BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pre-testing in public schools

Being a student myself I can say that every time I have taken a pre-test it has infact been what I described. You are only one teacher, so you do things one way. I have had MANY teachers. If you look on dictionary.com there is a 3rd definition which simply says "a test taken for practice." (http://dictionary.reference.com...) As I described. So I do agree it could be either way, but because I am the one who started this debate, and described what version of pre-testing I would like to discuss already I think it would be great if we get back to the actual matter at hand. You stated "Memorize has nothing to do with learning something.", but you also stated in an earlier argument "A student can memorize the Pre-Test answer and sleep during all lesson leading up to the Post-Test. Then, this student can answer the entire question on the Post-Test and it show that he actually learn something.". So, are you saying (as you are a math teacher) that you do or do not need to memorize something to actually learn it. I know if I didn't have things memorized I would fail, due to the fact that I didn't remember anything. At the moment I am making straight A's by memorizing notes and formulas, and I still remember everything from months ago because I memorized it. Obviously it is working for me. Thank you! :D
Pre-testing in public schools

Being a Math Teacher myself, you definition is incorrect with Pre-Test. You are describing checking for understanding for THAT lesson which some teachers call ticket out, bell rings, or even pop quiz. The following references define Pre-Test. According to the dictionary [1]Pre-test is A preliminary test administered to determine a student's baseline knowledge or preparedness for an educational experience or course of study. According to references [2] Pret-Test is a test given to determine if students are sufficiently prepared to BEGIN a new course of study. A true Pre-Test is given BEFORE the unit which includes all lessons that will be cover on the post test. If your teacher is giving you Pre-test after he has taught you then that is not pre-test and is QUIZ or ticket out the door. Memorize has nothing to do with learning something. You have to apply what you learn in the classroom to the real world that shows that you actually learn something. I have many students that can memorize songs and speeches but they cannot tell me what the song is about or the speech. It shows that you can recall where you put your car keys or even where you lived at. If you can apply what you learn then, you can tell me how you can get to your house by the streets or how to find your car keys Sources [1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Pre-testing in public schools

Hello! Thank-you for joining me in this topic. I see you did bring up the fact that not all pre-tests are like the ones that I described, I do agree and am only debating the ones I referred to. I also would like to say that I never did say the pre-tests and actual test were the exact same, I simply stated that the pre-test would cover everything that would be on the graded actual test. You also said a student could memorize the pre-test. Pre-tests are given after learning a lesson and before a test. Anything the student knew on the pre-test was learned from the lesson. If they missed questions they would have to find the answers themselves and memorize them which would be learning/studying. I assume you agree due to the fact that you said yourself that a student could memorize what was on the pre-test, and answer the question on the actual test which would "show that he actually learn something." (learned). Also, most schools do not pre-test, but a majority of schools also do not pursue real world projects. In fact most just have worksheets, and then tests, and that's it. Once again, thank you for debating me, cant wait to see your rebuttal!
Pre-testing in public schools

The statement that Pre-Tests do not count for a grade and it covers all of the questions that be will be on the actual graded test is not all true. Some school districts in USA do take Pre-Test as grade and all the questions on the Pre-test are not actually on the post-test. We are assuming that Pre-Test and Post-Test are the same test. This is actually not the case in some school district. If we are assuming that the Pre-Test and Post-Test are the same then, we enter into your next point about learned what you were supposed to. A student can memorize the Pre-Test answer and sleep during all lesson leading up to the Post-Test. Then, this student can answer the entire question on the Post-Test and it show that he actually learn something. This data is misleading to the student, teacher and school administrators. A better way to see what you actually learn is thru real world projects. Pre-test are for one classroom school houses.
Pre-testing in public schools

In various different high schools there are pre-tests. Pre-tests do not count for a grade and cover all of the questions that will be on the actual graded test. I think that pre-testing is a great way to prepare for a test without missing anything you need to know for the test, and also without studying things that wont be on the test. I am sure we have all had the teacher that has one question in the entire test about the 8 pages of notes you took. I have asked my teachers what tests are actually for, and they all seem to agree that tests are there to make sure you learned what you were supposed to. What if you didn't learn everything? You just fail? That isn't right. Half of the time I forget what I "learned" a week after testing. Isn't the whole point of school to learn? Another good thing about pre-tests is that when you get the pre-test back you can study everything you got wrong, and do well on the test, which is a great help. Thank you for reading! :) I'm new at this, so don't expect too much.
There are no right or wrong answers in ethics.

Those social norms and laws can be used to control others and shape the world in their image. Leaving those that refuse to conform to be considered a threat and to be destroyed. As the saying goes: "your freedom fighters are our terrorist". In V for Vendetta the main character, V, was considered a terrorist to Great Britain's government because he was trying to open the people's eyes and show them that we have more control over the government than we think. In the Robin Hood stories, Robin steals from the rich and gives to the poor. The poor sees him and his merry men as heroes, while the rich sees Robin and the merry men as terrorists and villains. Ethics can be used to control others by those who make them. Those that try to make there own way may be seen as bad by the powers that be and hunted down. History has shown many instances of this happening such as the civil rights movement, Salem witch trials, the Holocaust. All of these have shown what could happen when ethics are twisted to make outsides or different ways of thinking seen as wrong. One way this is shown is in the video game series Assassin's Creed. There are two factions, the Assassins and the Templars. The Templars believe that world peace can be achieved through order and controlling the world. By setting up there own rules, telling people what should be done for them and manipulating history as they see fit. The Assassin's believe in freewill, making your own choices, and not disturbing the flow of history and humanity unless it is in secret. This may lead to humanity making a lot of mistakes, but to the Assassins it is worth it if it means people are in control of their lives and not being controlled by others.
There are no right or wrong answers in ethics.

Who says that everyone who gets to make the decision of what is ethically right or wrong can make the right decision for themselves? Society is based upon norms, laws, and rules, which bounds over us all wither you like it or not. The reason behind it is that certain people need the guidance of others to make the decision for them in order to keep them in order. For many people need to know exactly what the law of the land is to be laid out clearly in front of them to see. The reason might be that most people"s will and integrity is not as strong as it needs to be in order to prevent crimes from being committed. I am not stating that or saying that all people are not smart enough to figure out what is right and what is wrong for them, but some people just needs some force of guidance in the right direction because sometimes the hardest decisions to make are the moral and ethical dilemmas. Nothing is every simple and easy when talking about ethics, but just be glad there are simple guides to be of assistance along the way. Some people are just not rational enough to decide for themselves for whatever reason that is. While others, need the aid in order to catch up with the times in order to step into the modern era of the 21st century. In Star Wars, even though Anakin Skywalker did all those horrible and unethical acts, it gives an example to others not to commit those acts of crime. For example, his son, Luke, by knowing what others who committed acts of evil, like his father, he valued never to be act likes his father ever in his life. He knew what was ethically wrong, and what is ethically right. At the end by knowing and acting like an ethical person, it even turn around his father, Anakin in doing the right deed at the end to become a more ethical and honorable individual. For Drizzt, he knew what is right or wrong by the people, the companions that he hanged around with as a method knowing his moral compass will always be in the right direction no matter where his adventures take him down on his journey of adventures. So in order to be considered morally ethical, people try to hang around people that are similar in style, beliefs, and the such with them, so at least they know what they are doing is morally right for themselves, and no one else.
There are no right or wrong answers in ethics.

What keeps people and society from going into chaos is that they chose to not act like savages and run rabid in the streets. Leader of the Wu Tang Clan, The Rza, says has a philosophy and part of his beliefs is that we are all free to do whatever we want to do, but there are consequences to our actions. So while I can punch someone in the face I could go to jail or be killed because of my actions. While people may not realize that they have more control and freedom over their lives, they do know that their actions have consequences that will affect them. Even though some people know this, they still choose commit acts that go against the law and are considered wrong as a means to an end. So even if someone does something wrong if it places that person in a better situation, they might go with doing the deed. There are many books, movies, and comics that show people going against a ethical code that they were brought up in and choosing to turn its back on that code to do what they believe is good, for money, save a loved one, etc. In Star Wars Anakin Skywalker turned to the dark side and betrayed the jedi order to save his wife. I will take it even further and say that before he turned to the dark side he broke many rules of the order to save others knowing full well that he shouldn't. He let his anger and pride get the best of him; leading to the deaths of a tusken raider village, the lost of his arm, but also a large sum of his power came from his anger. He refused to let go of his attachments to his mother and married Padme Amidala which forbidden for jedi to do. Anakin knew what he did went against the jedi code but he chose not to let that stop him from doing as he please. They are also instances where people without any moral judgment do what is considered the right option. In the movie, The Dark Knight, the Joker has bombs on two boats. One boat is full of civilians and the other boat is full of convicts. All the people both of the boat could have blew the other boat up but they chose not to. Realizing that you have a choice, even if it means pain or death, is more powerful than a moral code because you are in control of your actions and not by a code that tells you how you should act.
There are no right or wrong answers in ethics.

For both spider man, even though they both have the same end result of the bigger picture by cleaning up crime, there are still ethical issues that needs to dealt with. The fight for the normal criminal is not a fair match up when going against Otto and some of the other super heroes are using technology, or even their own super powers, which they don"t have to take care of business. It is will and good if that is the fact with super villains. If they don"t then the heroes would not have a fair level playing field just like the normal criminals do not when fighting against those with technology or super powers. So with a hero like Otto, he is being unethical by not thinking there are different ways of treating criminals. Would society not call him not treating criminals with the respect, even though they are villains? Being on a fair playing ground is the reason why many people grab on and connect with Batman or any heroes in the Watchmen so much more as they are just regular human beings fighting crime with no super powers to his own whatsoever. It makes him more connectable on a human and emotional level. While dealing with ethics, people need to think about and respect others. They need to think about if the method in solving the problem justifies the end result or not. Does the superhero like Otto want to start acting like the villains just to deal out some justice? Then if there is no right or wrong, what keeps society from not falling into chaos? What keeps the balance in people"s mind that keeps them on the straight and narrow path? It is easier to go and live a life of crimes, and people do that, but how we don"t see more people turning into criminals? Are there no grounds of difference between what is right and what is wrong? If a society like the Islam religion belief in women has second class citizens is that correct? But even though today in this day and age in the 21st century to many other society that would seem totally wrong and backwards way of thinking as women have gained so much in the last hundred years to get all their rights to where they are today. So to a certain degree, society in a way decides on what are right and what are wrong. This does not have to mean that it has to been written into as a law. If one chose to deviate from the norms, then he or she becomes an outcast, and seen as different. By being a superhero, one already has decided to become an outcast of society, so the rules and laws don"t and should not really apply to them. So in a sense by being an outcast of society, everything they do is wrong and unethical, which makes them not valid, and not have to play by the rules of society. So by being a vigilante does it make super heroes criminals in the bigger picture? If it does then by that reasoning, they are all wrong in their actions no matter what ethical method they take in fighting the criminals. It is the reason why you see in some comics there is so much uprising against masked heroes.
There are no right or wrong answers in ethics.

Knowing what is right or wrong depends on the person. What maybe right for me may not be right for you. let's take Peter Parker Spider-man and Otto Octavious Spider-man. Both Spider-men have the same goal of protecting the New York City, but they both have their own different methods of making New York safe. For Peter Parker, he believes that he should use his powers and his mind to take down criminals and save the citizens of New York, but when he is fighting normal human criminals he always pulls his punches so he does not kill or hurt criminals any more than he has to. Peter Parker also uses his technology and gadgets that he makes at Horizons lab for subduing criminals while not killing them. Another thing that Peter does is that he believes that everyone has a chance at redemption. To make up for their past mistakes and be given a second chance. Now Otto Octavious is a lot different than Peter Parker when it comes to crime fighting. Otto uses technology just like Peter does, but the gadgets he uses are completely different. Otto has no problem with using his technology to spy on people all over New York City to stop crime. These cameras, called spider-bots look out for crime or any signs of danger within New York. He decides which crimes would be deemed worth by what the disaster or crime is happening and whether a super villain is committing the crime or not. So if Shocker was attacking New York he would step in, but if it was a plain old mugging he would swing on past it. What separates Otto Octavious from Peter Parker is that Otto is willing to kill criminals to stop crimes fro happening again. He is ruthless to his enemies and criminals and if he believes that killing a criminal would make New York safer then he would do it. What does this have to do with this debate? It's that these two characters chose different methods in crime fighting. They both decided what behavior would be acceptable to them to do what is necessary . Peter believed that it is wrong to kill criminals where Otto decides to use it as a way to keep the city safe. Otto decides to ignore some crimes to spend more time facing super powered or dangerous criminals while Peter fights any crime that happens on his watch. Peter and Otto use different methods to fight crime which is sometimes are considered acceptable or unacceptable to the people of New York, the Avengers, etc. It does not matter, the main thing is that they chose what their ethical code will be for fighting crime and did not need (or did not listen to) someone to tell the spider-men what is right or wrong for them; they decided on it on their own because they trust themselves to make the right decision.
There are no right or wrong answers in ethics.

In ethics for everything there has to be a right action for every wrong action. Like you said that there are many different ethical codes people have to follow. So even if the person does not follow their ethical code, it means that it is the wrong answer for the situation or their beliefs at the time. Ethics may not have a straight set of principles that people have to follow, but one would know what would be wrong or right to do certain things at a certain situation. For example, everyone would be wrong to murder a human being in almost all situations. Another one would be stealing from another in the most basic moral views, it would be wrong. For that it does not matter how much a person grows and maturities, it will still be wrong. People will learn not to commit murder or steal from another at a very early age, and it will stick with them for the rest of their lives. Basically ethics is very objective; it all depends on their personal views. What one views to be right does not mean its right. Just as long as one view something is right, and can justify it with an answer that it means it can be right. There is no straight right or wrong answers in ethics, but there are just right or wrong answers that are all depended on different situations. Sometimes one can go against the culture just because they know what is ethically wrong and right. For example, is it right or wrong to do something just because it is part of a society or culture? One has to follow their own judgment on what is right and what is wrong. If their own judgment and beliefs proves to be right for them, then there is a right answer in ethics. Take a look at the fantasy character Drizzt Do"Urden, created and written by the fantasy author R. A. Salvatore, who realized at an early age that there were something ethical wrong with the culture that he came from and belonged to. His race, the Dark Elves, is a race that is willing to kill others, even the one"s family in order to get ahead, and be in favor of their spider God, Lolth. Whatever Lolth says and wants is correct. But for Drizzt, mainly through the teachings of his father , who he is raised by realizes that their culture was wrong, and decided to give up that lifestyle and culture. He escaped that culture, and decided to something that no Dark Elf ever has done, to escape that culture of hate and murder. Also he is one of those characters that will always stick and live by his ethical and moral code to do the right thing no matter what the situation is. For him there will always be an ethically wrong or right answer to everything he will ever do, even if he gets tempted by others to be unethical, he will always try to still to his moral principles. This is what Drizzt is known for. It is the reason that makes him one of the most well known and popular fantasy characters of all time. For being moral and ethical character, it is the reason that he is my favorite fantasy character of all time. For being moral and ethical character, it is the reason that he is my favorite fantasy character of all time.
There are no right or wrong answers in ethics.

Ethics is based off of principles that guide people to do the right thing. What would be considered right to some may not be ethical and right to others. How do we know that we have gone too far the deep end unless we do so without making our own limits? To live by our own ethical code and to change when we see fit would be more useful in the long run because what we believe to be ethical, right and wrong will change when you grow older. This not a bad thing, it's human nature; we change and experience events that will change our thoughts and how we see the world. To not do this is to remain stagnate and to be unable to learn from what you've experience and become better because of it. There are many ethical codes for people such as police officers, soldiers, martial arts, etc. What ethics are used in one subject may not help or be useful in another situation. The need to know hen we should adapt our ethics to a situation can be crucial to one's survival.