BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Good People Disobey Bad Laws

I hope we can both learn from each other through the process of intellectual ping-pong that is "debate. "ContextMan made legislation that infringes upon natural rights is very common in the world today. We see non violent individuals fined and/or locked up for owning bits of vegetation, for owning a pistol magazine with one-too-many rounds, for selling raw milk to a neighbor, and for feeding the homeless in Florida's parks. In the past, we have seen individuals fined and/or locked up for helping Southern U. S. slaves reach relative freedom in the North, German citizens exterminated for smuggling victims of the Nazi regime away from certain death, we've seen Socrates executed for enlightening the youth about philosophy. None of these things are justifiable. Those that disobeyed such horrid laws certainly had the right to do so. Even now, we're watching government whistle-blowers rightfully expose wrongs within government activities and be wrongly attacked for doing so. Basic PhilosophyIn essence, one has the natural right to engage in any activity of their choosing, so long as it does not infringe upon another individual's natural rights in the process. To deny this is to say that it is acceptable to use force to make others comply with one's personal beliefs, even if the individual has never threatened or harmed another.
Good People Disobey Bad Laws

As the position of Con I will aim to refute my opponent's arguments and put forward the idea that good people do not have the right to disobey bad laws. I assume there is a burden of proof on Pro but I am not certain as I am quite new. I also leave definitions of "good", "right", "bad" and "natural rights" to Pro and hopefully this will not turn into a battle of semantics. The ball is in your court.
Students should be allowed to eat food in the classrooms

Since my opponent gave a round 4 argument that doesn't really need to be responded to, I will give a short conclusion/summary of this debate. I responded to all of my opponent's round two arguments and showed why they are illogical. I also responded to everything my opponent said when he responded to me. Once again, I showed that his argument was illogical. So, I shot down everything my opponent said. On the other hand, my opponent didn't respond to some of my round two claims (ex. my round two claim that eating in classrooms is unnecessary). He also didn't respond to any of my round three argument. I shot down all of my opponent's claims, while my opponent didn't respond to most of my arguments. My arguments were also stronger, considering I was able to show why my opponent's claims were unwise.
Students should be allowed to eat food in the classrooms

Rebuttal: You are prepared to state that, "food would be a distraction in the classroom " This is actually false because I had class were you can eat in and it was never a distraction. And in fact it does help grades in one case study that my Science teacher did was 3rd period Earth Science was the control group and 4th period was the variable both had a C average and about 20 high school students on any given day and this experiment lasted for 2 months. She let the students in 4th period bring in food and eat quietly and do not share with anyone else. The grade average rose from a C average to a C plus average and the control group stayed ruffle the same so it can be concluded that eating can help students GPA. Rebuttal Two: You Prepared to state that " That food will cause a mess" This is also false because in every class room and I have been to many types of schools k-12, urban and rural schools, colleges and in all these classrooms I have seen a trash can in every single one of them. This is equipment that the schools are granted with. And also there is authority in the classroom: the teachers. If there is litter around a desk the teacher can tell the student to properly throw it away in the trash can. So your argument is false. Rebuttal Three: You are prepared to state that "There are plenty of ways that students can get food outside of the classroom." There is always a contrition to that. Some students can't make in time to eat breakfast at home or school and they go through five or so hours before lunch and those happen to be more of your academic classes and after lunch you are more likely to have a few electives these classes are not as important as to the academic class. Also some schools are just turning a blind eye to students who need a free lunch, i.e Richard is a 8th grade who dad makes 90,000 dollars a year no need for a free lunch but his dad is a major drunk/ gambler spending so much money on his addiction that he can't afford for Richard to eat the semi-frozen junk that most schools give now a days. But if Richard can get a dollar or two somehow he can buy a small snack versus a $5.00 meal in the afternoon. In statement: I disproved all of your opening statements, and I wait for your rebuttal(s).
Students should be allowed to eat food in the classrooms

Here are my opening arguments. Argument Number One: Food in the classroom would be a huge distraction. The main distraction that would occur is kids being distracted when eating their food. Kids who eat food in class would most likely not pay attention to what the teacher is saying, leaving them behind those who do not have food to eat during class. Falling behind would lead to lower grades. Therefore, food in classrooms would hurt, not help, a student"s GPA/Academic achievement. Argument Number Two: Another reason why food shouldn"t be allowed in classrooms is because of the potential mess it could cause. If given the opportunity, some kids will carelessly dispose of their food of an improper way (ex. throwing it on the ground somewhere instead of throwing it in the garbage). This is the same reason why some students (mainly in middle/high school) will graffiti on the walls. If there"s no authority around to see them doing it, they will do it. Likewise, if there"s no authority around to see them litter, and there are also no garbage cans around, they will simply throw it on the ground. This would cause unnecessary cleanup for the janitors in the schools and schools to be unsanitary. Argument Number Three: Simply enough, food in classrooms is unnecessary. There are plenty of ways that students can get food outside of the classroom. For breakfast, students could eat at their homes or they could eat the school provided breakfast in the cafeteria. If they cannot afford to eat breakfast, they can get breakfast free from the cafeteria as well. For lunch, the school provides lunch for all students. If the students can"t afford lunch, the school can provide it free. Dinner time isn"t within school hours. Therefore, there"s absolutely no way that students can"t supply food for themselves before, during, and after the school day. To conclude, since there"s always time to get food during school without having food in classrooms, then there is no point in having food in classrooms. Conclusion: I have explained how food inside classrooms would be distracting and would cause messes throughout schools. I have also explained why food in classrooms is unnecessary, because there"s many other ways to get food outside of the classroom. Therefore, I have established that allowing kids to eat in the classroom wouldn"t be a wise move.
Students should be allowed to eat food in the classrooms

I am for students eating in the classroom as long it is done in a respectful manor for several reasons: 1) If students are hungry they are thinking about food and not on the topic or assignment on hand. 2) If students do not have time to eat in the morning this will gave them the needed food and energy to get through the day. 3) What good is a student distracted and hungry not doing the work, and not gaining any knowledge.
A 15-year-old boy has been arrested in Northern Ireland over the TalkTalk hacking attack, Scotland

I found a news website confirming that the 15 year old was indeed arrested as a suspect: http://www.bbc.com... "On Monday, a 15-year-old boy was arrested and bailed in Northern Ireland in connection with the hacking." I have no idea if this was a abandoned (would the proper term be "troll debate"? I'm not sure.) debate. Prosticution rests. (Am I misspelling "prosticution"? I might be, since there IS a red line underneath. What's the proper spelling?)
A 15-year-old boy has been arrested in Northern Ireland over the TalkTalk hacking attack, Scotland

No specific rules or clear resolution was given, so here's how I want the debate to go: - I will say this 15 year old did commit the crime, in other words, I'm "prosticuting". (If Con objects to this, this is okay. ) - Con will be a "defense" for the 15 year old, saying he did not commit it. (If he objects to this, okay) - BoP is shared Here will be how the rounds will go (again, Con can object): Round 1: I'll make the statements I have on this round, as such. Round 2: Con will be saying why he's innocent, and I'll be saying why he's guilty. Round 3: Rebuttals and protecting our case Round 4: Rebuttals and protecting our case Round 5: Con can make one final rebuttal. If Con has unanswered questions, I'll point them out. Once again, if Con has other ideas, please let me know. And with that. .. Court is now in session!
Standardized testing should remain in our schools.

Alright, wrap up. Standardized testing fails at assessing every one's knowledge to full extend due to the lack of open answer questions, which has been proven to be the ideal way to asses knowledge.Standardized testing favors and rewards proficient students (scholarships when you get a perfect SAT score) and discriminates and punishes students under proficiency (getting put into special ed programs, not getting into colleges that they wish to attend).Standardized testing is riducously expensive (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...), and that money could go towards much better programs that actually improve the education provided in schools. So my question to you is, if it is proven not to truly asses a students knowledge, if it barres lower scoring students from succeeding in life, and if it cost an absolute absurd amount of money every year, money that could be better spend on other projects, why do we still have standardized tests?(Good luck on your debate, good idea of doing this on here before you have the real debate, that way you can really see your opponents viewpoint and main arguments, and you can fine tune your own argument. I will see you around!)
Standardized testing should remain in our schools.

Okay let's wrap thing up here on both of our sides. Overall, having standardized testing in our school systems are more beneficial than bad. Let's recap, the cost is low, it prepares students for higher level testing, helps school systems need to see where they need to teach more of, helps compare different school's grades, sees where each student is at individually, and does help prepare the students for some jobs later on. My question to you is, "If standardized testing is mostly beneficial, then why should it be banned?" Other than that, that wraps up my part of this debate and I am looking forward to your argument as well. (It was very nice debating with you, in fact, I am having this debate for real at my middle school tommorow, so thanks for helping me prepare :)
Standardized testing should remain in our schools.

(Why, Thank you. I haven't seen many of our age group on here that can argument as well as you do.)Alright, Rebuttal. Or rather rebuttal of the rebuttal."You said, "it creates stress in students."" I mentioned this to further support my stand that a one day test can not accurately display a students skill. (For further reading http://edge.ascd.org...)" The reason for that is because they know that it does not count as a grade."Actually most standardized tests count as test grades. For example, the Regents in NY I was referring to count as 1\5 of your overall grade for that class. And Pro says it doesn't count? And the grades are also required to graduate. (For further reading http://en.wikipedia.org...). And of course the SAT and ACT. While those tests don't count as a test grade per se, they do have a huge influence on what colleges you can go to, and what job opportunities you are going to get. (For further reading http://en.wikipedia.org... and http://en.wikipedia.org...)"Teachers also know, walking into their job, that they will have to have that pressure on them at some point. It's just a part of the job."Of course teachers have to succumb to pressure, but that doesn't mean it should be constantly lingering. (For further reading http://everydaylife.globalpost.com...)"Standardized testing also sees where more materials need to be taught." But if standardized tests count as a grade, that grade will obviously reflect what you have learned and what you didn't learn. Diagnostic tests would be much more helpful for that. (For further reading http://classroom.synonym.com...)Lastly, there is a major problem with these tests being mostly made up of Multiple choice. The U.S. is the only economically advanced nation to rely heavily on multiple-choice tests. Other nations use performance-based assessment to evaluate students on the basis of real work such as essays, projects and activities. Ironically, because these nations do not focus on teaching to multiple-choice and short-answer tests, they score higher on international exams.
Standardized testing should remain in our schools.

Yes, in this debate I do mean US schools. Great job so far, your a awesome debater! Okay continuing on, you said, "it creates stress in students." I'm not going to lie, it does stress you out, I am still speaking at a students point of view. But most students don't get themselves so nervous that they get sick or have a panic attack. The reason for that is because they know that it does not count as a grade. And this kind of serious test taking can prepare them for later in life. Moving on, like you said, "teachers teach to the test," you are also correct. Teachers also know, walking into their job, that they will have to have that pressure on them at some point. It's just a part of the job. Standardized testing also sees where more materials need to be taught. For example, let's say that you are in middle school, and your math teacher never taught your class pre-algebra. Then your class gets the test and does not understand it. The school systems are able to openly view where they need to teach more of.
Standardized testing should remain in our schools.

Alright, let's go.I am assuming when you talk of "our schools" you mean US schools, correct?Therefore I will be basing my argumentation on the US school system.Sadly, Standardized testing is one of the cornerstones of present day US schooling. Administered generally by the state, such as the Regents examinations in NY, they are a overall assessment of a subject such as chemistry. Most states have these, or comparable, examinations, which nearly always have a direct impact on the students grade. This already creates a problem due to these reasons. The test is a one time assessment, and doesn't consider a plethora of factors that could negatively impact the score such as anxiety. Also, due for it being a one time assessment, individual growth is not considered. A teacher may have helped a student grow tremendously over the year, but the student still fails to score proficient. Adequate yearly progress (http://teaching.about.com...) which is part of the No child Left Behind project, focuses soly on that one grade. This creates a further problem, since if schools perform badly on standardized tests, the No child Left Behind project can oversee that particular school, and leave little control in the schools hands. Due to the test having a major impact on the students grade, teachers are pressured to teach to the test, under a strict curriculum that doesn't allow room for creativity on the teachers and the students part. Since the Standardized tests determine much of a students school life, several other problems arise. Minority's are at a disadvantage, since they often have inadequate educations. When they score low on standardized tests, they are placed into Special Ed programs, which they rarely can grow out of. So the standardized tests cause minority's to have less chances to progress in school, or even get admitted to certain schools (http://www.naacpldf.org...) Furthermore, Standardized tests are not an accurate examination of a students skill level. A recent study showed that colleges barred students from attending their college if they had a SAT score of under 700, stating that these students would not be able to complete college work. But on the contrary, of these students 86% actually exxeled at their college freshmens year work. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has said “State assessments in mathematics and English often fail to capture the full spectrum of what students know and can do. Students, parents, and educators know there is much more to a sound education than picking the right answer on a multiple-choice question.” But by the virtue of standardized tests, they are often Multiple choice So when even the Secretary of Education admits state assements are not working, clearly something is wrong, and standardized tests have to be lessened, ore even completely removed.
Standardized testing should remain in our schools.

Okay first of all, standardized testing is needed to see where each individual is at academic wise. Standardized testing is proved to be the only way to see that without having to do one kid at a time and not having control over the classroom. Second of all, standardized testing helps see which teachers should remain teaching. Let's say that you have a really clumsy teacher who does not teach anything at all. And you know that nobody will believe you if you tell them that the teacher is not teaching. Standardized testing is a good way to see where the teachers are at, as well as the students. Standardized testing is also not expensive at all! The average amount of students in a school is 800 and each student costs $7 for testing materials and booklets. $7 times 800 equals an average of $5,600 dollars per school with testing, which is nothing compared to what the schools make! And with the money they give to the school systems, they know that the cost is beneficial to their school.
Zoo's are inhuman

I'm in favor of zoo's and look forward to debating this topic, however definitions are needed before I may begin. Inhuman : very fierce or cruel [1] Cruel : causing or helping to cause suffering [1] Fierce : very violent [1] : eager to fight or kill [1] : having or showing a lot of strong emotion : very strong or intense [1] This definition doesn't apply to your usage of inhuaman, you said zoo's are just like a jail to back your case that zoo's are inhuman, however saying a jail is fierce doesn't make sense meanwhile cruel does. Therefore we're debating whether or not zoo's are cruel. Why are zoo's good for animals? Well I took the liberty of listing a few reasons below 1. Zoo's allow a safe home for endangered animals. [2] [3] [4] [5] 2. Zoo's provide a safe and secure environment for animals in which they are well fed often with a nutritionist monitoring the diet alongside visitors using feeding stations, as in the wild animals go through constant hardships to avoid starvation and dehydration and even if they handle the harsdships they must then handle reaching the carrying capacity. [6] [7] [8] 3. Animals require vast amount of space for example seven female tigers and two male tigers requires an area the size of the District of Columbia. Meanwhile in a zoo the animal is eating(almost always) food grown quickly using fertilizer that takes up much less land, and the animals roams much less land allowing more space for usage. [9] 4. You said "Some of these animals ARE allowed back into the wild but many no-longer have the ability to survive on their own after a lifetime in captivity" However animals are taught survival skills before heading into the wild, in fact they also enter the wild healthy whereas animals that are born in the wild must struggle against starvation, malnurishment, and learning traits in the wild while it's still developing/young. [10] [11] [12] I hope you now understand why zoo's are not at all cruel and actually aid animals whether in be in the battle against extinction, starvation, dehydration, land available, or developing in the wild. Sources: [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://zoo.sandiegozoo.org... [3] http://nationalzoo.si.edu... [4] http://www.theguardian.com... [5] http://www.waza.org... [6] http://www.wou.edu... [7] http://www.smithsonianmag.com... [8] http://www.lowryparkzoo.com... [9] http://www.mnh.si.edu... [10] http://www.conservenature.org... [11] http://www.pbs.org... [12] http://www.greenfudge.org...
Gay students should have gay schools with no judgement

(a) Pro has once again claimed that because the students would be "willing" to go to such a "gay" school, his proposal can not be called segregation. In the 3rd round, I criticized such this argument by pointing out that he arbitrarily assumes, without giving any form of justification, that gays will be "willing" to go to such "gay" schools. I will reiterate that he still has not answered this criticism. In the 4th round, he attempted to answer this by arguing that "the willingness is irrelevant". However, if he affirms that the "willingness is irrelevant", then he can't justify that "gay" schools are not a form of segregation, on the grounds that the students would be "willing" to go to such schools. As a result, the criticism of his argument, on the grounds that it can be considered a form of segregation stands. (b) Pro responds to my criticism that his proposal does not solve the underlying causes of gay oppression, but merely deals with the symptoms. Pro responds to this by arguing that was the whole point of such a proposal; that it was never meant to solve the problem of gay oppression, merely to protect the students, until a solution for the underlying causes of gay oppression is put in place. The problem with this argument is that it actually contributes to hindering the process of finding a solution to the various problems that gays face within society. This is because gay students will be segregated from other "normal" students, thus making it more difficult to find a solution for gay oppression, given that the "band-aid" makes matters worse. --Conclusion--By default, Pro had the BOP in this debate. He has failed to fulfill it. He argued that "gay" schools are necessary in order for the protection of gay students. There are numerous problems in this case, as elucidated above.
Gay students should have gay schools with no judgement

Oh, con you forget that once again that this is protection, not fixing. It is a bandaid solution, put in place place until we fix the problem. Thid is to protect students. Do you object against bodyguards? No, because that is protection. Do you object to chosen isolation in prisons or real life? No because they do it for protection. Same with this school. If they are willing to attend this school in leau of a regular school -no one wants to go to those, but they have to- then it is not segregation, and, iv it is it is a willing segregation, and as for the willingness, it is because of lack of harming to them. The reason for such a school is to protect them, so theg will attend for protection and no judgment. So i have undermined all of these in one round, and once again, eventually this will be unnecessary. Have a lovely day. Thsnk you for the debate.