BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Voter ID's

Pro's hypothetical example at the beginning of the argument is just that: hypothetical. There is no election in the United States in which 3 people will be voting, each for themselves. Pro claims that nothing is being done to protect the integrity of elections. This is untrue. One set of sweeping reforms was passed in 2002, the Help America Vote Act [1]. It was implemented in the aftermath of the disastrous election of 2000, and contains many provisions for deterring voter fraud. I will now explain why voter ID laws should not be implemented. Exhibit A: The cost. America is in a large amount of debt. Voter IDs, to remain constitutional, must remain free of charge. As well, office hours must be expanded, the states must pay the cost of obtaining supporting documents required for getting an ID, the state must educate the voters on changes to laws through lots of advertising, and the state must administer extra training to officials. [2] According to the source cited, it could cost a state millions of dollars to implement such a law. This would place a burden on states, many of which already face a budget deficit [3]. Exhibit B: The discrimination. While often dismissed, studies have shown that there is indeed a correlation between discrimination and support of voter ID laws. [4] There is a disparity between registered Hispanic voters and registered white voters in Texas, for example, that far outstrips any illegal immigration [5]. Pro stated, "even though it may be rare voter ID's can help to deter and prevent these rare occurrences of voter fraud". This is an explicit acknowledgement that voter fraud does not pose a serious threat in the United States any longer. Voter IDs are discriminatory and costly, and provide comparatively little stoppage to voter fraud, as I demonstrated in round 1. Pro says that investigating and prosecuting election crimes is difficult and costly, yet he provides no source, while I have clearly shown the costs that voter ID's would incur. Also, the support of the American people does not make a law right or wrong. William Penn and Saint Augustine both stated versions of the same quote: "Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it." [6] [7]. While purported to cease causing fraud, voter ID laws would do more harm than good, as I have demonstrated, and as such should not be implemented. Sources: 1. http://www.eac.gov... 2. http://www.brennancenter.org... 3. http://kff.org... 4. http://www.washingtonpost.com... 5. http://www.theatlantic.com... 6. http://www.goodreads.com... 7. http://www.ushistory.org...
Voter ID's

Voter fraud, according to those who argue in favor of Voter IDs, is a major issue with many cases documented. However, this is misconstruing the issue. Voter fraud does indeed happen; however, voter ID would do little to stop it. An exhaustive study that compiled reports of voter fraud found that out of all the elections in America since 2000, there were 10 cases reported of in-person voter fraud, which only Voter ID could prevent (1). The overwhelming plurality of fraud actually involves absentee ballots, which made up 24.2% of cases. Ensuring the integrity of elections is important; however, voter ID is one of the least efficient ways to do this. With regards to the California race, the situation was resolved as the fraud was discovered, suggesting that our government is equipped to handle such cases of fraud without needing IDs. I contest that personal experiences should not be considered in these arguments; they cannot be verified. With regards to the assertion that Voter ID can prevent and deter multiple types of fraud at the polls, Pro is correct. However, all of those types of fraud that Pro mentions are examples of in-person fraud, which is the exact category in which so few cases of fraud occur (2). Notwithstanding any arguments about minority discouragement, Voter ID law is simply unnecessary. The cases that exist that are preventable by Voter ID are few in number, and the controversy over Voter ID detracts from the real issue of absentee fraud. Sources: 1. http://votingrights.news21.com... 2. http://www.brennancenter.org...
Voter ID's

The founding fathers of the United States established a form of government that allowed people to choose their representatives through voting. However Illegals voting has become a serious problem. Fortunately It is a fixable problem. We need to establish voter identification (voter ID's). In California, Non-citizens testified that they had voted! Hans A. von Spakovsky who was former member of the Federal Election Commission Stated in his article "The threat of non-citizen voting" in July 2008 "The evidence is indisputable that aliens, both legal and illegal, are registering and voting in federal, state, and local elections. Following a mayor's race in Compton, California, for example, aliens testified under oath in court that they voted in the election.[8] In that case, a candidate who was elected to the city council was permanently disqualified from holding public office in California for soliciting non-citizens to register and vote.[9] The fact that non-citizens registered and voted in the election would never have been discovered except for the fact that it was a very close election and the incumbent mayor, who lost by less than 300 votes, contested it.[10]" (http://www.heritage.org...) I have personally worked on 2 different political campaigns doing phone banking and I have had people tell me multiple times that they have gone and voted 4 times that day or that they had even had someone go and vote for them! Voter ID's will help to stop this problem. It is to ensure the integrity of the US election system that we need to put voter ID's' in place. So in to do this I present the following plan: Government issued photo Identification cards will be required to register to vote, as well as vote in person at the polls. ID's will ensure integrity in our electoral system while reducing fraud. Hans A. von Spakovsky said: "Requiring voters to authenticate their identity at the polling place is necessary to protect the integrity of elections and access to the voting process. Every illegal vote steals or dilutes the vote of a legitimate voter. Opponents of voter ID claim that it can only prevent impersonation fraud at the polls, which rarely happens. That assertion is incorrect. Voter ID can prevent and deter: -Impersonation fraud at the polls; -Voting under fictitious voter registrations; -Double voting by individuals registered in more than one state or locality; and -Voting by illegal aliens, or even legal aliens who are still not entitled to vote since state and federal elections are restricted to U.S. citizens." (http://www.heritage.org...) Now wether you agree with Hillary Clinton's politics or not I believe she summed it up best when she said, "Voting is the most precious right of every citizen, and we have a moral obligation to ensure the integrity of our voting process". That is why I would strongly encourage a vote for pro. To protect every citizens rights and privileges.
Hate Speech should be censored

Who gets to decide what is racist or sexist or pro-genocide? If abortion was seen as a genocide would that allow pro-choice people to be censored? Can data or research be racist or sexist, should certain fields of study be censored? People with terrible ideas can be dismissed through open discourse. When dissenting ideas are censored, one must wonder when their own ideas are no longer free. How can one objectively say what is or isn't hate speech, when hate speech itself is subjective. For example, the pedophiles would consider saying something like "Pedophiles are disgusting" to be hate speech because they consider themselves to be Minor-Attracted-People. Whether someone is hurt by words is subjective, one person could be called X and not care while another person feels upset by it. So is something always "Hate Speech" or when a certain type of person says it or if it is just said to a certain type of person? How does censoring someone's speech help society in any way?
Hate Speech should be censored

Hate Speech is nothing more then a fiendish way to abuse the ideal and belief of Free Speech in that sense to sneak in messages of hate and action to be carried out by a particular race, sex or religion. Hate Speech is created with the intent to radicalize people to a brutal belief that invites those under it to carry out acts of hate by attacking people. No one who advocates for Free Speech will go out of there way to hurt or harm someone in the name of Free Speech however those who believe in Hate Speech being Free Speech will happily abuse the system to spread messages of hate and action and we should not give a stage to those who believe in the genocide, racism or sexism. Encouraging a system that can allow those who are filled with hatred to abuse it so they can spread messages of harming and harrassing others is not supporting a system that promotes Free Speech but rather Hate Speech.
Hate Speech should be censored

Hate Speech is defined as "speech that is intended to insult, offend, or intimidate a person because of some trait (as race, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, or disability)" according to Merriam-Webster. With the political left trying to censor speech they don't agree with as hate speech. What must be understood is that regardless of one's personal views on what is or is not insulting, offensive or intimidating so-called "Hate Speech" is still free speech and should not be censored.
Home schooling is not a good option

I am unable to view the links you provided because I need a subscription, though I give you credit for the facts and evidence.However, it seems like I know very little still. Any one person can copy and paste a link, and hope that their opponent is too lazy to read it. These links, though I'm sure would've been effective, weren't because you provided little to no pre-description or summary before the link, so the ideas of kids developing Leadership skills.[1][5]Social skills.[1][2][3][4][5]Confidence. [3][5][7][8]Life success and income.[9] Is still a bit foggy to me. Now to my argument. Compared to public schooling, home schooling is expensive. Just for 'enrollment' and getting the curriculum and supplies, etc. can cost Hundreds of dollars. http://www.moneycrashers.com... Yes, there are some programs that allow for cheaper prices, but the parent has to put in more work and it can be harder without all the supplies. Keep in mind that regular schooled kids pay nothing up front. All they pay for are supplies and possibly bus transportation depending on where they live. Some will argue that they also pay the taxes to maintain public schools, but everyone, home schooled or public schooled, pays that, so in reality, home schooled kids are paying more. Keep in mind that with one parent teaching, the family loses income. Parents don't get paid to teach, so it hurts the family financially as well. So again I present, not only socially and mentally, but financially, home schooling can affect the family and child.
Home schooling is not a good option

Before I start, I will refer to all schools that are not home schools as 'regular schools'. Sorry if this may offend anyone.Home schooling kids is hard and can harm a child socially and mentally, even physically. First off, kids don't interact with other kids like they do in regular schools if they are home schooled. Because of this, they may not develop proper social skills, and when confronted with the outside world, will not know what to do and shut down, leading them to a hard life, trying to know how to interact with others.Being in one place, the same scene, all day, for your whole life, can be agonizing, and affect one mentally. Going to a real school helps kids get fresh air, walk around, and be in a different environment. Sure they're probably in the same school year to year, but different grades offer different courses, which mean different areas of the school. If you are home schooled and move up a grade, it's not like you just move into another room in the house like you do in regular school. Being in your house for 12 years of your life and break one down mentally.Lastly, physically, kids cannot develop properly like those who go to regular schools. I'm not just talking about gym class, either. In regular schools, students get passing time in between classes which allow them to walk around the halls, with friends or just to get to their next class. Either one is good for the student's health, even if it is just 5-10 minutes every day. Gym class does help, too. Home schooled kids don't get passing time, or gym in some cases.It also helps that some students who go to regular schools walk or bike home, so they get even more exercise. Home schooled kids are obviously already home once school is over, so they just stay there, which goes back to the mentally harmful point I brought up earlier. Home schooling isn't good because it can only hurt kids
Sea lions are seals

Yeah, technically I "self plagiarized". I wasn't familiar with the term until Con indicated that I did it in the comments section. After reading about the topic, I've concluded that it's not plagiarism like where a person is misappropriating another's work. I did the work; I didn't steal anything. Anyway, Con's use of the term is misplaced here. What I do with the sea lion debates would be more accurately as "reposting", at least in this context. "Self plagiarism" is a term that's used in academic circles when people republish articles in scientific journals requiring peer review, etc. Con's use of the term here appears to be an attempt to contaminate reposting with the negative connotations of plagiarism. The harm caused by reposting content is virtually negligible. Sometimes users have an expectation that the content is fresh or recent, etc. , and when they discover the truth they become disappointed because it is less exciting to consume dated content. I suppose that harm could be mitigated by posting a notice in round 1 that says "NOTICE - THIS DEBATE WILL INCLUDE RECYCLED OR REPOSTED CONTENT". I will probably do that in future debates on this topic. It is worth mentioning that the content in these debates is not entirely recycled. Con's content is new, and I do respond to whatever arguments a contender may come up with in round 2. Con's claim of lack of fairness for not having enough time to prepare an argument is not really sensible. Many people have a prepared argument before a debate begins. That doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the argument was posted in a prior debate. That only has to do with whether or not the argument was ready to post at the time Con accepted. Additionally, Con had ample notice of the time to argue for this debate before he decided to accept it because the website shows you the debate settings before you decide to accept. Con did not make any argument regarding the resolution. Per the rules from Round 1, the final round is for rebuttals only.
We Should Ban Affirmative Action

"This is socialism/communism dude so uhhhh you are not in the correct debate. .. " My opponent has provided no argument in favor of socialism or communism. Meanwhile, I have given evidence in American history to prove that we are based in a government protecting three unalienable rights. "doe AA prevent everybody distributing their money in whatever they majority wants. " Irrelevant. Why should the majority of the people have a say in what one man does with his money? It's not like it's the majority's money or anything. "If anything AA will help eliminate the ghettos. The reason because then a white employer cannot bar lets say a poor Mexican living in the ghetto just because of he is a Mexican. He would get a job get working and move out and stop causing trouble. " Now my opponent is arguing in favor of affirmative action. This just doesn't make sense. "'People should therefore be allowed to hire whoever they want with their own money. Government doesn't have the right to tell them who they can and can't hire. ' That is EXACTLY what I am trying to say. " Wrong. My opponent is saying that affirmative action should be banned. Banning requires government. He apparently agrees that government intervention in hiring is bad. Therefore, we both agree that affirmative action should not be banned. "How about they sue in a court of law in front of a jury. If they can convince the jury it was affirmative action in someway they would win the court case and whatever the outcome happened to be. " 1. This still violates the right of the employer to do what he wants with his own money. 2. Such a lawsuit would waste the time of both the employer and the employee who he wishes to hire, ultimately hurting his business. That's bad. "This whole time I have been saying the government should not force people to hire certain minorities. " I agree. "Nor should someone be barred from a job because of their race, gender, religion ect. " If the employer says that he only wants to hire African-Americans, that's his business. "So this means the most qualified would be hired and this would have to be prove in court as stated before. " An employer might think that being black makes one more qualified. Who's the court to say that that's false? In conclusion, my opponent wishes to violate the employer's right to do what he wants with his own money by preventing him from using whatever factors he wants to determine employment. This right must not be violated.
We Should Ban Affirmative Action

"Government's job is not to make sure that everybody distributes their money in a way that the majority sees fit." This is socialism/communism dude so uhhhh you are not in the correct debate, or doe AA prevent everybody distributing their money in whatever they majority wants. If anything AA will help eliminate the ghettos. The reason because then a white employer cannot bar lets say a poor Mexican living in the ghetto just because of he is a Mexican. He would get a job get working and move out and stop causing trouble. "People should therefore be allowed to hire whoever they want with their own money. Government doesn't have the right to tell them who they can and can't hire." That is EXACTLY what I am trying to say. "However, beyond government, the employers themselves should be allowed to practice whatever affirmative action policies they want." I don't think you have been here the whole time. "Qualification is in the eye of the beholder. There are many different skills necessary for different jobs. Different employers might rank the same employees differently. Government should not be used to provide an objective measure for determining qualifications." How about they sue in a court of law in front of a jury. If they can convince the jury it was affirmative action in someway they would win the court case and whatever the outcome happened to be. "Ah, but the employers are already incentivized not to hire incapable minorities, because a mess-up could lead to death (bad for business) and cost lots of money." This whole time I have been saying the government should not force people to hire certain minorities. Nor should someone be barred from a job because of their race, gender, religion ect. So this means the most qualified would be hired and this would have to be prove in court as stated before.
We Should Ban Affirmative Action

"Isn't it the governments job to protect it's citizens and promote equality." False. Governments are supposed to secure the rights of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" [1]. Government's job is not to make sure that everybody distributes their money in a way that the majority sees fit. "I fail to see what this has to do with affirmative action because what you do with your money is your business and you can give it to whoever you want in your will." My opponent concedes that people have the right to do what they want with their own money. However, the act of hiring is what a person does with his own money. People should therefore be allowed to hire whoever they want with their own money. Government doesn't have the right to tell them who they can and can't hire. "The employer can hire any one they want as long as they keep to the minority laws. These laws state that a certain amount of minorities have to be represented at your company based on the amount in your area. These laws take jobs away from more qualified non-minorities." I am opposed to these minority laws. They go against the employer's right to hire whoever he wants for whatever reason he wants. However, beyond government, the employers themselves should be allowed to practice whatever affirmative action policies they want. My opponent has conceded my paragraph from Round 1: "Finally, not all affirmative action policies involve appropriating jobs based on race or gender. For example, a black man attempting to disprove a stereotype or prejudice in the eyes of his employer would be actively trying to improve the chances of other black people being hired by this employer. Hard work incentivized by the elimination of a stereotype should in no way be banned." "You prove it by if someone of a different race of the employer was better qualified by someone of the same race but did not get the job." Qualification is in the eye of the beholder. There are many different skills necessary for different jobs. Different employers might rank the same employees differently. Government should not be used to provide an objective measure for determining qualifications. "Well then lets at least ban it in workplaces that have dangerous an environment." Ah, but the employers are already incentivized not to hire incapable minorities, because a mess-up could lead to death (bad for business) and cost lots of money. "And I yet to hear any arguments you make to justify it. All you have done so far is a poor job at countering my arguments." My job is not to justify affirmative action. My job is to counter any arguments made to justify banning affirmative action. In conclusion, a ban on affirmative action would violate the rights of the employer to hire whoever he wants. He already has natural incentive not to follow affirmative action, so laws against it would be largely a waste of time, and such laws would be impractical to enforce. 1. http://www.ushistory.org...