BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Standardized test scores accurately reflect the academic value of students.

1. Standardized test scores are just unconsistant I don't know how many other ways I can say this inorder for my opponent to undertsand. If a student takes 4 different tests he will get four different results. I can see why my opponent would think otherwise but he is mistaken. I have already met the burden of proof by providng a quote from an organization that strives to make tests fair that agrees with me. 2. As far as the luck factor goes my opponent's responses have changed throughout this debate. At frist he said something about educated guesses and now he is saying something about how "they can't guess throughout the entire test". I concur that the chances of a student being able to guess through an entire test are low however the fact that it is still easy to guess correctly on a handful ruins the test accuracy. The following hypothetical should explain it all: You do not pass a standardized test becuase you got 1 question wrong and now you must go to summer school. The guy next to you passed becuase he "got lucky" and guessed right. Asside from the test your grades were better than this students but becuase of a lucky guess you know have to go through summer school and he does not. 3. My opponent keeps saying that if you know the material there is no reason to feel nervous. My opponent may feel this way about tests that he has taken but that is his own oppinion. Many students who do know the material well still test poorly just becuase there nervous. I agree that perhaps this is silly of them but never the less it occurs and affects their score negatively. 4. My opponents last point has fluctated through the coarse of this debate but I undertsand it to be: "Standardized tests can help determine what areas a student needs help in. " I disagree entirely. There are simply too many variables that affect a students score to think that a standardized test could be used as any sort of judgment tool. Suppose a student who does know the material well is going through tough times at home this will greatly affect his score merely becuase he is psyhcologically unstable at the moment. Let us not judge students academically through 1 test but through what they have demonstrated through out the year.
Resolved: Standardized test scores accurately reflect the academic value of students.

Let's Continue 1. If a student is well aware of the subject being tested upon and has 3 or 4 different versions of the test, then there should be no reason for him or her to have inconsistent scores. It makes no sense and in response to the quote you used, "The National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences issued a report in 1999 from its Board on Testing and Assessment. The report found that educational tests generally do provide dependable and valuable information about student achievement". The tests are significant in providing information on how the student is doing and what material he or she has mastered. 2. The argument for this debate is that "Standardized test scores accurately reflect the academic value of students", now if a student gets a question wrong that does not mean the test is inaccurate it just means the student doesn't know the material. If a student guesses a question and gets it right, what's the chance that he will do that for the entire test. Hence, Standardized test scores are completely reliable in determining where a child stands in terms of academics. 3. Standardized test scores are accurate because it determines how much a child knows on their own. Students are given enough time to overcome pressure and complete their exam. If a student is under pressure for an exam, how will he or she feel when its time to move on to college and the work field where fear of pressure is not an excuse. 4. Standardized test scores do reflect how much a child knows and where he or she should be helped. It helps teachers to determine how effectively they are teaching and where they need to focus a bit more on. The Great Schools staff states, "Most experts agree that the best tests are ones that measure what students know in relation to what they are supposed to have learned. These tests are called "criterion referenced" or "standards based. " Tests like these, especially when they include writing or problem solving, are useful for both teachers and parents to make sure students are on track for their grade level. " This quote backs up the fact that Standardized test scores accurately reflect where a child stands in terms of academic values.
Resolved: Standardized test scores accurately reflect the academic value of students.

1. My opponent's first arguement was that if a student is knowledgeable his test results will be consistent. I don't know where my opponent is going with this point. I provided an expert quote saying that the test results varried and were not consitent all my opponent did was say that they were in response. 2. In response to my second contention which I entitled "The Luck Factor" my opponent said that one still needed to know a little just to make an educated guess. Even if they are making "Educated Guesses" (which at the end of the day are still just guesses) you still do not have a full grasp of the material and are still just guessing. 3. My opponent said that test atmosphere is normal and if a student is prepared they will be fine. For some students being prepared will make them feel "fine" but for some students even undertsanding and having a full grasp of the material isn't enough. Many students still "choke" under pressure and can't demeonstrate an undertsanding of the material simply becuase there scared. 4. My opponent said that standardized testing is a good representation of a students academic value and also a good representation of the teachers. I belive I have already disproved this point. Standardized testing is to inaccurate to be used to represent a student or even a teacher. I thank you all and urge you all to vot CON!
Resolved: Standardized test scores accurately reflect the academic value of students.

Pro: Standardized test scores accurately reflect the skills a student possesses. Very nice topic to debate upon. As the pro of Standardized testing, I believe the tests do accurately demonstrate how much a student has learned throughout a certain time period. I will point out my counter arguments in numerical order so that it can be clear towards the voter. 1. Consistency- If a student is knowledgeable of the material being administered in the test, then there is absolutely no reason to have a major difference in scores the first, second, or even third time the test is taken. 2. The "Luck" Factor- There is with no doubt that a student can guess an answer out of four choices when the test administered is a multiple choice test. But let us not forget that out of those four choices there are two wrong answers that the professional test makers create and the other two are very similar to one another. Hence, a student will have to know the material on the test so that he or she can make an educated guess. In regards to free response, a student will have to know the material being tested in order to have high results which makes a Standardized Test completely accurate in determining the academic value of a student. 3. Test Atmosphere: Pressure is just a feeling a student has that arouses from the thought of failing. If a student is well prepared then he or she doesn't feel as much pressure as a student who did not study for an exam. The Set's is without a doubt a test that measures the academic abilities of a student. Many students feel pressure because of the expectations of colleges. Many of these students who feel pressure often do well in tests. The feeling of pressure is easily dealt with if a student is confident and has studied the material that is going to be administered. 4. Standardized Tests are very beneficial towards providing teachers with a student's current level of achievement, testing the students academic value. Stan Jones, states in his article "The Neutralization of Benefits in Standardized Testing", that "They can be used for assessment, the weighing of an individual student's abilities to provide better teaching". If a teacher knows how a student is doing, he or she can help to improve their skills and the standardized tests are accurate in determining a students academic standing. Source Used: http://eserver.org... Best of Luck! Please Vote for the Pro Side of Testing!!!
Resolved: Standardized test scores accurately reflect the academic value of students.

Resolved: Standardized test scores accurately reflect the academic value of students. As the Neg/Con side of this debate I strongly disagree with this resolution and will tell why. Before I begin with my opening statements I will first establish a criteria for victory and define a few terms. In order to win I must prove that standardized testing does not/cannot provide an accurate reflection of a student's academic value. As for the Pro they will win only if they can prove that the majority of standardized testing does infact show an accurate representation of a students academic ability. To merely prove that standardized testing is good will not constitue a victory for PRO. Deffinitions ------------- Accurately:free from error or defect; consistent with a standard, rule, or model; precise; exact. Reflect: to serve to cast or bring Academic: Pertaining to traditional or liberal education rather than vocational education. Value: relative worth, merit, or importance source:dictionary.com Contention 1-Standardized tests are not consistent: If something is not consistent how can it be expected to give back an accurate reflection of a childs academic value? The following is a direct quote from the National Center for Fair Testing-"A test is completely reliable if you would get exactly the same results the second time you administered it. All existing tests have "measurement error." This means an individual's score may vary from day to day due to testing conditions or the test-taker's mental or emotional state. As a result, many individual's scores are frequently wrong." With scores fluctuating and changing from time to time merely depending on ones emotional state how at all can we use them to rank students.? Contention 2-The "Luck" factor: With only A,B,C, and D as your options even if you don't know the material there is a 25% chance you'll get it right even if you took a random guess. Becuase so few tests have a free response option test takers are limmited down to just four options and one is right. Free response actually makes one think and if you don't know it randomly circling a bubble won't help you any. Contention 3- Test atmosphere: When testing comes along a huge amount of pressure is attached to it. Just knowing that if you fail you may not be able to get into college was a thought so frightening that a young girl commited suicuide in fear that she would do poorly. Testing atmosphere hinders students ability to think clearly. Often children overthink questions and get them wrong even if they are simple problems they could have solved with ease on a normal day. Lets review: # 1 standardized testing is unconsistent thus proving it does not give back an accurate reflection of a students academic value. # 2 With such a high luck factor who knows how much you really knew or just guessed on. # 3 with pressure levels through the roof kids often overthink problems and "choke" hindering them from doing there best. Best of luck to who ever decides to accept. I will be debating this topic in a few months so feed back is appreciated. Please vote CON/NEG!
Who killed Captain Alex

I think that cool cat killed Captain Alex with the gun that he found on the street. Cool Cat then used this gun to kill C. Alex. Here's how it went down. Cool cat approaches Alex as a friend Cool cat and C. Alex hang out together Once C. Alex trust cool cat, Cool cat invites him over to his house. But this is actually an ambush, as Cool cat is the leader of the tiger mafia. Once C. Alex gets to CC's house, two of CC's goons pin C. Alex down and Cool cat pulls out the gun he stole from Butch the bully once he was arrested and shoots C. Alex.
The Death Penalty

1: The death penalty is irreversible. Absolute judgments may lead to people paying for crimes they did not commit. Texas man Cameron Todd Willingham was executed in Texas in 2004 for allegedly setting a fire that killed his three daughters. Following his execution, Further evidence revealed that Willingham did not set the fire that caused their deaths. But it came too late. 2:there is no credible evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than a prison term. In fact, Evidence reveals the opposite. Since abolishing the death penalty in 1976, Canada"s murder rate has steadily declined and as of 2016 was at its lowest since 1966.
Qdoba is a terrible Mexican restaurant.

Ok well this is a debate of opinions then! It doesn't change the debate. it's not an opinion that it is overpriced. And I never said anything about Qdoba not being authentic. It is popular, but just because it is popular doesn't make it a good restaurant (Appeal to popularity fallacy you fool). There's much better options to go to and get better Mexican food in Charlotte such as El Valle and others. If you can tell me that Qdoba has better food than restaurants like El Valle then go ahead.
Christianity is more peaceful than Islam

Preface: - Pro has provided zero sources for his claims, while he has the BOP. Thus, all his statements should be considered bare assertions, hoping next round he’ll provide the proper sources. Rebuttals: 1. Most Muslim countries are failed states while primarily Christian nations are wealthy and prosperous - This clearly has NOTHING to do with the resolution & is quite utterly false. Besides, the Muslim world was prosperous for over 10 centuries under a dozen of empires: the Rashidun Caliphate, the Umayyad Empire, the Abbasid Empire, the Fatimid State, the Cordoba State, the Ottoman Empire, the Mughal Empire, the Seljuk Empire, the Mamluk State. . . while Christianity was concentrated in poor nations in Europe. - List of the 15 richest countries in GDP per capita, with dominant religion [1] [2]: 1. Qatar >>> 134,289.8 => Islam. 2. Macao SAR, China >>> $127,742.7 => Folk religion. 3. Luxembourg >>> $91,849.9 => Christianity. 4. Kuwait >>> $83,839.7 => Islam. 5. Singapore >>> $75,951.7 => Buddhism. 6. Brunei Darussalam >>> $72,953.9 => Islam. 7. Norway >>> $65,103.7 => Christianity. 8. United Arab Emirates >>> $59,845.3 => Islam. 9. Switzerland >>> $55,915.5 => Christianity. 10. Bermuda >>> $53,056.4 => Christianity. 11. Saudi Arabia >>> $52,042.5 => Islam. 12. United States >>> $51,495.9 => Christianity. 13. Hong Kong SAR, China >>> $51,176.2 => Unaffiliated. 14. Netherlands >>> $46,053.9 => Christianity. 15. Oman >>> $45,333.8 => Islam. => Among the top 15: 6 were predominantly muslim, 6 had Christianity as the major religion. - List of the 15 poorest countries in GDP per capita, with dominant religion [1] [2]: 15. Rwanda >>> $1,425.6 => Christianity. 14. Guinea-Bissau >>> $1,415.7 => Islam. 13. Comoros >>> $1,410.2 => Islam. 12. Madagascar >>> $1,398.9 => Christianity. 11. Togo >>> $1,337.6 => Christianity. 10. Ethiopia >>> $1,262.5 => Christianity. 9. Guinea >>> $1,237.9 => Islam. 8. Eritrea >>> $1,201.0 => Christianity. 7. Mozambique >>> $1,038.8 => Christianity. 6. Central African Republic >>> $948.3 => Christianity. 5. Niger >>> $901.2 => Islam. 4. Liberia >>> $796.5 => Christianity. 3. Congo, Dem. Rep. >>> $755.2 => Christianity. 2. Malawi >>> $753.2 => Christianity. 1. Burundi $750.1 >>> Christianity. => Among the bottom 15: 4 are predominantly muslim, & 11 are predominantly christian. >>> To be continued next round >>> Sources: [1] http://data.worldbank.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Christianity is more peaceful than Islam

Being Pro, I have the burden of proof. before we start I'd just like to have a few ground rules 1. No feelings or personal opinions. This is an objective debate and personal biases cannot interfere with facts 2. No cherry picking or straw man arguments. If you cant argue a point, simply do the honest thing and concede. 3. All quotes and excerpts from holy books (Koran, Bible etc. ) must be properly cited with the version of the book (Ex. NKJV, ASV etc. ) 4. If a Muslim is going to debate me, please remain objective with names and books. For example acronyms like pbuh or swt should not be used as they waste space and make arguments difficult to read. we are looking at this from an objective and secular point of view. :)
The Common Sense Argument is Used Far Too Often

Con is correct in that a definition of common sense must be decided. I also agree that common sense is clearly not simply one's opinion. I take Webster's definition to be a good definition, but I like the Cambridge Dictionary definition better: "The basic level of practical knowledge and judgment that we all need to help us live in a reasonable and safe way." http://dictionary.cambridge.org... The book "Common Sense: The Foundations for Social Science" (p.9) defines common sense as consisting of "knowledge, judgement, and taste which is more or less universal and which is held more or less without reflection or argument." http://books.google.be... I disagree with con's definition of common sense as what somebody should have learned from kindergarten through secondary education. If con's DDO profile is correct, there is a very high probability that he has not graduated from high school, and he would therefore not meet his own requirement for having common sense. Wikipedia authors agree with my argument that the definition of common sense has changed recently: "in modern times the term 'common sense' has frequently been used for rhetorical effect, sometimes pejorative, and sometimes appealed to positively, as an authority. It can be negatively equated to vulgar prejudice and superstition, or on the contrary it is often positively contrasted to them as a standard for good taste and as the source of the most basic axioms needed for science and logic." http://en.wikipedia.org... According to the modern definition of "common sense", the term has been watered down and can mean several things without much room for context. When the common sense argument is used using an argument or debate, the real meaning cannot be immediately known. It could be a literary effect, it could be a negative, or it could be positive. The opponent has to guess the correct meaning or ask for clarification. During a debate, clear and concise arguments should be made without being ambiguous. I hold that the common sense argument should be used much less frequently with the modern definition. When using the common sense argument, it should be used very carefully and with the more historical meaning " that of having a very basic understanding of something that is nearly universally known.
The Common Sense Argument is Used Far Too Often

Merriam Webster: Common Sense (noun)- sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts. Common Sense should be defined by what you have learned in school (Pre-School through 12th Grade) since everyone has (or is suppose to have) gone to school. Most people think "common sense" is a matter of opinion, it is not. Common Sense is a matter of basic facts that anyone who has gone to school would know. For example; 2+2=4, that is common sense because everyone who has gone through school would know that. Something like; lim(3sec x W22; 3tanx) is not common sense because not everyone has taken calculus. In conclusion "common sense" is anything you were expected and required to learn in School.
The Common Sense Argument is Used Far Too Often

When I say the common sense argument is used too often, I mean the argument is used too often out of context. Using the term "Common Sense" has transformed from meaning "what almost all people know and understand" to now being somewhat meaningless. The new and now common definition for common sense is used to degrade the opponent in an argument or simply because the person doesn't want to come up with and give a real argument for some reason or another. This new meaning I hear too often comes through as "This idea is basic and easy for me to understand. Therefore it is common sense." Sometimes the addition of "Why don't you understand the same?" is appended to this thought process. There are few things that almost all people in society understand and agree on that I would call common sense. Some of those things would be that the sun is bright, babies are smaller than adults, or that one must eat and drink to live. My argument is that real common sense survives almost all cultures, languages, religions, races, genders, and locales around the world. Moving from religion to religion will show completely different knowledge and understanding taken for granted between the two religion groups. Different genders see many things differently, and the geography and practices of one country will be very different from those of another country. Thus, commonalities are narrowed with each group of people. With such a diverse set of people across the world, there cannot be very much shared in the commonality of knowledge and understanding. Only basic human needs, some desires, and some repeated physical observations can be classified as common understanding or common sense. Every person around the world is of the same species, so there are some commonalities. However, common sense should be classified for the broadest spectrum of people so we can have better arguments and better awareness. Doing away with the common sense argument when out of context will bring more knowledge to the general population since arguments would be expounded more often, and the world would have an increased "actual" common sense.
Minimum wage

con continues to act like people can just not take low wages. he doesn't respond to my idea that most are forced to take low wages and can't just leave. he doesn't respond to my question of how it's not taking advantage of the masses of people who are effectively unlimited pool of unskilled labor. i dont need a specific number for what the wage ought to be. i just need to show that it's needed, and i think i've done that. con says the wage discriminates against teens and such. they are mostly affected by the job losses. but again after a cost benefit analysis we see that most jobs can afford to pay the wage and we still have a very intact social structure that works fine... people are just paid more than they otherwise would be. con contiues to act as if companies would pay more if we didn't have a minimum wage. con has offered no proof of this, and ignored that they've always paid what htey had to and have always been free to pay more. nothing is stopping them from paying more.