BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Affirmative Action

Round 3: In a recent Supreme Court case known as: Schuette v. Coalition the Supreme Court has decided that Michigan banning Affirmative Action was totally constitutional. http://en.m.wikipedia.org... With that at hand, the citizens that reside or desire to apply to go to a Michigan University or higher instruction no longer will be based on race. In response to many people claiming discrimination, here is a racial and gender demographic of a university in Michigan known commonly as MSU or Michigan State University. "Total Undergraduate Students37,988 Gender Women19,06450% Men18,92450% Race/Ethnicity American Indian / Alaskan Native83<1% Asian1,6064% African American / Black2,5387% Hispanic1,3574% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander22<1% White26,26269% Two or More Races9042% International4,79813% Race/Ethnicity Not Reported"source: http://www.collegeportraits.org... All in all, the demographics of the University still look diverse and probably very similar to the demographics of the State of Michigan. The gender-gap isn't that great of a difference either. Another great case in which we can see that Affirmative Action based on race and gender would not really be important is in the presidental election of both 2008 and 2012 where despite the fact that Barrack Hussein Obama had been part of the,"disadvantaged races" he still won both the elections and withing politics there is no such idea as Affirmative Action. Therefore, what can be implied is that we as a people can actually remove our racial barriers and elect a minority into power, while the huge majority are of the Caucasian race. (Pure-Caucasian race). If an Affrican American or a Hispanic works hard then even segregation would not be able to bring them down, which is why the ones known as Cesar Chavez and Martin Luther King Jr are remembered despite the fact that racism could've brought both individuals down at times. As we go on with the times, we must realize that just because our forefathers made a mistake of segregation, we shouldn't be held accountable for what they had done towards each other, let us grow as a truly color-blind society as Martin Luther King Jr wanted: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character" if Matin Luther King Jr was alive today, what would he think if there was still Affirmative Action despite the fact that a black man may be in the White House. He also wanted that individuals would not be judged on the color of their skin, but how they show themselves. His dream can't be fully lived as long as America has this policy of preferring certain citizens simply based on the color of their skin, something the individual has no control over, but must be suffered or honored for the rest of their lives simply because of that one fact.
Affirmative Action

In an ideal world affirmative action wouldn't be necessary,but this is far from an ideal world, currently there is a huge wealth and opportunities gap for communities of color. For hundreds of years they were kept from succeeding by law, and internalized racist attitudes keep that system functioning (to a lesser extent) today. Progress has been made, but women and people are more likely to be unemployed and employed at lower wages The Glass Ceiling Commission report states that 43% of fortune 500 work force were white male yet 95% of senior management jobs are held by the same. Affirmative action is not reverse discrimination it is merely a way to get give people who may have otherwise been shut out a chance to put their foot in the door. Often opponents of affirmative action often misinterpret Dr. Martian Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech, asserting that Dr. King was urge the use of color-blind cures for the nations ills when he said "men should be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin." This does Dr. King a disservice he knew that there was no side stepping color and gender barriers in our society. The Urban Institute had a study where they sent equally qualified pairs on a series for entry level jobs the men were coached to show similar levels of enthusiasm and articulation the young white men revived 45% more job offers than their black co-testers. White men received 53% more job offers than Latino men. As much as people complain about affirmative action, its a rather tame liberal program I personally believe in much more radical reforms. sources; https://www.aclu.org... http://www.urban.org...
Affirmative Action

Alright, so to prove that Affirmative Action only hurts I'll show the official score-range of the SAT based on race. SAT Averages by Race and Ethnicity, 2013 GroupCritical ReadingMathematicsWritingTotal American Indian 480 486 461 1,427 Asian 521 597 527 1,645 Black 431 429 418 1,278 Mexican-American 449 464 442 1,355 Puerto Rican 456 453 445 1,354 Other Latino 450 461 443 1,354 White 527 534 515 1,576 From: https://www.insidehighered.com... As my opponent can see, Whites and Asians both had the highest SAT scores, this could be due to the fact that they know that only being their race that they can't get into college. The lowest was blacks, and despite the fact that they had been intergated for decades they still received a lower score than Hispanics and Native Americans over all. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution reads: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;" and "without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The key thing to remember is equal protection under the law, which Affirmative Action just doesn't protect. There are poor whites who were stuck in poverty before the Civil Rights Movement and they're families are still poor even after the Civil Rights Movement. Martin Luther King Jr wanted to end poverty regardless of race"The Poor People"s Campaign was a multiracial effort aimed at alleviating poverty regardless of race.[1]" http://en.m.wikipedia.org...'s_Campaign the Poor's people campaign was started by Martin Luther King to hopefully make America a socialist country: the result failed as he had been assassinated before he could've accomplished it. They key thing was regardless of race which was truly color-blind and helping all people. Also, it is guarnteed that a company must hire a certain number of people that belong to certain ethnic groups, regardless what economic class they grew-up with because at the end of the day, it was the faults of whites way back then, not the faults of whites in modern era. Should anyone be held responsible for what their ancestors did? This is not the way to go forward into the next generation and will ultimately lead to even more racial hatred than the 1960s as it exists in the world today. This will only create racial bigotry in the minds of the intellectual, but not well of whites. If someone is truly a smart and intellectual minority they would be hired regardless of race and times, similar to the age of the Harlem Rennisance which happened during segregation. If a company's goal is to be diverse than we won't they already failed in the actual goal of a business which is to make products which makes people consume them: not create a interracial institution so we can discuss our cultural prorities over that of the company's interest. You can be diverse without the need of forcing someone to accommodate the colors of another as the Supreme Court decided" Companies are people".
Affirmative Action

I accept. People of color and women , for hundreds of years, were unable to be successful it as racism and sexism was so ingrained into the system. Policies that promote inclusion, such as affirmative action, are designed to equalize the conditions of an otherwise unfair race and give everyone a fair chance to compete. (It can be argued that these polices address a symptom rather then the illness) I will argue that affirmative action is still necessary. I will argue that attempt to say that MLK Jr, would be disappointed with theses polices is a misinterpretation of his famous i have a dream speech and finally that this is not reverse discrimination but rather a tool for equalization.
Affirmative Action

Ok, I will be arguing that Affirmative Action is a racist policy and refuses to acknowledge the fact that there are poor whites who have less of a chance only because of color to poor blacks. I will also point out that it makes minorities feel entitled that they can be lazy and get a spot into a great I institution or being able to keep their job, simply because of the color of their skin. I am sure that Martin Luther King Jr. never intended this to happen. Also if this happens in the name of diversity than to that I say: we can still be diverse if we do affirmative action based on an economic status instead of a color or gender status. Also we won't be truly color-blind until we get rid of this system of reverse discrimination against not only whites but also asians. Thank you, now let me hear my opponents statements. Round 1: State position, and acceptance. List what you will defend your position with. Round 2-3: Stay with your points and logically defend it without rebuttal of the opponent's points. Round 4: Refute your opponents points from rounds 2-3. Round 5: Conclusion.
Affirmative Action

So long as we live in a social climate where racist attitudes are ingrained into it's very fabric and an economic system that promotes a great disparity between workers and the ruling class we require something to help those disadvantaged from birth to help them rise up and be role models to kids (Neil deGrasse Tyson etc.) Minority pride is not racist because it is affirming their identity a identity that within our society young people are ashamed of and oppressed because of it . White Pride is racist because being white isn't something that will get you killed or lower the quality of your life , so it's unnecessary like straight pride. Jesus didn't live in a society with a racist criminal "justice system" that disproportionately targets men of color. I'd Love to live in a color bind society but that's not likely to happen anytime in our lives because the society was built on racial inequality.
Affirmative Action

To conclude, I would like to say my opponent did make great points, but has failed to truly examine, isn't there another way? To be a truly equal society, there are other ways than Affirmative Action based on race, can't we have it on a more equal status, like a color-blind society should. Just to point out: Asians have to deal with Affirmative Action as discriminatory as well, not just whites. In the future, I do hope that the case that was against Michigan, will truly be the status of the whole nation. May the 14th Amendement mean something, instead of just being a written piece of paper. Where it clearly states: "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Know some may say it is necessary to give boosts to previously discriminated races, to that I say we are all individuals, we think like individuals not races. If someone says they are proud to be white, they're called a racist; if someone says I'm proud to be black they get ACLU backing them up, is this not discrimination? I assume my opponent is a black-sympathizer. Blacks are also 30% in prisons, there's no Affirmative Action there, they break the most laws and all you care about is, no it's a poverty issue, to that I say: even Jesus was poor. (I'm not a Christian.). My opponent is clearly one-sided on this issue. Thank you very much, for debating and I would appreciate the voters for reading my side of the argument and to truly honor Martin Luther King Jr Dream. As a color-blind society. May he truly rest in peace, because I know as with the liberals, he can't truly rest in peace because of reverse discrimination. I appreciate you all, thank you and hope you all vote with a truly open-mind.
Seneca

You may not think that because people are in different locations that they shouldn't have different ethical views, but the reality is that people in different locations around the world do have different ethical views. What is ethically right is not always viewed as being ethical to someone else, even though you might think it should be that way. Yes, ethics will always continue to be debated. Euthanasia and abortion are things that should be decided by the people who it applies to. It might feel ethical to these people, but to others, these things are unethical.
Seneca

what is right or wrong doesnt change just because your location has change. What is ethically right or wrong for one person is just as ethically right or wrong for another. There is no reason why different people should have different ethical standards. Ethics is something that will be debated forever. LIke Euthanasia or abortions, decisions about a life should not be determined by anyone except for the individual whose life is on the line. Abortions and euthanasia are both ethically wrong.
Seneca

Yes, you are right that life is special. However, some cultures believe that a person is a little more worthy than an animal. This doesn't mean that they don't value animals lives. This just means that they value human life over an animal. I agree that most people don't like the idea of using children to kill people, but the Taliban views it as ethical. Everyone has differing views on what is ethical or unethical, but how can we say if something is ethical or not? Since not everyone agrees, we don't really have any way to determine what is really ethical and what is not. We can believe that something is ethical or unethical, but it doesn't mean that it is true. Everyone in the world can't decide on the same things being ethical or unethical.
Seneca

Yes different people have different opinions about what is right and what is wrong, but no matter what life is special. Animal life can not be worth more than a persons. Child Suicide bombers from the taliban. Just because it is easier to use children to kill hundreds of people doesnt make it right. Children are innocent. the taliban views this act as ethically ok and it is not. Those children can not make an educated decision on wether or not thats what they want to do. Not to mention the hundreds of lives that were cut short due to this ethically wrong decision. The majority of the world would view this as wrong.
Seneca

There aren't right or wrong answers in ethics. Different cultures around the world have differing views on what is right or wrong. Just because it might seem like everyone should have the same views on what is right or wrong doesn't mean that everyone will have the same views. One country might believe that something is ethical while another country might not think it is ethical. Some cultures might believe that it is better to sacrifice an animals life rather than a human life. They believe that humans are more worthy than animals are. Abusing animals may be ethical in some countries, while it is unethical in other countries. Even though you may think that ethical views should be the same everywhere, some people might not agree. There can never be just one view of ethical standards. People are always going to have differing opinions about certain topics, and it can never be that everyone will all agree on one thing. Ethical standards will always be viewed differently in different cultures.
Seneca

There are right or wrong answers when it comes to ethics. it is not ethically ok to kill a child, no matter what the reason. In other countries they have different ethical standards that may say that one persons life is more important than someone else's life. That is not the case. Just because you are from a different place doesnt make it ok. Abusing animals is not ethically okay and should not be done anywhere. Many cultures believe in sacrificing animals for different ceremonies and that is also not ok. and should not be done. Once again, an animals life is not worth any less than a humans. Ethical standards should not be created based on your religion or based on the country you live in. There is one set of ethical standards that should be applied all over the world throughout every religion. These ethical standards should be the same across the board.
Gay Marriage

Interesting how you spend half of your argument talking about religion, as if that is the only motivation for not supporting gay marriage. Marriage- "the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship." (1) Now we must ask, why is government in the business of marriage in the first place? The purpose is to ensure the procreation of the next generation. The government has a duty to make sure that there is another generation so that the country can maintain population and keep everything going. Therefore the government has no interest in allowing gay marriage, as reproduction is nearly impossible. "It is about love" Well yes but where do we draw the line? Should a 45 year old man be allowed to marry a 16 year old girl even if they love each other? I do not think so, I wonder if pro does. And why is a civil union not good enough? I am not arguing against homosexuality and honestly I could not care less what you do in the privacy of your own home, but I do have a problem when my rights are infringed upon. So you may ask, how can it infringe on the rights of others? Now that gay marriage is legal, the rights of private business owners are being infringed upon as we saw with the baker that refused to service a same sex wedding. (2) This is unconstitutional, as private business owners have the right to freedom of association, which is demonstrated in this case (3) where a bake shop refused to make a cake that had bible quotes speaking against homosexuality. This double standard is allowed now that same sex weddings are allowed. 1.(https://www.google.com...) 2. (http://www.nytimes.com...) 3. (http://www.thedenverchannel.com...)
Gay Marriage

Gay marriage should be legal without a doubt. Marriage isn't about gender, it is about love. The reason why marry someone is because you love them and you want to spend the rest of your life with them. Just because your significant other is the opposite gender as you doesn't mean anything, same if they are the same gender. Also, another thing to point out is religion versus gay marriage. Religion means beliefs. If you believe in something, it's what you think not what should happen. Specially, some people who believe in God and of the Bible believe that gay marriage is immoral and disgusting. But just because that small group of people think that way, gay marriage shouldn't be outlawed.
Who is the Best Swimmer? Michael Phelps or Ryan Lochte

"I said it word-for-word..." That is the definition of plagiarism. Plagiarize: "a piece of writing or other work reflecting such unauthorized use or imitation." Since Pro hasn't taken a stance on the resolution, I will make an actual claim: Michael Phelps is clearly a better swimmer than Ryan Lochte. If we're quantifying the quality of their abilities through medal count, Phelps has collected 22 Olympic medals to my knowledge [1], compared to Lochte's 12 [2]. Sources: [1] https://newsone.com... [2] http://www.bing.com...
There is no scientific evidence to support evolution

Good to see the debate kick back off.Now, it seems my opponent has implicitly conceded the argument, stating that he will not try and refute what I said. I am glad I presented such an airtight argument.To briefly address the two points my opponent brings up, we have unfortanately a lot of claims and absolutely no real science.Rather than quoting pro, I simply direct users to the heading of "The meta-information challenge" at http://creation.com... from which pro has simply copied and pasted his argument. I would like to point out to Pro that I would have really liked to see some original content instead of just a copy and paste from the scientifically discredited Creation.com domain. The title of the page, "Can mutations create new information?" has the answer of an obvious yes, and to support this I simply refer to the Kitzmiller v Dover trial results, page 86 http://en.wikisource.org...;In addition, Dr. Miller refuted Pandas’ claim that evolution cannot account for new genetic information and pointed to more than three dozen peer-reviewed scientific publications showing the origin of new genetic information by evolutionary processes. (1:133-36 (Miller); P-245). In summary, Dr. Miller testified that Pandas misrepresents molecular biology and genetic principles, as well as the current state of scientific knowledge in those areas in order to teach readers that common descent and natural selection are not scientifically sound. The second point my opponent raises, which again has nothing to do with common ancestry, is about the complexity of a modern cell. I will no dispute that, modern cells are very complex. The problem with where this line of argument is going is that people unfamiliar with evolution often think that a modern cell is the result of abiogensesis. In reality, the modern cell has had billions of years of evolution, and as we go back in time cells become simpler and less complex. So yes, modern cells are complex, and yes, this is entirely expected if evolution were true.ConclusionI have provided unambiguous and solid reasons why there is scientific support for common ancestry / evolution. All my points remain uncontested. I would earnestly invite pro not to be so shut off to evolution - the majority of Christians around the world, indeed the entire Catholic church, recognises that not only is evolution true, but it does not conflict with Christianity. There is no scientific controversy about evolution, and it remains one of the most useful and best support scientific theories ever formulated. Christian scientists, atheist scientists, buddhist, hindu, muslim scientists, all accept evolution. And it is not because there is a conspiracy amoung scientists to (for some reason) deceive the public, it is because, honestly, it is where absolutely all of the evidence points.
Veganism is Unhealthy and Unjustifiable

Firstly, all my original points remain unrefuted by con. He needs to rebut them. Rebuttal 1. I concede that point. However, the same article says "Sounds great right? Not quite. In terms of micronutrients, a vegan diet is actually more susceptible to being nutritionally poor. A vegan diet is naturally low in calcium, vitamin D, iron, vitamin B12, zinc and omega-3 fatty acids". These nutritional negatives outweigh the benefits by far, so a vegan diet is still unhealthy. 2.Firstly this is a very biased source, given that it is dedicated to people taking up vegetarianism. Secondly, your quote is about low-fat vegetarian diets, not about veganism, and is therefore irrelevant to this debate. 3. Dr Michael Roizen's theories about ageing are not credible. For example, he has claimed that it is possible to live to 120 with the quality of life of a 45 year old [1]. Surely the 13 year figure is an extreme exaggeration if it comes from Mr Roizen. I have refuted all of con's arguments, and he has not touched mine. Veganism is indeed unhealthy and unjustifiable. [1]http://www.cleveland.com...