BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
quickfire debate: Opponent chooses topic

CR1- Con's response isn't adequate. He hasn't offered a counter plan. This is about affirmative action verses the status quo. Black people as well as a few other minorities are disadvantaged as a result of America's early history of racism. They don't benefit from the generational accumulation of wealth and advantage that other groups do. Affirmative action will certainly help a bunch of disadvantaged people. My opponent points out that the plan isnrfect and may leave out some disadvantaged people but no plan is perfect. Perfection is the enemy of good. What the plan does do, some of the disadvantages that remain from earlier racist times. It also does a lot for a bunch of currently disadvantaged people. Again it's not a perfect solution but is better than what we got in place. It's not enough for my opponent to point out imperfections. He needs to show why the status quo is better. CR2- We need to do our part to help disadvantaged youth. Sure some deserving white students may be left out but under the status quo, a ton of deserving minority students are left out. To have a more fair society, diverse workplace and a true meritocracy we need to reverse some of the residual effects of the past. CR3- "Affirmative action, simply put, allows less qualified applicants get accepted into any given university before a more qualified applicant simply due to the "race" that they were born as. " This is simply not true. My arguments about their self esteem hurting the results of tests and tests not being an or of real world success are being ignored. Affirmative action students are often equally qualified. if not more qualified than other students. "Gladwell suggests that IQ is not directly proportional to real life success. An IQ of 170 is likely to think better than an IQ of 70. But at high IQ"s, the relationship with success breaks down. An IQ of 130 is just as likely to win a Nobel prize as an IQ of 180. " Thanks for the debate.
quickfire debate: Opponent chooses topic

=REBUTTALS= R1: I've already somewhat refuted this point in my initial arguments. Your arguments would be substantial if we were debating about socio-economic affirmative action, but this is RACIAL affirmative action. Even if blacks are more disadvantaged on AVERAGE, plenty of whites are disadvantaged as well, but don't get the same benefits as well-off black people. You cannot say "more black people are poor give them benefits" when some whites are just as disadvantaged. R2A: Self-esteem of Asians and whites would also go down. They know they are at the disadvantaged with affirmative action in place. They are simply trading who's, on balance, disadvantaged. The way to end discrimination, is to END discrimination, not discriminating against the better-off. Blacks being discriminated against in the past doesn't justify discriminating whites and Asians. Getting rid of ALL discrimination is key. R2B: This argument is COMPLETELY irrelevant. An IQ of 120 is in the 89th-90th percentile, so not only does this apply to a small fragment of the population, but it has little to do with affirmative action period. Plus, how does "affirmative action students" have more imagination? ---- I will crystallize my third contention as I have lots of character space left, and I was cut short from character limits in the second round. Affirmative action, simply put, allows less qualified applicants get accepted into any given university before a more qualified applicant simply due to the "race" that they were born as. This harms colleges for a plethora of reasons: Firstly, because Asians have the highest average SAT scores [1], they are discriminated against in the AC process. Bear in mind Asians have been discriminated against as well. To top it off AC is VERY bias against them. For example, a study found Asians get a -140 penalty, while get an extra 310 points. Another example: a white student that scored 1360 on the SATs would be on equal footing with an Asian.
quickfire debate: Opponent chooses topic

"Many Americans would refuse to (or not want to) go to a black or Hispanic doctor, physician, and so on, as they are under the impression that the black or Hispanic mentioned likely got their job/career due to bias towards their race." I've already addressed this. This is not what we see in the real world. School entrances, particularly to elite schools are a result of not only hard work but a huge emphasis on SAT scores. However this doesn't actually translate to real world success. To be honest affirmative action candidates no problems getting clients when they get into the real world and even if they did, it's not the schools problem. The school gave them a chance. "Gladwell suggests that IQ is not directly proportional to real life success. An IQ of 170 is likely to think better than an IQ of 70. But at high IQ"s, the relationship with success breaks down. An IQ of 130 is just as likely to win a Nobel prize as an IQ of 180. Your IQ just has to be good enough, and you have as good a chance as the smarter guys to succeed, because other things begin to count in life, like one"s personality." https://timothywalter.wordpress.com... C3- My opponent hasn't adequately explained why AF harms schools. There is nothing for me to rebut here. C2- Maybe affirmative action isn't a perfect solution but it's better than the so as it does correct a lot of the disadvantages people face by not being able to capitalize on generational wealth or being born disadvantaged but my opponent hasn't offered a counter plan. so the debate at this point is about whether affirmative action is better than the status quo, and I've successfully established that it is.
quickfire debate: Opponent chooses topic

Good luck, Pro. =========My Case========= C1: Race-based affirmative action is self-defeating. Firstly, it is self-defeating because many people, whether it is true and/or fair or not, will have a subconscious or conscious bias *against* the group benefiting from affirmative action. For example, racial affirmative pretty much always puts favor into the black or Hispanic group. Many Americans would refuse to (or not want to) go to a black or Hispanic doctor, physician, and so on, as they are under the impression that the black or Hispanic mentioned likely got their job/career due to bias towards their race. It IS likely that MANY people would think this way whether it is fair or not. In reverse, it would probably diminish some self-respect, as some blacks and Hispanics would ask the same question: Would I have gotten this qualification if I was white, or Asian? BTW: I know this is about COLLEGE admissions, but no one could obtain such jobs (usually) without going to a good college. So many doctors WOULD get their job partially from affirmative action. C2: AC is racist and doesn't actually look at who's disadvantaged. Whether or not blacks, are on average, more economically disadvantaged than whites is completely irrelevant. What IS relevant is that SOME whites are more disadvantaged than SOME blacks and SOME blacks are more disadvantaged than SOME whites. Because of this, it is a logical fallacy to have ALL blacks get points that ALL whites don't get simply because of their skin color. It is not only illogical and unfair, but also doesn't consider the fact that a black kid with wealthy parents could get accepted into an Ivy League college over a white kid with DIRT POOR parents and the SAME qualifications. C3: It harms colleges. This contention is sweet, and to the point. Blacks and Hispanics could easily get into a college with a certain score that they would not be able to get in otherwise. Asian acceptance rates don't reflect their scores.
quickfire debate: Opponent chooses topic

It's no secret that there are a disproportionate amount of blacks miss out on college. There is a history of discrimination in the United States and other places which have contributed to the adverse conditions which affect certain minorities. Affirmative action is a good way to make up for the adverse conditions black people face as a result of not having the generational wealth that other groups have. 1. Black people started out as in the United States, which means they haven't had the advantages of cumulative wealth gains as white people. If your parents are wealthy, you're more likely to be wealthy and in positions of privilege and these advantages extend indefinitnd the generational wealth advantages of whites aren't something very many black people have. According to the New York times quoting a recent study: "Wealth is a measure of cumulative advantage or disadvantage," said Roderick Harrison, a researcher at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a Washington research organization that focuses on black issues. "The fact that black and Hispanic wealth is a fraction of white wealth also reflects a history of discrimination." http://www.nytimes.com... 2. Now we know that this cumulative wealth advantage helps minorities overcome the disadvantages they start out with just by being born non white. Let's focus on whether they are weaker candidates for the schooling. a. A lot of minority candidates perform lower on tests becaf self esteem issues from perceived racial biases according to some psychologists. http://news.stanford.edu... So in order to get the best candidates, you'll to actually employ affirmative action. b. In the book outliers, its mentioned that after an IQ of 120, creativity is what determines real world success best, and that is where affirmative action students have an advantage.
To be against abortion and in favor of capital punishment is hypocritical.

I think Ill address this based on each paragraph It really isn't a rash idea if you think about it these are the worst criminals we have on the planet, they have had the chance to live a life in our world. These criminals do have value but they are of more value in death than in life. For the world will be a safer place if the death penalty was in full swing. Though if they truly are sorry for what they have done then at the time of their death they shall be received into the Lord's arms. This is proven by Jesus' last words on Earth. The verse your referring to Matthew 13 does refer to weeds and wheat but in the sense of growing up and developing into something prior to the "weeds being pulled and burned by the bundles." This example proves my point because the "weeds/criminals" have grown alongside everyone else and at the point where they cause more harm then good they too are harvested and burned. This is my interpretation of the verse at hand. God does punish the souls so truly he judges after death, the death penalty is a means to get to that point in time. Grouping most of this paragraph the line between a new born baby and a murderer/rapist is just that. THIS IS THE LINE Its how a person lives their life and the chance to live. Courts are very black and white if proven guilty if you would like a definition of 1st degree 2nd degree and Rape Ill oblige but until then you should know the difference between them and what that means in our society. Also I'm open to hear any reason how a murderer could be a "help" to society please do go on. "Damage done is damage done!?!?!?!" ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?!?! Through this logic I could kill someone do some community service, get out kill your best friend do some more community service then kill you and well.... do some more community service. This is terrible logic and hardly worth debating its like giving an infinite free pass to any criminal. I'm not saying anymore on this absurd piece of thought. You give some alternatives for a sentence, these are busying sentences just buying time for someone on drugs or a misdemeanor not for someone convicted of any of the hanus crimes that have been listed. By taking the life of someone proven to have done such inconceivable harm to another adds value to the victims families lives and God will judge that felon then. Also I'd like to point out the lack of comparison between abortion and death penalty I don't know but I thought the debate was about how someone could believe in both not just the merits of the death penalty which is humane through lethal injection.
To be against abortion and in favor of capital punishment is hypocritical.

Thank you, both for your thorough response and willingness to pick up such a hot debate. I was a little startled, though, that you "advocate the death penalty because ...with out [these convicted criminals] in it the world is a better place." That seems to me to be a bit of a rash statement, particularly given your statement that you are an "avid Catholic". Having attended a Catholic school for many years, I have repeatedly been told that, according to your faith and many others around the world, all people possess a human dignity given to them by God, the creator of all things. Anything created by God, which is anything and anyone on the planet, is therefore valuable. Even the most disreputable or those who have committed the most heinous crimes never deserve harm or the intention of harm from others. The gospel of Luke supports this strongly, as does that of Matthew. For instance, Matthew 13 contains a story called approximately "the weeds among the wheat". If you request, I can explain the story in detail, but its moral is that God is responsible for the punishment of souls, not us on earth. That being said, I also refuse to believe that even the worst criminals do not benefit the world in some way. I do not believe that this benefit is from their crime, or even anything related to it; but these are living human beings, with relationships, families, and friends. How can one choose to draw a line--for instance, second degree murder--upon a set of human lives? Such things cannot be classified upon a court sentence alone, as some may be capable of reform, some may have only aided in the crime due to personal suffering, and some may be innocent, even if the court has evidence that proves them guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. Where do you draw the line or even a chart showing when a life is no longer worthwhile, showing some dotted curve between unborn children and mass murderers? And who are we to draw that line at all? That being said, I do not believe that we should simply let them go; when damage is done, damage is done. But there are so many other, more responsible and less harmful punishments that can be used. Service hours have always been one of my favorites, though for some, a mental ward may be the only healthy setting. Regardless, while rape and murder may result in loss of life or dignity, more loss of life and dignity solves no problem.
To be against abortion and in favor of capital punishment is hypocritical.

Ill start off by stating my views on the issue. I believe abortion is the killing of an innocent life and should only be used in cases of rape. In any other use is wrong and should be banished from the US. I am an avid Catholic who goes to church every Sunday but I believe that nothing in life is black and white. At the same time I advocate for the use of the death penalty in cases of rape and 1st and 2nd degree murder. This is a method used to punish those who have done grotesque deeds while living. To answer your question I advocate the death penalty because the person who is to be killed has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt has committed a hanus crime that physically and mentally harmed another person or group of persons. Allowing the person to live only clutters up out world with out them in it the world is a better place. Abortion however is the killing of an innocent life. This baby has done nothing wrong and never gets the chance to experience in life. The women must live with her CHOICE everything is within her power to stop from being pregnant and if she does there are options abortion is not one of them. For the quote thing, the way I bring this into context is that you shall not knowingly kill someone when they have done nothing to harm you greatly. The eye for an eye part is when someone does harm you greatly I believe they should receive punishment. This ties in with the above arguments because unborn babies have done nothing so deserve to live but murders etc. have thus deserve punishment.
To be against abortion and in favor of capital punishment is hypocritical.

This has irked me for a long time; I cannot completely understand how anyone can support killing in one context but not in another, let alone in this order. I believe that all killing is murder, no matter the context; the only reason I say that I support abortion in my profile is because it will take place no matter what, and I would prefer that it takes place in a clean room with properly trained medical practitioners than in a dark alley. What shocks me the most is how many strongly religious people take the opposite view of me. Taking, for instance, Christianity: the Ten Commandments themselves say that "Thou Shalt Not Kill," and Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount that, when we face a sinful person who harms us or others, we should "turn the other cheek." This eye-for-an-eye, tooth-for-a-tooth stuff is outdated and immoral, and only ends with a bunch of blind guys with bare gums.
Does light have color

Black is not a color. According to science, black is the absence of light. The reason a shirt appears black is because it absorbs all light and reflects none. This is the reason a black shirt feels warmer than a white shirt. Heat is a property of light, but color is not. There are two types of people in the world. Those who believe we see the world as it is and those who know that the world we see exists only in our mind and that this world only vaguely resembles reality in shape and size. I say vaguely because size depends on distance and even shape. When it comes to color, our image of the world is an illusion. This is not a belief but rather fact. They have even discovered the precise location in the brain where these images are produced and have determined that they occur on average 30 times a second. Ever wondered how dreams occur? It's your brain creating images and no, it doesn't combine old memories. The brain can create images you have never seen in real life. Who drew the first unicorn? Where did they see one? So yes, basing color on physics does help create an objective category that wouldn't exist if we regard color only as qualia but the fact remains that it is. I could say "the citrus fruit with a surface that reflects light between 597 and 622nm wavelength" or I could say "the orange". For simplicity sake we use the latter, but do not let it confuse you into believing that in reality, an orange is not orange.
Does light have color

The tree that you see is not the tree that you see. This sentence is illogical to anyone who does not understand qualia. Perhaps watching the following clip will enlighten you. https://www.google.co.za... I am not here to argue the definition of color. There are numerous definitions and no 2 are the same. Everyone just picks one that most agrees with their understanding of how light works and how the eyes work. I can't drag you into the light, no pun intended. To me, color is the blue of the ocean, the green of a lush tropical forest and the bright red of ripe strawberries. The blue is more than just a visual stimuli. It actually alters my state of mind. Like red invigorates or excites me. Color is my internal experience. My Qualia. The definition of color is irrelevant in this debate as we are not discussing color but light and whether color is a property of light or not. "The main sensory organ of the visual system is the eye, which takes in the physical stimuli of light rays and transduces them into electrical and chemical signals that can be interpreted by the brain to construct physical images." Taken from https://www.boundless.com... Light clearly is not red, blue or any other color. It is merely called red light because that particular wavelength produces that sensation in our mind.
Does light have color

Again the opponent casually dismisses large swathes of my case in favor of unsubstantiaed assertions and misused facts. I'll rebut his case, then briefly summarize my own. Color: An Experience or a PropertyThe opponent largely references how our brains interpret color throughout his speech without realizing that he is missing the point. I do not deny that our brains process color information, just as our brain process various other physical stimuli. As I've said before, the mind's ability interpret physical information does not mean said physical information cannot exist independent of the mind. In his speech, my opposition actually bolsters my definitional argument by providing even more examples of how our brains differently interpret color. My definition of color was considered to be superior because it was not subjective in nature. By defining color as a physical property, we are able to accurately measure and interpret the color of light in a useful, scientific way. The opponent failed to produce any counter definition, despite my request for one, meaning we are forced to assume that my definition holds. Understanding this, it's easy to see that the opponent is just regurgitating the same statement that "light doesn't posses the quality of color" without backing it up with any tangible evidence or convincing logic. The only argument presented was that "If color was a property of light, this [synesthesia] would not be possible." This doesn't make much sense when analyzed. We have already agreed that each mind interprets physical stimuli differently than every other mind. It is not surprising that some minds interpret said stimuli very differently from the "typical mind". ConclusionThe opponent did not present a counter-definition, did not present a case (only a rebuttal) and certainly did not prove that light does not have color, as he originally stated he would do. It is clear at this point that the only correct vote is for Pro, as I have demonstrated that color is a physical property of electromagnetic waves that exists whether or not a mind does. The fact that a mind can interpret color does not preclude the existence of color in the first place.
Does light have color

My oppopponent is correct in stating that what we see when light comes into our eyes is not an objective and accurately measurable phenomenon. There is no way of knowing how each individual persons brain interprets a particular wavelength. In fact people that are color blind are proof that we percieve colors differently. But if your brain interprets light of the wavelength x as the color y, it will interpret all light of the wavelength x as the color y. It's irrelevant whether my y and your y are the same. Synestesia is a phenomenon which allows certain individuals to see sounds. Their brains interpret different notes as different colors. If color was a property of light, this would be impossible as light waves and sound waves are completely different. The only common ground between color and sounds is the impulses that travel from ears to auditory center and the impulses that travel from our eyes to the visual center. In people with synestesia there is obviously a crossover of this signal. What further proof do you need that colors exist only in the brain? Now I know this is contrary to your current understanding of light and color. At one stage I believed that color was a property of the object. That the skin of an orange is orange. I was wrong. As Newton said, color is not a property of an object. The object either absorbs or reflects light of a certain wavelength. Well neither is color a property of light. Color is merely how our brains interpret different wavelengths.