BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The no child left behind act of 2001 is flawed and should be removed

I know absolutely nothing about the NCLB act but I will attempt to address the fallacy I see present in your agrument and resolutiion. Good luck and I am eager and looking forward to a response. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The no child left behind act or NCLB act is useless it does not help school in fact it lowers the standards of the country's education" ============================================================================ You can ACTUALLY prove that it does not help? Does this mean, if I prove that it can help, then I win this debate round? I'll let you revise before I post my argument. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "It hurts the children that actually have the gift of higher intelligence and prohibits them from their full potential of learning. Every year the standards of each state are lowering and its because if we dont lower the standards we do not get goverment funding. If we would get rid of this incredible stupid act then every state would get funding and each state would be able to raise their standards each year and eventually we would be on the top of education again. " ============================================================================ There is a logical fallacy present here. You're under the misconceived notion that lowering the standards will hinder the more intelligent people. Now at first site, this makes sense, however under analysis the flaw is clearly present. Lets just say the more intelligent people get a 30 out of 36 on their tests (using this as an analogy) but the requirement is 21 and the normal to less intelligent person scores about 19 or 20. Now if we lower the requirement to about 18 does that mean the people who score 30 are being hindered? Of course not! If anything it makes them look better! Your whole argument is basically the states are lowering the requirements to help recieve aid, then you're stating the more intelligent people are somehow being harmed. You're failing to realize that the more intelligent people are seperated (in schools) with programs such as honors programs, IB programs, etc. These people are already meeting the standards so it's not their standards that lessens, but the people that aren't meeting it (in the regular school programs) are having theirs lowered so that they also can feel accomplished for once, and not behind. Then in your closing you say if we remove it, schools will recieve the aid they need. Now, OBVIOUSLY, if these schools have to lower their standards in order to recieve the aid [. .. ] THEY WON'T RECIEVE IT OTHERWISE!
The no child left behind act of 2001 is flawed and should be removed

I am here to debate, and we shall. Lets first start with what the no child left behind act of 2001 really is. Quoted from Wikipedia. The Act requires states to develop assessments in basic skills to be given to all students in certain grades, if those states are to receive federal funding for schools. NCLB does not assert a national achievement standard; standards are set by each individual state, in line with the principle of local control of schools and in order to comply with the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which specifies that powers not granted to the federal government nor forbidden to state governments are reserved powers of the individual states. The Act also requires that the schools distribute the name, home phone number and address of every student enrolled to military recruiters and institutions of higher education, unless the student (or the student's parent) specifically opts out. Now my argument. The no child left behind act or NCLB act is useless it does not help school in fact it lowers the standards of the country's education to the fact that we are not even in the top 10 of education among country's around the world. We used to be though. It hurts the children that actually have the gift of higher intelligence and prohibits them from their full potential of learning. Every year the standards of each state are lowering and its because if we dont lower the standards we do not get goverment funding. If we would get rid of this incredible stupid act then every state would get funding and each state would be able to raise their standards each year and eventually we would be on the top of education again. Not much more to argue at the moment. :)
Labor Unions

Please have mercy on me, Ron-Paul because my computer erased all of my arguments and I just found that out so now I have to rewrite my arguments in 1 hour. My arguments were great, then they all got erased. Sorry I have to forfeit this round. What would my opponent say if we could extend this to a Part 2 as I've been really enjoying this debate and I've learned fascinating things. Would you please extend it to a two part debate?
Labor Unions

My Opponent's Case: #1: Labor Unions increase unemployment and increase inflation. They don't need to do that. Many times, the company has profit. They pay of the cost such as rent, water, electricity, and the workers. When they are done, all the money that's left over is the company's profit. "If the business". How do you know they will have a loss? Could you bring up an example of this happening with labor unions? Also it doesn't have to have a loss. It depends on whether the company's costs are higher than the revenues. These are only "if" things. Please show me an example as if this is only a possibility and has not been proven to be done, the:n this can't be applied as it has never been done before. Therefore labor unions don't affect the company but instead help workers receive more money. Also inflation is not going to happen if they don't raise the prices of the products. #2: Labor unions encourage sloth. I disagree with you. The opposite of this will be one of my attack points so I'll talk more about it there. I'll just talk about this a little here. Slothfulness is upheld when people make so little, they don't even have economic security. They will actually work harder because they get paid more and don't have a chance of getting fired. More information will in my attack points. #3: Unionized workers take advantage of non-unionized workers. Can you get more insight and evidence? Anyways, if there is no evidence, it's not true. Also it's the non unionionized workers' fault for not getting to the labor unions. Also are these all you're arguments? If not please tell me. :) My Rebuttal: #1: They won't be laid off if the company has profit. This is only a scenario until actual sources or events are provided with labor unions getting the company's unionized workers laid off. They do have to pay fees but if it helps them more overall, why not? If they actually help the workers and the scenario that they get laid off doesn't happen, they help the workers long-term. #2: Labor Unions encourage hard work. Labor unions pay more money, the workers work harder because the money they are getting is worth what they're working for. My example is my father. He gets more money with labor unions and works hard but without them, he can't even provide economic security and doesn't even bother a lot to work. Therefore labor unions actually encourage hard work instead of slothfulness. People know how precious money is and work according to the level if their job is worth their money. I'm done with my case and will have my Contention #3 next round.
Labor Unions

First of all, I am sorry that I won't be able to refute my opponent's case until Round 3. Thess is my own points. Contention #1: Labor Unions help employees. First of all, labor unions help employees gain higher wages. "Union members in the United States earn significantly more than non-union workers. Between 2004 and 2007, unionized workers' pay were on average 11.3 percent higher than non-union workers with similar characteristics. This means that, all else equal, American workers that join a union will earn 11.3 percent more—or $2.26 more per hour in 2008 dollars—than their otherwise identical non-union counterparts." Labor unions do help employees regardless and is a supporting factor in the economic security of unionized workers. These labor unions sustain economic security in those workers and help them a lot. THerefore labor unions do help the economy. I'm sorry that this Contention is so short because I've been super-busy. This is my only argument right now. However, I'll have two new arguments in the following round. Sorry about it folks. Also I disn't forfeit this round. This just wasn't my refutation's round. Thank you.
i'm probably one of top ten smartest persons in terms of iq on this site

"to say that there is no correlation between how smart a person is and their IQ is ludicras." Straw man. I never said there was no correlation. I said there was no direct correlation. "no scientific person would suggest that." Complete untruth. Please see below. "Some scientists dispute psychometrics entirely. In The Mismeasure of Man professor Stephen Jay Gould argued that intelligence tests were based on faulty assumptions...He spent much of the book criticizing the concept of IQ, including a historical discussion of how the IQ tests were created and a technical discussion of why g is simply a mathematical artifact. Later editions of the book included criticism of The Bell Curve..." Gould agreed that there was some level of stability in test scores and that there was some correlation between IQ and intelligence, but no DIRECT correlation. HOw smart a person is cannot be objectively measured by IQ alone, and the belief that it can, would be "ludicras" as you have put it. "true, one can be an intellectual and not do high on an IQ test, but if you line up all the IQ's with all the smart people, there would be a correlation." Again, straw man fallacy. See above. "even if all smart's didn't have high IQs and all high IQs weren't smart. if you define smart in any way related to intelligence, there's no dispute here. IQ = intelligence quotient. it's unfounded to say there;s no correclation since intelligence essentially mneas smart etc." Argument by semantics. Definitions are arbitrary. The people who developed the concept of IQ wopuldn't call it the "pink llama test". That there are inherent flaws came *after wards* "i took into account that this is a debate forum. two things you didn't take into account... first of all, there are some pretty stupid people here, just read many of the debates, and many dumb people post a few times and leave, leaving themselves still members." I did take that into account. Compared to your claims, however, the number of "stupid people" is negligible. "second of all, statistically, my scores would put me literally within the top five or so people.... but since my claim was only the top ten, i have a cushion factor of twice that." Incorrect. As I have stated before, the statistics do not correlate with the proper bell curve. The entire atmosphere of this debate shifts everything over to the right, even given the "stupid people" who post. Even if we assume that half of those people are dumber than you are, your claim is that you are in the top ten. It would definitely not be hard to find 10 if not 20 people on this site who are more intelligent than you are. Since I have more than proven that your mathematical deductions, as well as the premises upon which your deductions are made, are flawed, this debate is decided in my favor unless you can fulfill the burden of proof, which falls on you, who are making the claim.
i'm probably one of top ten smartest persons in terms of iq on this site

to say that there is no correlation between how smart a person is and their IQ is ludicras. no scientific person would suggest that. true, one can be an intellectual and not do high on an IQ test, but if you line up all the IQ's with all the smart people, there would be a correlation. even if all smart's didn't have high IQs and all high IQs weren't smart. if you define smart in any way related to intelligence, there's no dispute here. IQ = intelligence quotient. it's unfounded to say there;s no correclation since intelligence essentially mneas smart etc. i took into account that this is a debate forum. two things you didn't take into account... first of all, there are some pretty stupid people here, just read many of the debates, and many dumb people post a few times and leave, leaving themselves still members. second of all, statistically, my scores would put me literally within the top five or so people.... but since my claim was only the top ten, i have a cushion factor of twice that.
i'm probably one of top ten smartest persons in terms of iq on this site

Your statistical conclusions are faulty. There are several variables that you must take into consideration. First of all, this is not a poll at a subway station where intelligence is not a factor. The people who would take free time to debate are probably intellectual types, meaning the average bell curve would not apply here. The average IQ would definitely be higher than 100. Second of all, the issue of debate correlates how smart you are with your IQ. Scientifically, there is little to no direct correlation between how smart a person is versus IQ scores. Thus, your argument is a two pronged failure.
i'm probably one of top ten smartest persons in terms of iq on this site

i'm probably one of the top ten smartest persons in terms of iq on this site http://www.highiqsociety.org... http://www.testriffic.com... i got a 142 on the first test, and a 147 on the second test statistically, whichever iq test you compare to, that means i'm probably in the top 99.9 and given that there's a few over 3000 members, i'm at least probably in the top ten. probably the top five. http://www.assessmentpsychology.com...
The US Dollar should be backed by a METH standard, not a GOLD standard....

Argument for why the US dollar should be backed by a Meth standard and not a gold standard:1) Backing it by Meth will make the US Dollar 3.5x stronger then if it were backed by GoldThe price of meth varies from region to region, but the highest quality, purest, and most addicting meth batches can easily reach very high prices. For the sake of this argument, the price of Meth will be calculated according to the largest Meth bust in the Northeastern United States, where the DEA intercepted 165 pounds of Meth valued at about $11 Million Dollarshttp://abclocal.go.com...$11,000,000 divided by 165 lbs= $66,667 a pound, which is $146 per GRAM for good Meth24k Gold, the highest quality, on the other hand costs only about $41 per gram (http://goldpricenetwork.com...)So a gram of good meth is 3 and a half times higher then the price of good gold of the same amount, which means that if we back the US currency by meth then the US dollar will become 3 and a half times stronger. 2) Meth prices are more stable then Gold pricesGold may historically be a good bet for your money, but that certainly doesnt mean its reliable.... Just last month, the price of Gold actually dropped 25% in a matter of 3 months. http://goldnews.bullionvault.com...Had the US dollar been backed by Gold, then over the past 3 months the US dollar would have been weakened by 25%....This isnt a one time thing also, Gold decreased in value by 50% back in the 1980's and has gone through numerous periods of decline in value. http://commons.wikimedia.org...Meth on the other hand has never had a significant drop in price in history! It has been steadily climbing upwards while the prices for other drugs like crack and pot have been all over the place. Meth has a history of stability which is something that Gold cannot claim, so to back the US dollar on Meth instead of Gold would actually give the value of the US dollar more stability and more reliable growth over the long term then Gold. And those are my arguments, over to you con
God

Most modern scholars believe there was a Big Bang that created the universe. Most of the universe was created in 3 minutes. What could possibly set off this phenomenon? Gravity, density?... God. In Genesis 1:1 it is said that God created the heavens and earth. What explanation other than an omnipotent being that created the universe could exist?Who could possibly argue? Stephen Hawking said that because there is a law such as gravity the universe can and will create itself... This is not true, Hawking's argument basically states that the universe created itself because it needed to. Or maybe the universe WAS created for a purpose...by God. Also, if atheist are right, and God isn't real, the there is no purpose for anything. Look around you.... Does this seem to have no purpose? Or does it seem to be part of one big plan? Ok, we've already established that the universe can't create itself, so we move on to the idea that God created it. Richard Dawes states "if you tell me God created the universe, who created God?" God has no creator, he is THE CREATOR. Moving on to moral absolutes. Saying that God doesn't exist is saying there is no reason to be good. Why be good when there's no heaven or hell? They say America is the perfect country, while I don't think that is true, why don't we see what our foundation is built on? Our founders were 98% Christian, and that had to have influenced our country at least a little. If it was based off of Atheism, why go to jail or even be executed for a murder. Murder is supposedly the highest punishment there is right? With Atheists it wouldn't be, because if they don't go to hell it's kind of a vacation from a sinful world that's crumbling apart. Now onto scientific facts. They know the earth is billions of years old and the universe is older. Instead of sticking to my 6,000 year theory like a stubborn pig and saying that science is wrong, why not go with it? So the earth is billions of years old, that doesn't change a thing. From the time Adam and Eve were supposedly created to now is supposed to be 6,000 years. I don't believe in this. Could Adam and Eve not have been a metaphor for God creating life in general? If you think you can disprove Christainity or say that we can't prove it, I say you can't disprove it. By the way, I'm only 12 years old.
A Command Economy has the Ability to be the most effective economic system

To your first point, I would like to say that government does not equal good. Power ultimately corrupts, and whoever is in charge of a government will use that power to benefit them and their friends. That results in a disproportionate amount of wealth as well, so to say a command economy prevents this is wrong. I know there is some aspect of disproportionate wealth in a free market economy, but there is also in a command economy. To your second point of a majority of citizens willing to participate in a command economy, I will to refer to the example of Stalin's Holodomor. In the Holodomor, Ukranian farmers refused to join collective farms because they thought it resembled serfdom. [1] So, Stalin responded by creating a man-made famine, killing anywhere from 3-8 million people. [2] Is this the leadership required for a command economy, is this the price people have to pay? Saying that "In a command economy, the people place the hands of the economy into efficient, reliable hands for the greatest possibility for growth and increase in the standard of living" and "Mao and his complete control of the economy led to China becoming the economic powerhouse it is today" counter the facts. Mao's "Great Leap Forward" did well for the first year, but in 1959 things changed. The communes people were put in a precarious position when unreasonable demands were made. Each had its own furnace to make tools, but the tools made were inadequate for building and farming. Also, the trains failed because the commune's furnace's used up the country's coal. All these factors combined caused Mao to admit his great leap forward had been a failure. Thus, private property was reinstated, communes were cut down in size, and people could sell some of their own produce. When Mao tried to take over the economy, China failed. It was the reinstating of free market policies that brought it back to life. [3] The temporary growth of the soviet union stopped after the 1950's and the country went into recession until it's collapse. [4] To say the growth of during the 50's was accomplished without exploiting less developed nations is ignoring that after World War II, Russia invaded, annexed, and took twelve eastern European countries ravaged by war and used their resources to develop the Soviet Union. [5] You may counter by saying they got to benefit by being in the soviet union. However, being part of a country that only experiences a decade of growth in fifty years after being ravaged by war is not a beneficial thing. [1] http://www.holodomorct.org... [2] http://worldwithoutgenocide.org... [3] http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk... [4] http://www.ponarseurasia.org... [5] https://www.ushmm.org...
A Command Economy has the Ability to be the most effective economic system

A big part in the idea of a command economy is that the government is a force for good, and not able to be corrupted. This is a completely wrong assumption. Throughout history, governments have turned against their people, stripping them of choice and freedom in life. To say the general populace could not rejuvenate a struggling sector of an economy is to say the general populous is incompetent at solving issues. On the contrary, businessmen and women come from the general populace, and they are the driving force behind any economy. They are the people making, selling and improving goods and services, whether the government intervenes or not. I believe saying "the government could simply increase it by building more factories, starting more farms, and employing more workers" is a huge understatement. If part of an economy is struggling, the government does not have infinite resources to fix it. Lets say that in this command economy, everyone has jobs except for in this struggling sector. How would the government get people to switch jobs? There is less money to be made in this sector because it is struggling, and no one would want to go. I doubt there has been a command economy of a large country that all citizens willingly participated in. People like to make their own decisions and do not enjoy the government telling them what to do all they time. That means the government has to force people into a command economy. For example, Stalin's Holodomor and Mao's "Great leap forward. The citizens are doing the work in both free and controlled economy, the only difference is that the citizens get rewarded for their work in a free economy, while the government gets rewarded in a command economy. As for raising the standard of living, everyone is equally poor in a command economy, except for government leaders. For example a car would be considered a luxury item in Stalin's Russia, and people and to wait in line for hours just to receive some measly rations. In the 1930's "There was no improvement in the average standard of living; in fact the average non-farm wage purchased only about half as much in 1932 as in 1938. Most people survived on black bread and wore old, shabby clothing. There were constant shortages in stores, although vodka, which was heavily taxed, was always available. Millions of people were moved to cities to work in factories, but the government built few apartments, such that by 1940, there were roughly four people per room in every urban dwelling. Lucky families had one room and shared a kitchen and toilet with other families on the floor. Those not so fortunate lived in shantytowns, similar to Hoovervilles in the U.S."[1] [1] http://www.historydoctor.net...