BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to k-12 education in the U.S

That's disappointing. When I accepted this, I thought I'd get a good debate on a topic with equal ground that I don't know anything about. I researched and did gain some information, and I was going to tell the judges to ignore the Con/Pro confusion if my opponent continued their argument. When I accepted, I didn't intend things like a "noob snipe," because I didn't realize my opponent was new to the site. Anyhow, here's why you should vote Con: (1) Pro confuses the sides in arguing for a resolution. Pro argues *against* the resolution, which means every single argument of Pro's is turned against them. The turn means you vote Pro down since Pro doesn't fulfill their share of the burden. (2) Pro doesn't prove any of their points -- the "overemphasis on vocational education" point was a bare assertion and was insufficiently explained, in that there's no reason to think that's a net harm; Pro's source for their first contention and argument only concern primary school children, which is irrelevant to K-12 education. I've constructed a case with clear reasons to vote Con, even presuming I'm taking the "for" position. First, standardized testing has clear benefit to students, since it makes it more likely for them to show interest in studies, to complete their homework, and to interact with parents about school work, and the feedback given as a result is much more effective than personal feedback. Second, there's benefit to teachers, since it reduces their workload, benefit them via accountability systems, contribute to teacher evaluations, and tell teachers how to deal with different students in different ways (which also link turns my opponent's first contention).
islam is more violent than chrisitanity

Dragonfang, from the D to the G.Pro did not offer much objection to my arguments demonstrating a significantly larger acts of violence and unneccessary bloodshed from the Christian teachings, and neither does Pro deny them. Therefore that is efficently a concession; my opponent has not lived up to his burden of proof regarding the resolution.I believe it is, by all means, reasonable to conclude that Christianity is more violent than Islam judging by the content of this debate, and Pro being unable to hold the assertion presented that Islam is more violent than Christianity.I thank Pro for this debate and wish her well.[{Vote Con}] http://www.deviantart.com...http://www.asciiworld.com...
islam is more violent than chrisitanity

con's bible verses do not indicate violence from christians. Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is thus disingenuous (the actual Muslim words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The actual Arabic comes from "fitna" which can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until "religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief. Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things." Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant ca
islam is more violent than chrisitanity

islam is more violent than chrisitanity/judaism this debate focuses on nonbelievers, not things such as stoning sinners. if you included this stuff, it'd be even more violent. "The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter." for some of the verses and the link to the above quote see the following link: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com... the old testament was violent. then Jesus came and said things like "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". and "turn your cheek". and people generally view Jesus's death as a pacification of God's wrath such that violence is not necessary anymore, and generally violence isn't seen as necessary any more. islam still has commands for violence that doesn't have someone like Jesus standing in the way to stop them.
abortion

abortion is murder. If you think that abortion is right, then you must think that murder is okay. As soon as that egg is fertilized there is a child in your body. a living breathing human. You wouldn't kill a litter of puppies inside the mother dog would you? No, not unless your a sick person. So why would u kill a actual human growing inside of you? If your going to have sex, wear a condom, or go on birth control or give the baby up for adoption. You have options, you don't have to kill a a baby, yes its the mothers choice but the mother also has hundreds of other options and abortion should not be one of them. There are people who want a baby more than anything, people who can't have babies and then there are others who don't. yea, i understand if your raped you can't really help getting pregnant or not an u don't want to have a rapists child but no one ever said you had to keep the baby. Give it to someone who want a child more than anything. In conclusion, abortion is murder you can say all you want that its not, but you are killing a child plain and simple.
abortion

I'm sorry to hear that. But my point is, you're not taking a child's life away because they never had one to begin with. They were never conscious of their self, and by having an abortion it's as if they didn't exist. And I would argue that abandoning them is more inhumane than abortion, even if you consider abortion morally wrong. First of all, let me stress that if people don't want a baby, they will find away to get rid of it. If abortion is illegal, some of them will turn to infanticide, which is truly wrong because they are actually killing someone, unlike abortion. I stated it before, but infanticide rates dropped once abortion became legal. And if they don't kill the baby, their alternative is to simply abandon it. I think we can agree that no child should have to be brought up like this, living their childhood in an orphanage without ever meeting their real parents. And those abandoned children? They will likely turn out to be future criminals. Some may become rapists, impregnating women with a child they don't want in a vicious cycle. In a way, I like to think of abortion as a milder form of euthanasia. Like euthanasia, abortion helps end future suffering but we must keep in mind that it is a fetus, not a human being and therefore not akin to murder. We wouldn't call a seed a tree, so we shouldn't consider an embryo a human. For a final closing statement, let me emphasize a simple yet overlooked fact: Let a mother decide what is best for her child. You wouldn't tell a stranger's children what bedtime they should have. That should be up to the parents to decide. Likewise, we should let the mother decide whether she is ready to have a child or not. If a woman is having an abortion, she has a good reason to and we can't infringe on her right to get one. Thank you for this debate.
Gravity should be illegal

The world's governments never ever had jurisdictional power,To stop gravity, to slow down time, an hour is an hour,They never had the power to change a supernova,But then why on earth did you drive into this debate mister Range rover?This debate is over the need, not for speed, nor greed,But the requirement and essential dependence we have for gravity indeed.You think the Earth would be perpetually orbiting the sun without gravity?I suggest you go to college saying that and try to get a physics degree...Sheesh, you messed up your logic there, gravity is EVERYWHERE, absolutely anywhere throughout the universe, Down HERE, UP THERE,SATURN AND Uranus, EVERY STAR is HELD TOGETHER! By gravity,Planets orbit them do to what?GRAVITY,What allows Jessica Alba to live to have such a sexy pair of tits and a butt?GRAVITYWhat allows you and me to exist in this realm to debate who, how and what?GRAVITYWhat allows sexy and ugly people to f*ck, down and up, to pour things into a cup?GRAVITYwe need it bro, I win,Thanks for EVERYTHING,But next time you ride a car or bike, give it a spin,You might be happy to find out gravity is working.
Gravity should be illegal

I'm afraid my friend, that you don't understand, The nature of the debate we have at hand, and I'm gonna try and explain it to you, Nice and slow, cus' you clearly don't have a clue, You see I stated in my argument that I posted before That although gravity was once useful We don't need it anymore. Gravity may have allowed the earth to form, but in case you didn't know, The whole thing was done over 4.5 billion years ago! And now your talkin about what we'd do without the sun Well, that arguments so pointless I may have already won Since when did our government have jurisdiction in the stars? Next you'll be talking about how healthcare effects the folks on mars. that's all I have to say, for now I am done, except, by the way, coyotes aren't even goats natural predators son!
Gravity should be illegal

Hello sexy, oh so tasty, hasty, pasty, manly pro, I'm a ninja this is my dojo and the rap for the con's about to go, with me writing it SOLO!...Firstly, I ask, do you have a clue?Why one plus one even equals two?Why we get afraid when a ghost screams "BOO!"?Why I am so superior to you?Well neither do I so on a second note,This is why, I insist, you should give CON the vote,I don't mean to brag, boast or gloat,But I'm like a coyote and you're a goat...Let's tear you apart,Let's make it hella fun,Tell me, deep inside your mind, soul and heart?Doth thou know not why the Earth rotates around the sun?Doth thou trulyeth haveth no idea for the reason?The answer, believe me you, is GRAVITY son!Tell me without the sun, where would we be as a species?Where would the plants, the pornstar babes, and the bumble bees be?Well I can tell you, mister Pro, so homo, your mind must be running slow,The answer, as I go with the flow, is clear enough for me to show,The answer to the question raised is that they would all be dead,For with no sun, there aint not heat or light,With out groovy UV you'd be... DEAD!No, in fact you know what? You'd never have been born,There'd be no beautiful poetry, No magnificent porn,There'd be no intellectual debates, No politicians on which to vote,There'd be no lizards, no iguanas, no newts, no frogs nor toads.Is this really an existence, or lack of it to be exact,That a person as smart as you would want? No life, no skinny or fat,People to run around the world and compete for natural selection,No love, no hate, no masturbat...ing, No sex, no foreplay, no affection?Just an absence of what we are, of what we'll every f*cking be.Is that what you want for you, your children, your ancestors, for the love of your and for me?If so I'm very sorry, to worry, but I must truly tell it to thee... You have no emotion and your inner mind is quite a sick story...BA-DUM-TSSSSSH! http://www.youtube.com...
Gravity should be illegal

I know that the law of gravity is a controversial issue right now, but I am firmly against it. Not only do I believe the law should be revoked, but I believe that gravity should be made illegal. In 2002, it was estimated that 393,500 persons died from falling in 2002. If we where to illegalize gravity, thousands of lives could be saved. Furthermore, A huge amount of broken bones, as well as back problems, are caused by gravity. Not only would the illegalization of gravity make people healthier over all, but it would decrease their medical bills. Even problems like heart disease could be reduced with the prohibition of gravity, because it would allow blood to flow much more freely through the body, reducing the strain on the heart. Of course, on a more personal level, there is the moral issue of gravity. Currently, every man, woman and child is required to observe gravity at all times. This is clearly unconstitutional. Even if we where to not outlaw gravity, it still seems like a much more constitutional law would be to make the observation of gravity an elective. I understand that gravity was a necessity in the beginning era of our nation, but this is an outdated opinion. With the advent if magnetics, aeronautics, and quantum mechanics, gravity is not only becoming unnecessary for our nation, but it is a burden for its citizens. finally, people would most likely enjoy the new found freedom weightlessness would bring. In a poll taken in 2012, 92% of participants said that they would prefer living in a weightless environment. In conclusion, the law of gravity is an outdated and unconstitutional rule, and the outlawing of gravity would bring nothing but safety and comfort for most Americans.
Taboo against the N-word is irrational.

I would like to start out this debate by saying welcome. My first argument is the degradation of the arts using this word. The book i will be discussing is "To Kill A Mockingbird" This is a book concerning the 30's and about acceptance and all that. The problem is in many cases this book is being band for the use of the n-word. This is one of the great books in american and it is a key book for teens to read, but because of the taboo against the n-word people are being denied this chance. Second of all i would like to remark upon the paradox of hate the taboo creates. If this word is used despite any "attachments" of hate connected to it from many years ago people begin to hate that person and so on. All that does is create unecessary ill will toward fellow peoples. Lastly it creates a double standard, in some rap songs and the like that word is used with no lash back but is a white person utters it sensitivity training all around. The problem with a word being only right in some places is who gets to decide what time and what place, all this does is intensify the between races and further distances our selves from the elimination of racism.
Race should not be discussed...period

My argument is that for us to end racism and ultimately have a society where we view each other based off of our own person and accomplishments, we have to stop bringing race into the discussion. My opponent will be someone who believes race is an important part of a person. Round one will be acceptance and agreement on terms. Round 2-4 will be defense and rebuttal of our arguments for our sides. Round five will be summary of why we believe and how our argument stands over our opponents. Opponent must use logical argument and not reply to facts or statements that directly contradict the opposing party.
are humans the cause of global warming? (pro=yes con=no)

Yes, but I wouldn't say that are the only cause, there are other causes. With there being so many of us humans using cars and other things we create a big percentage of global warming. The other things id say create global warming... volcanoes, constantly releasing heat into the air. Also if you look at the earths history, its been through a hellish world covered of lava, to an ice age, I'm guessing the next phase will be coming up soon (in respect of the earths total span). But as I said I wouldn't say we are only but a contributor to the issue of Global Warming.
For Atheists There Is No Meaning Of Life

Many thanks to my opponent for instigating this fascinating debate and I take this opportunity to cordially welcome him into the DDO community. I will keep this first round fairly brief because I feel that as instigator and Pro my opponent should be making some arguments to prove his resolution and because I believe my initial position is a fairly straight-forward one. An atheist's existence can easily be explained and there can be much meaning to his or her life. My opponent fails to define 'consciousness' or 'meaning of life', perhaps the two most intangible concepts he refers to. I will use the top definitions I got using the define tool on google: Consciousness-an alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation; "he lost consciousness" http://www.google.co.uk... -The meaning of life constitutes a philosophical question concerning the purpose and significance of human existence. http://www.google.co.uk...= To explain the sentient, conscious existence of humans without recourse to fantastical myths of supernatural creation and design we need only look at the theories of science and primarily evolution. Like all animals human beings have senses and are conscious when awake. Intelligence is a trait that greatly benefits individual and species survival. Humans have evolved sufficient intelligence to be very good at reproducing and surviving. http://www.bartleby.com... The significance of continued reproduction and survival is the reason and the biological purpose for the continuation of human life. Therefore one possible meaning of life. This applies to atheists, theists and agnostics alike. I have more to say but I think that will do for now, I look forward to my opponent's arguments and rebuttals.
For Atheists There Is No Meaning Of Life

My resolution states that an atheist cannot explain away his intelligent, sentient existence- in other words, his existence is just a part of the ecology, and he himself has no reason to live. Theists, however, believe that they exist in order to serve God (this goes by Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or other related reasons. Atheist- One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being. http://dictionary.reference.com... Sentient- Characterized by sensation and consciousness. http://dictionary.reference.com... Existence- Continuance in being or life. http://dictionary.reference.com... Ecology- The branch of biology dealing with the relations and interactions between organisms and their environment, including other organisms. http://dictionary.reference.com... My opponent must present reasons for the continued existence of mankind from the atheistic perspective- he must bring possible meanings for life. I hope this will be a lively discussion.
For Atheists There Is No Meaning Of Life

Generally I would agree with that, but in this case I simply deny any reason for individual existence, therefore my burden of proof lies with me having to rebut any possible reason. "My opponent fails to define 'consciousness' or 'meaning of life', perhaps the two most intangible concepts he refers to. I will use the top definitions I got using the define tool on google:" I accept those definitions. "The significance of continued reproduction and survival is the reason and the biological purpose for the continuation of human life. Therefore one possible meaning of life. " Survival and reproduction are not the reasons for the continuation of human life. Rather, the continuation of human life is the reason for survival and reproduction. But what is the reason for the continuation of human life? My contention: Materialistic desires are meaningless, seeing as one dies anyway-and what has he gained from his riches, food etc. ? Ecclesiastes . http://www.biblegateway.com... (a fantastic book, which is part of Writings, which in turn is part of the bible. I have brought the main theme. ) And yet atheists have no otherworldly strives, so from their point of view everything is materialistic, so everything is meaningless, and so there is no meaning for life. I have affirmed my resolution. So far I am happy with the way this debate is turning out.
The Bears are the Best team ever

Having said that, since my opponent has offered no evidence to support his claim, his argument should be rejected as baseless. Since my opponent has the burden of proof (being the instigator and the one making a positive claim), this is rather troublesome for him. He hasn't even defined what Bears team we're referring to, so I will. For the purpose of this debate, the team referred to as the Bears will be a team that is colloquially known as the Bad News Bears. Not only are the Bears not the best team ever with the best players, according to one unbiased source, they're the WORST players ever! " It includes (among others) a near-sighted pitcher, an overweight catcher, a foul-mouthed shortstop with a Napoleon complex, an outfielder who dreams of emulating his idol Hank Aaron, two non-English-speaking Mexican immigrants, a withdrawn (and bullied) boy named Timmy Lupus, and a motley collection of other "talent". Shunned by the more competitive teams (and competitive parents), the Bears are outsiders, sponsored by Chico's Bail Bonds. In their opening game, they do not even record an out, giving up 26 runs before Buttermaker forfeits the game. " [1][2] Of course, with Morris Buttermaler as a coach, we shouldn't expect much. The Bears didn't even win the championship. They lost to the Yankees 7-6! Source: 1. . http://en.m.wikipedia.org... 2. . http://upload.wikimedia.org...