experience - such as Alan Sugar, one of Britain's most successful businessmen. Not all celebrities are uneducated. When singing or performing on stage they do use their intelligence:Moves,lyrics and lines need to be practiced memorized over and over; it takes strength, tolerance and patience to keep doing takes to get the performance just right by the director, the idea that they look silly to entertain us; does not entail that they are not capable of making sensible decisions when it is required of them. Jodi foster studied PreLaw at Harvard. Matt Damon and his friend Ben Affleck both dropped out of Harvard in their last year to pursue acting; there is no suggestion that they were incapable of getting just the few extra credits, they just prioritized acting. They chose to drop out and were not expelled. Most adult actors are at least college educated and many child actors attend IVY colleges on the basis of their acting careers. Not discounting the number of celebrities with honorary degrees from various institutions, spanning par excellence across the globe. Bill gates is also a Harvard drop-out and not an actor, that does not alter his success in his field relative to his more educated counterparts. Most businessmen in America(read: The people running the country) are barely educated but had the tools/credentials/ ability to make it big where it counts. Ivy league MBAs work under these people. Ever seen the show"The apprentice"?
we need good all rounders to lead us forward

What do ministers have that celebrities do not? Qualifications! A basic education that did not entail stage school is a minimum requirement for any one to run this country. Surely we would not want Cheryl Cole and the like to lead us forward into the future. Listening to her meaningless music is torturous enough, try long speeches, see how long Britain lasts then. For whilst celebrities maybe good (arguably) in one sphere of life, be it sport music or comedy, ministers are needed to be all round performers, they need to see the world in a holistic way, taking everything into account. With only one specialist subject, a government run by them would totally disregards most areas of life in the hopes of improving their own indulgence, be that sports, musical and comical investment.