BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Employers should be allowed to discriminate against candidates with regional accents

I ask my opponent to not take any offense to the following. I will be taking his argument and changing some words in it to express how it is unjust to discriminate against employees based on accent. "Now, that perception may be unfair, but, nevertheless it exists and businesses whose customers are typically educated and wealthy will want their staff to look and sound as if they come from the same social background, not only so they are understood, but also so the client feels comfortable at the fact that the race of them and the person their talking to is the same. That's why firms should be allowed to discriminate against people of another race." If one reads the above, I think that nearly everyone will find it blatantly racist and see that the logic does not make sense. I believe that employers should not be allowed to discriminate based on accent in a help wanted. If a person could not be understood, then that is a different matter but if a person only has an accent, then discrimination should be forbidden on help wanted ads simply because it is on the same level as racism and sexism. Thank you.
Employers should be allowed to discriminate against candidates with regional accents

With many thanks to Superboy777 for accepting this challenge. I accept my opponent's interpretation of my argument that the issue is about being understood, although I was also arguing it is about the social stigmas attached to regional accents, which some would perceive as snobbery and entrenching class stereotypes. Please play the attached YouTube clip of the comedian Bobby Thompson who delivers his act in his native Geordie accent (Geordies are people from Tyneside, an industrial area of North East of England). How much of his act do you understand? I doubt anyone but a Geordie would be able to fully understand him – please let me know if I'm wrong! However, he is speaking perfectly correct English, just with a regional accent that's all. I chose these videos carefully, by the way. Firstly because Bobby Thomson based his character "The Little Waster" on my own grandfather (I'm also a waster – I can't help it, it's in my blood!) and, secondly, because I am also a Geordie and used to have a Geordie accent, although I now speak with a standard English accent (which some people unkindly describe as "posh"). The reason I lost my accent was that I moved to the South of England when I was a child and nobody could understand my Geordie accent there. I, therefore, had to moderate my accent so that they did. Nevertheless, even when I left school I still had a distinct Geordie twang but, through the process of mixing with people who spoke with refined English accents I unconsciously adopted their manner of speech. If I had not done so, I would not have been able to conduct business and would also have suffered from people's automatic assumption that industrial accents are associated with undereducated, working class people. Now, that perception may be unfair, but, nevertheless it exists and businesses whose customers are typically educated and wealthy will want their staff to look and sound as if they come from the same social background, not only so they are understood, but also so the client feels comfortable. That's why firms should be allowed to discriminate against people with regional accents. Thank you. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Employers should be allowed to discriminate against candidates with regional accents

I as the con side must say that employers should not be allowed to discriminate against accents. We live in a society that has improved significantly from the racist, sexist one we lived in previously. If a job application were to say, FEMALES NOT ALLOWED, then society would shun said advertisement without thinking twice. On the other hand, if an advertisement were to discriminate against accents, then it brings up an interesting point. Is it in the same category as sexism and racism? My opponent brings up the fact that one with a strong accent can have elocution lessons to improve the accent. In [1], the article brings up the fact that a person can have a perfect pronunciation, have an astounding vocabulary yet still be discriminated because of an accent they cannot change. Elocution-study of formal speaking in pronunciation, grammar, style, and tone. Someone could be very strong in all these categories yet still have a very obvious accent. Thus, a person does not have control over their accent just as they do not have control of their parents nor where they live and what the first language they learn is. My essential argument is that discriminating solely based on someone's accent is the same as discriminating based on race and sex. People cannot choose their skin color nor can they choose their gender. If one reads [1], they can understand and see how a person could have amazing skills at the art of rhetoric yet still be stuck with an accent. This is not their choice. My opponent (comments section) says that this discrimination can go to job advertisements that very bluntly say that the fat need not apply. Or if using accents, those with foreign accents please stay away. The resolution that my opponent states is that employers should be allowed to discriminate against those with accents and later clarifies in the comments section that this discrimination can go bluntly on ads. My opponent then states in his argument that not discriminating against accents is equivalent to fitness clubs being obliged to allow an obese person to be on their ads. I as the con side am not stating that employers should have to employ people with accents but however, they should be fair to these people and look at their skills and qualifications and how easy they can be understood. If said person could be understood, and was the most appropriate person for the job, then I firmly stand by the choice of De Beers to allow someone that may sound like a clod-hopping country bumpkin, but is skilled at rhetoric and can be easily understood despite said accent. This is why I believe that discrimination against accents is just as severe as racism or sexism because an accent is not something that one can control. People with accents can be understood clearly and have excellent vocabulary. If the resolution were instead about people who cannot be understood, then I would be on the pro side. My opponent assumes that an accent is equivalent to not being understood. I as the con side have given a firm rebuttal to that. -Thank you [1]http://www.thestarphoenix.com...
Employers should be allowed to discriminate against candidates with regional accents

Many organisations wishing to employ customer-facing staff take many factors into consideration, including: physical appearance; personal hygiene; dress sense; manners and etiquette; charisma and, very importantly, accent. Now, all of the above, with the exceptions of his or her physical appearance and accent are, to a great degree, within the personal control of the candidate. Clearly, the candidate's physical appearance is the aspect over which he or she has least control, but if even one is fat one can always lose weight by eating less and exercising more, and if one was unfortunate enough to be born with a face like a dropped pie, one can always opt for cosmetic surgery. Similarly, if one has a strong accent one can have elocution lessons. You see, there are certain jobs and professions where employers would prefer their staff to have neutral, if not refined, accents. These include: Lawyers Bank Managers Doctors TV News Readers Sales Directors of multinational corporations Antiques Experts for auctioneers such as Sotheby's or Bonhams Customer Service Managers for firms such as Rolls-Royce, Sunseeker Yachts and Harrods However, that doesn't mean that there aren't jobs for people with accents. There are lots of firms that would positively welcome front-of-house staff with certain regional accents, for example: Employer – Preferred Accent ---------------------------------- Pizza Hut - Italian Taco-Bell – Mexican Burger King - Bronx KFC - Hillbilly Smoked Salmon and Cream Cheese Bagels R Us – Yiddish Anatolian Ahmed's Kebab House – Turkish Manze's Eels, Pie and Mash Shops - Cockney Hong Kong Garden Chinese Take-Away - Cantonese Harry Ramsden's Famous Fish ‘n' Chip Shops - Yorkshire Royal Taj Curry House – Indian Bistro de Croissants et du Stinking Fromage – French It would be ridiculous if a fitness club advertising for a salesperson had to employ an obese person to avoid discriminating against gravitationally-challenged people and it would be equally ridiculous if De Beers on New York's 5th Avenue had to employee someone who sounded like a clod-hopping country bumpkin to avoid discriminating against people with regionally-compromised enunciation. Therefore, I reaffirm that employers should be allowed to discriminate against candidates with regional accents. Thank you.
Resolved: President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the United States' best

First of all, the word of one General should not be enough to sway a vote. Contention #1: The evidence of Iraq should not be a basis, because obviously Iraq is a different country with a different structure. How can we know the results will be the same? And terrorists are fully capable to work around security measures. The evidence can be seen on our own soil with the attempted terrorist attack on Christmas Day. They will be able to work even more effectively in a country they are familiar with and a country that's presently much much weaker than our own. Therefore contention #2 is irrelevant. A pro-ballot vote does not solve for this contention as shown by my argument on contention #1. And contention #3 is not significant enough to sway a vote. A troop surge puts more people at risk without significant results in this case. Stopping some drug trafficking is not worth the lives. It also should be a back burner issue to the issue of terrorism, which the affirmative has yet to solve for.
Resolved: President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the United States' best

I do not believe that Obama's increase of troops in Afghanistan is in the USA's best interest. I believe this because the military approach has not solved the problem. The structure of the terrorist cells makes this so. I think that the government should look into other means of solving the "war" on terror. It doesn't have to be a war. Historically, peaceful and diplomatic efforts have gained more long term effects and war has gained more short term. Short term results may be good, but what's the point if they don't last? I do not have an exact answer for this alternate means of handling the problem, but I refuse to believe that more troops is the only way. Also, bringing troops home was part of Obama's campaign that helped him win the presidency. If we can't trust that our president will do what he said he would, the country as a whole will not be strong.
Animals shouldn't be used in circuses

Now lets get on with my first argument. Animals are mistreated in circuses Animals shouldn"t be used in circuses because they are mistreating the animals. Exotic animals are supposed to be free roaming the wild, not under a big tent jumping through hoops of fire and balancing on their heads! Animals in circuses are usually hurt with whips and billhooks, kept in a small cage where they eat, sleep, and do their business all in the same place, and so much more. PETA recently confiscated a video which shows a trainer beating an elephant, while other trainers are shouting stuff like "hit her, make her scream! " This just proves my statement. , heres the video: www. youtube. com/watch? v=V4lO8Ner3hYR06; As you can see, circuses are a poor place for animals to live, as it's more like a prison to them. I await my oponents response
Animals shouldn't be used in circuses

You have no evidence whatsoever to support your thesis, but i do credit you for trying to face me in a debate. Animals kept in captivity shortens their lifespans. Animals shouldn"t be used in circuses because keeping animals in captivity shortens their life spans. Studies show that an elephant kept in captivity (circuses, zoos, etc.) have life-spans that are three times shorter than those that are in the wild. And that"s without all of the neglect and mistreatment. The shorter life spans are due to the fact of high stress levels, some from the fact that, instead of the 4 to 12 related elephants that they group with in the wild, there are 1-3 other, unrelated elephants with them. Not just in circuses, but in zoos too! Sources: http://www.captiveanimals.org...
End of Affermative Action

Affirmative Action aims at ending previously done discrimination not continuing to discriminate. Affirmative Action does not serve as a free pass to minorities but instead an aid to reaching a desired out come. Without the assistance of Affirmative Action these outcomes may never be achievable. Individuals aren't always given the same opportunities and resources needed to achieve a goal. Affirmative Action focuses on making equal opportunities available to all. The individual will still have to work hard to achieve something but they will be given a more even playing field to their counterparts. If chosen to end Affirmative Action our country will be undoing the progress we have made over the years which aimed at equal opportunity for all.
End of Affermative Action

It is criticized that affirmative action is a form of reverse discrimination; affirmative action keeps societies aware of the barriers that divide it and actually perpetuates alienation and resentment between ethnically diverse groups, thus increasing rather than reducing racial tension. "Critics claim that racially-based hiring or appointment policies encourage everyone not to perform at their best - the underprivileged, because they may get the position anyway, and the privileged, because they cannot be hired no matter how well they perform".
End of Affermative Action

While it's true that some individuals may take advantages of programs aimed at aiding them, aided programs prove to be more beneficial to the people who truly need it then to the people abusing the aid. Affirmative Action aims at evening the already biased playing field that has existed for centuries. We cant turn a blinding eye to have minority groups are treated when applying for college and jobs. The Huffington Post covered a story last year of a unemployed Hispanic male that changed his name on his resume from Jose to Joe and analyzed how he receive more job opportunities based on his name sounding more American. Affirmative Action knows discrimination still exists in our society, and it aims at fixing this problem.
End of Affermative Action

although is true that affirmative action is way to prevent discrimination in many institutions, i believe there are different ways that can be more effective in providing everyone with the same opportunities. i am not saying that every one in a particular culture is just seating there waiting for stuff to be handed to them, but its also important to point out that a lot of people like to get get stuff the easy way instead of putting up the work for it. if ending affirmative action is what needs to be done to get every one on the same playing field then great. There are many people who take advantage of the programs offered by the government (welfare,Food Stamp to name a few) without needing them.
End of Affermative Action

Affirmative Action does not promote inequality, instead it promotes equality by allowing minorities the same chances that the majority is already given. This allows minorities to be equally experienced despite the hardships they have to face. While it"s true potential students put in hard work to get accepted into a privileged school. Affirmative Action allows an individual who had to overcome different circumstances the opportunity to attend. One way Affirmative Action is beneficial is in college admissions. Students part of certain racial groups or low income brackets have this considered in their application. Ending Affirmative Action would be hurtful to the minorities of this country that only want to seek better opportunities.
End of Affermative Action

It is often demanded of educational facilities to ensure that certain minority groups within a community are included "in the all programs being offered. The reasons given for affirmative action by its supporters is that it helps to compensate for past discrimination, persecution or exploitation by the ruling class of a culture. it is not fair for a group of people to be granted privileges just because of their race or past unfortunate events happened in history. Affirmative Action is just a way to promote inequality. its not fair for many students to put in hard work to achieve entrance to a privileged school to have a governmental policy grant the same result for having a lower grade just because they want to avoid discrimination.
challenge how some god will die who is made of something is true

let me tell you in detail in written. i dont mean to harm any gods or any religions neither i will never go against any religions or religions gods. i am saying original truth of god of genies (god of spirits) so whoever spirits are. genies are thinking of understanding of someone who understands and think and when someone understands and thinks the genies comes out inside dream of universe as thinking which spirits hear them as voice from mind. Now that someone is humans or animals or anyone who can understand and think. So if you understand beautiful that you are there is god and he is made of color of something and he is something which cannot be defeated by anyone and thinks same what you understand then automatically genie comes out from your mind (head) and that genies is not seen to you because its thinking in originality and thinking is dream because thinking comes out from mind of someone like a dream which is heard to spirits only but not to humans so dream hears dream and dream sees dream. now the genie which came out from your mind has understanding as what you understood while you understand and think so he says he is made of something just like you think (imagination is also thinking) because it comes out from mind of humans as dream only which spirits comes to know it as voice from mind. as soon the genie comes inside dream of universe then the genie believes in his understanding to be true from which he came from and you understood that is true because you kept your mind clean and understood and think and without being true a human or someone cannot think that means voice from mind only comes when you keep your mind clean and true in thinking. now when you become true and stay true the genie who came out from you inside dream of universe becomes true because in originality the genie is thinking of your understanding and if you become true then he becomes true and a genie can get anything at any time like educating himself or learning something with he proofs he is true so he is not proven as lie by anyone because if his understanding becomes lie then he dies and erases from time and if he becomes true by anyone or those who proves he is lie becomes lie then he comes in time again that means live again or appear again. so this is the history of gods of genies, do you still believe in any god of genies (god of spirits) to be true who cannot even tell you what is truth about them and how they have come. check out my youtube channel and go through playlist wise to understand my believe specially my dna shining and earwax shining and blood shining https://www.youtube.com... make sure you not get fooled by any god of genies (god of spirits) who says they were not born and fears that there god will die. who doesnt even knows what is knowledge and what is believe i dont understand how they become gods and ruled since many billion years on this planet. hope you like my beautiful truth and share with spirits through thinking what i wrote. take care meet you in time.
challenge how some god will die who is made of something is true

i mean what is originality of gods of genies ? or gods of spirits ? if you check they are thinking (thought) of humans or someone and they die because of thinking of truth of someone like of human. thinking (thought) of understanding is a genie (spirit) and this genie dies from thinking of truth of someone like of human. do you believe these gods to be true who dies from any thinking of truth which makes his truth lie (a truth from which understanding he comes of someone) if yes and that is why genies says our god will die then stop believing in fake gods and believe in my original god (joking who is me)
Keeping fish in bowls is inhumane

I don't think you know this but 96% of all our fish are tank raised in the hobby. If keeping fish is inhumane, keeping a dog or a cat is equally the same because I bet they probably want to run in packs in the wild. Common NameRed Oscar - Small Scientific NameAstronotus ocellatus OriginSouth America Max Size (in inches)14 Community SafeNo pH Range6.5-7.5 DietCarnivore Min Tank Size (in gallons)75 Temperature Range76-82 DifficultyEasy This is the tank specs for the Red Oscar that needs 75 gallons for one fish to be happy in an environment. Also they are all bred in the trade so we are not hurting there natural environment (Amazon). http://www.thatpetplace.com... I am a proud hobbyist and I will never stop what I do. I'm apart of many clubs in my area, I help others who want to join the hobby. PETA might hate me because of my hobby. They are wrong I am right!
Keeping fish in bowls is inhumane

Ironically you keep fish in "bowls", which are similar to tanks. If you keep a bowl filtered it will be pretty much the same! Besides, it is shown in this insanely complicated science experiment from http://books.google.com... that goldfish are very vulnerable to ammonia and waste, as along with different kinds of chemicals! I argue that keeping fish in tanks is equally inhumane, as they are still equally trapped along with other fishes, and tanks are much harder to keep than simple bowls. Therefore keeping fish in bowls is equally inhumane as tanks, and if you have nothing to compare it to, then it is "humane" in comparison. "If you compare a tall person to a stumped person, you could say one is tall and one is short. However, if you compare two twins with exactly equal heights, and you only compare them to one another, you cannot claim one is short or tall compared to another." Since keeping fish in tanks or bowls is less inhumane than keeping fish in their natural environment, in comparison, it is humane. And if my argument is valid, fish in tanks and bowls are practically equal, and thus, equally humane and inhumane at the same time, leading to my conclusion that keeping fish in a bowl is not humane but neither is it inhumane, because you have nothing to compare it to!