BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
: Public high school students in the United States ought not to be required to pass standardized exi

In the C4, were wasting money for the bad tests. And it is not fair for someone to fail 3 times and just graduate, and for the guy who passed, and got all A's but they get the same diploma, worth the same amount. It is not fair what I state in my C4. V: "By removing the exam it shows that the government doesn't care about education, thus the world will see U.S as a collapsing country, completely false. It shows they do care if you look to my contention 4 where they put a crap test in there. And link this to my C3, it will show that the government cares so much, that there willing to adopt another system, and change their ways. VC: I'm not saying that everyone should be fair, and being fair is giving everyone a bad education, im not arguing for that. I', arguing that tests are not fair, (C1) and Finland's method is. C1: I do, read my C1, extend C2: Pretty rude, this is no argument, extend C3: All he says does not link, extend C4: Listed on top, extend, does not achieve neg, no contradiction. My opponent puts no real arguments on my contentions, extend all of them Affirmed
: Public high school students in the United States ought not to be required to pass standardized exi

Opponents case: VP: The standardized exit exams do not give students a quality education, if you look to my contention 4 the exams are a joke. They will find any way to pass you. (Look at C4) He also says we can not let high school students make their own choices. We have to take out the current government education because they have corrupted the public school system, (look to my C2.) Ronald Reagan states that it is the governments job to protect their citizens, not control their lives. My opponent seems to think that we should control teenagers life, should we tell them what job to get, they might want to be a barber, but has the potential for something better. Then we are leading them to a "better future." We can not control their lives, we are a democratic nation, not a communist one. We can already measure the students, the standardized tests prove nothing. And the students are already failing, why would they pass the standardized test? My case: VC: ok, it's a noun, but it is assumed that I am really saying, enacting fairness to the public schools system. It is unfair to taxpayers because they are paying for these tests that do nothing, and that are useless. And how does my VP contradict my VC. I want a quality education for everyone, and the only way to do that is to be fair to all students, which standardized tests don't provide. C1: Really? I don't think the kid knows that it is biased. I would like to say my opponent states that standardized tests lead to a quality education, but he never states how, he never states how to achieve his VP, he has no VC, and no contentions. C2: Obviously, but if the school gets so many failures the schools will lose funding. And he does not attack the point I make that schools don't get rewarded for bringing a below average student to above. They neglect the strongest and weakest students. They get more funding for the on the cusp of passing students, extend that. C3: It does link, if we use this method we will get quality education. Well I'm not using China's method, I'm using Finland's. And my opponent does not state what is wrong with Finland, extend this argument, for my opponent makes no real argument. C4: It does not contradict, and when do I say, " There is no need for tests to be removed". My opponent says I state that they will find any way to pass you, and he says that because of this exit exams achieves fairness. What? I say how exit exams are unfair! And his studying example, what if the one who parties is smarter and knows he doesn't need as much studying. And know one is going to study till 3 AM with the current standardized tests. My C4 does not give a counter plan, so My opponent does not give an argument to this, extend My VC does not contradict with anything, my opponent says it does but with no proof. Affirmed
Chivalry is dead, and women killed it!

Bench rants, disses squirrels... Conduct to me. 1) Women dressing like hoes even though they claim to not be hoesThis does not kill chivalry, this is simply girls acting awful in front of guys! Women treating nice guys like sh*t when they are the ones who date an a**hole in the first placeSee, this is exactly what happens to Bench. Before the assassin penguins kill him. Women friend zoning the perfect guy and dating someone who treats them like sh*tYou be dissin me?? Women role modelsHas nothing to do with the contention. These role models are all guys, and guys supports my side. 5) Asking stupid a** questions ALL THE TIME6) Making guys do sh*t they dont want to do7) Complaining about your life all - the - time 8) Taking way to f*cking long to tell a damn story by giving way too many details about meaningless things. 9) Not letting guys they are with talk to any other girl ever in any circumstance, ever10) Only falling for gay guys11) Making us blow all of our money on having dinner with them where they only eat a third of their meal and then throw it up later anyways12) Failing to understand how important sports are to guys13) Thinking that the sunrise is a "miracle" even though it happens every single day14) Shopping15) Shopping16) Shopping17) Shopping18) Shopping19) Shopping20) Shopping21) Shopping22) Not knowing how to navigate worth a damn23) Being horrible, horrible drivers. 29) Taking way too damn long in the bathroom doing stuff they dont need to do30) Wearing WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too much makeup once in a while31) Expecting men to always know when they got their haircut when it clearly looks exactly the same as it did before32) Not putting out in the bedroomI can also make lists that have no explanation! Imabench Makes Argumetns That don't support his side and makes lists that make no sense because they have no explanation. come with me Everyone let us throw ourselves upon the gears of the machinery that has oppressed us. See how good my list is compared to imabench's?
Chivalry is dead, and women killed it!

One day, there was a bench. This bench was a happy park bench, and he enjoyed hearing the squirrels sing their happy songs all the day long. People would sit on the bench, and he bench would be happy.I f*cking hate squirrels but everything else said is true....Then the bench gained true consciousness.Lamest bench joke ive ever heard. "Hey Bench, get any a** lately" <- a REAL bench jokeThe Bench still enjoyed the same things, and would still have people sit on him, but now those people would mysteriously find their wallets gone. The bench somehow had a shelter put up, and an apple mac one day appeared under the shelter.HEY HEY HEY. If your implying that I STOLE them thats not true. They only misplaced them into my secret hiding compartment....The bench logged onto the internet for the first time. And saw what benches really are, which is intense party goers who have many girlfriends. But this bench was different. He wanted a girl who liked him for him, and he found a lesson on chivalry on the newfound internet.Turns out most bench's are a pain in the a**.....So the bench began to practice chivalry on every woman he saw.Cause what else im i going to do? At the same time, the bench found a wonderful site on the internet called Debate.org, or DDO. The Bench became well known at this website, and made many friends.Oh, stop it you ;DAnd then one day, he saw her. The perfect girl, the one he loved. He asked her her name, and she replied, “Marilyn Monroe, Mr. Bench.”Good times..... Good times......Marilyn and the bench were happy together. Not that they were ever dating, but they were friends their entire lives, and happy that way.Good times..... Good times....But the bench wanted more. He wanted a girlfriend. So he was chivalrous, nice and perfect.like how guys SHOULD beAnd assassin penguins killed the Bench.Only thing I hate more than squirrels are indeed penguins. They may look like nature's butlers but they are made of PURE EVIL AND HATREDThe bench was later revived by a killer whale in the arctic, but not before happily seeing his DNA go on a rampage after the penguins. The Bench found out later, the DNA didn’t live a minute longer. The bench did a little research on what exactly happened, and found that there was an elite group of penguin assassins who would kill any chivalrous male. Proof? Assassins creed, of course. Penguins play it! And they became so engrossed into the game that they became assassins themselves.Thus leading to the penguin Civil War of 2850.....So I give to you today that it is not women that killed chivalry, but assassin penguins.All you've showed is the completely factual history that Penguins are Godless killing machines, but penguins only killed other chivalrous penguins, they never would kill a human because the penguins are all down in Antarctica. Penguin assassins are only responsible for the death of chivalry in the PENGUIN population. But in the human population chivalry died because women acted like slutty dumbsh*ts, not because penguins learned to play assassins creed and killed all humans while I disguised myself as a bench and watched.....
Chivalry is dead, and women killed it!

One day, there was a bench. This bench was a happy park bench, and he enjoyed hearing the squirrels sing their happy songs all the day long. People would sit on the bench, and he bench would be happy. Then the bench gained true consciousness. The Bench still enjoyed the same things, and would still have people sit on him, but now those people would mysteriously find their wallets gone. The bench somehow had a shelter put up, and an apple mac one day appeared under the shelter. The bench logged onto the internet for the first time. And saw what benches really are, which is intense party goers who have many girlfriends. But this bench was different. He wanted a girl who liked him for him, and he found a lesson on chivalry on the newfound internet. So the bench began to practice chivalry on every woman he saw. At the same time, the bench found a wonderful site on the internet called Debate.org, or DDO. The Bench became well known at this website, and made many friends. And then one day, he saw her. The perfect girl, the one he loved. He asked her her name, and she replied, “Marilyn Monroe, Mr. Bench.” Marilyn and the bench were happy together. Not that they were ever dating, but they were friends their entire lives, and happy that way. But the bench wanted more. He wanted a girlfriend. So he was chivalrous, nice and perfect. And assassin penguins killed the Bench. The bench was later revived by a killer whale in the arctic, but not before happily seeing his DNA go on a rampage after the penguins. The Bench found out later, the DNA didn’t live a minute longer. The bench did a little research on what exactly happened, and found that there was an elite group of penguin assassins who would kill any chivalrous male. Proof? Assassins creed, of course. Penguins play it! And they became so engrossed into the game that they became assassins themselves. So I give to you today that it is not women that killed chivalry, but assassin penguins.Nothing against Marilyn Monroe BTW. I explained in the comments.
Chivalry is dead, and women killed it!

My name is Imabench and weekly troll debates are back due to popular demand ;DThe debate resolution is that chivalry, the unwritten laws that were practiced in the recent past (before the 1980's) where men treated women with the utmost respect and courtesy, is dead, and that women killed it. I will give one example and then introduce arguments in later rounds. You know in school when women would complain and moan how they wish one guy would come along in their life, who would be different from all the other men, to be nice to them and hang out with them and be with them and all that girly sh*t? Well guess what happens when that exact thing happens? Thats right, a nice guy who is unlike all the other guys approached her, hes interested in her, and the woman decides to friend zone him, make him her BFF, and continue on dating a complete douchebag in front of your face and continue to b*tch and moan about how that guy hasnt come yet even though hes in the f*cking "friend zone" where she left him. Parameters:1) No semantics or disputing the definition of words2) No b*tching about how all guys are the same when all the nice guys are the guys in your friend zone while you keep dating the same prick football player whose report card looks like it says, "F - F - F - F - F - F - F*cking idiot"First round is acceptance only, LET THE DEBATE BEGIN!!!!!!!!
Teenagers need better role models

Children choose their own role models, it's the way they are raised which determines what they respect and find admirable in people. Role models aren't necessarily famous people either, they can be anyone that the child respects or admires. It is also a matter of opinion on what a 'bad' role model is and what a 'good' role model is and everybody has their own opinion on what that is. There are plenty of positive role models in the world for young people, however the advertisements that are geared toward the future generation are to turn them into mindless consumers. They have to become the next cog on the wheel of our consumer driven society, if not society itself would have to change, the economy would have to undergo an unprecedented overhaul. Add to that a pitiful education system in this county and you have a generation of dumbed down money spending celebrity following drones. Parents in this country need to take responsibility for what their children are involved, read, watch, play, you know parenting. To be honest, I don't know many children in reality that actually do look up to sports stars and Hollywood celebrities. Boys tend to look up to their fathers (if they believe their father is a good man to look up to obviously) or children look up to older siblings. Alot of kids don't even have role models. And I know a small amount have role models such as Nelson Mandela. I think some people just take young people for granted.
Teenagers need better role models

Teenagers will refer to people generally between the ages of 13 and 18. What is a good or bad role model will be subjectively based of course. However, qualities which are generally recognized as being good qualities in a role model will be things like independent thinking, creativity, responsibility, innovation, community-mindedness, etc. The Con will argue that the current predominant role models for teenagers are good while the Pro will argue the opposite. (Arguments)(i)- Some dominant role models held by today's youth include Kobe Bryant (athlete), Kate Perry (singer), Lady Gaga (?), George Clooney (actor), Angelina Jolie (actress), etc. Obviously there are marginal cases of teenagers holding people like Ronald Reagan or Bill Gates to be role models but they aren't the norm. For the purposes of discussing teenage role models in the general sense, people held as role models by a large number of teenagers will be discussed.(ii)- There are numerous public figures and prominent people (past and present) who would be much better role model for teenagers to have then those who are held at current such as Thomas Paine (philosopher), Bertrand Russell (philosopher, social critic), Winston Churchill (former British PM), Noam Chomsky (linguist, social critic, philosopher), etc. (iii)- Teenagers ought to have as good of role models as possible. Therefore, since the current dominant teenage role models aren't optimal, better ones ought to replace them. Since teenagers requires the best role models, they will always need better ones so long as their role models are not absolutely optimal. It is clearly the case that people like Lady Gaga and Kanye West are not absolutely optimal role models. I'll pass it back over to Con now.
Leona Lewis is the best singer in the world

Here is a very short interview with Simon Cowell about Leona Lewis- (Video) http://youtu.be... ---- Here is Leona Lewis on the X Factor- (Video) "Run" Leona Lewis live X Factor- http://youtu.be... ----- Simon Cowell is an English reality television judge, entrepreneur, philanthropist, film, record, and television producer. He is most recognized as a judge on the British TV talent competition series Pop Idol, The X Factor, and Britain's Got Talent, and the American TV talent competition shows American Idol, The X Factor, and America's Got Talent. Cowell owns the television production and music publishing house Syco. As a judge, Cowell often makes blunt and controversial comments, including insults and wisecracks about contestants and their abilities. When it came to Leona Lewis, Cowell's insults magically vanished, and his temperment towards her after she would sing was: stunned. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... ---- "Run" Official video- http://youtu.be... ---- Her winner's single, a cover of Kelly Clarkson's "A Moment Like This", peaked at number one for four weeks on the UK Singles Chart and it broke a world record for having 50,000 digital downloads within 30 minutes. Lewis's success continued with the release of her debut album, Spirit, in 2007; it went 10x platinum in the United Kingdom, while the lead single, "Bleeding Love", spent seven weeks at number one. She achieved international recognition with the album in 2008, when she became the first British female solo artist to top the US Billboard 200 album chart in more than 20 years. ---- "Run" live- http://youtu.be... ---- In 2013, "Christmas, with Love" was released later that year. Its lead single was "One More Sleep".With this chart entry, Lewis became the first British female solo artist to achieve eight top 5 singles, surpassing Olivia Newton-John's record of seven. "I have Nothing"live X Factor- http://youtu.be... ---- Lewis has won one Bambi Award, an MTV Video Music Award and three World Music Awards. She is also a seven-time Brit Award and three-time Grammy Award nominee. In 2014, Lewis made her film debut in the supporting role of Elena in the romantic comedy musical, Walking on Sunshine. Amongst her many awards, in 2015 she also received the Women's Entrepreneurship Day Music Pioneer Award at the United Nations. ---- "Fireflies" live- http://youtu.be... ---- Lewis is currently making her Broadway debut as Grizabella in the revival of Andrew Lloyd Webber's musical Cats. Performances began on July 14, and the production is set to officially open on July 31, 2016. https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Abortion

Before I get to my rebuttals I want to make one thing clear. In an abortion you are not terminating the fetus's life. You are terminating the pregnancy. Not all pregnancy terminations harm the fetus. Take C-section for example. That is terminating the pregnancy and the fetus will most likely live. (By the way Con spelled fetus wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME.) Con said... "We know that a human fetus is a human by noting that the DNA from a human fetus is the same as the DNA from a human adult." I would like to point out to the voters that this definition of human life is sloppy. A blood cell has the DNA and RNA of a human. A blood cell is organic, it's alive, and can function and change before death. But that does not make it a person by any means. Con said that a fetus is a totally separate organism in the mother's womb. This is not true. The fetus is 100% biologically dependent on the mother to live. Keep in mind I am not suggesting that a fetus is an extenuation of a person. It seems that Con is wanting to give special rights to fetuses. If I were going to die I CAN NOT hook myself up to someone else to circulate my blood. I do not have that right even if I might patently die. So a fetus does not have a right to use someone else body in order to live without their consent. If not, a fetus would have the right to use someone's body without consent. Just like you have to have consent with organ donation you have to give consent to continue a pregnancy. Con said... "If a child will die if his mother does not donate a non-vital organ, then it would be morally abhorrent for the mother to refuse to do so. Parents have special obligations to their children" Weather we are talking an organ or a womb, a child does not have a right to use someone else body without consent. Legally, a parent is not obligated to provide those services. Someone only has "special" obligations to a child in witch they choose to care for. That is why you can put a child up for adoption at any time. Con also said... " Furthermore, the mother caused the foetus to be in the dependent situation (by consenting to sexual intercourse), so she is not morally justified in withdrawing her life support." I do not mean to be cliche, but the mother could have been raped. Just because you have sex does not mean you want to get pregnant. When someone can not make medical decisions on their own, those responsibilities go to the next of kin, in this case, the mother. So the mother can legally choose to "pull the plug" on the fetus and terminate the pregnancy. Con said... "To use an analogy, if I spiked someone's drink and this inadvertently caused that person to have kidney failure, then if I was the only possible kidney donor then I would be morally obligated to donate a kidney. This is because I was the reason that the dependant is in the situation of being dependent in the first place!" You are implying that we live in an "Eye-for-an-eye" type crime system, in witch we do not. If I steal a television from the store, the government can not cut my fingers off and take my property.
Abortion

Thank you for agreeing to debate me on this topic. I will be arguing the bodily rights argument, a view point adopted from Judith Jarvis Thomson. His argument states that even if the fetus is a person and has a right to life, abortion is morally permissible because a woman has a right to control her own body and its life-support functions. For example, if a child was going to die and he/she needed an organ in order to live, the parent of that child should not be legally or morally obligated to provide those organs at his/her own expense. sources: "Home." National Abortion Federation. Web. 8 Mar. 2015. <http://prochoice.org...;.
The plethora, Version 2

Agriculture arose pretty much because hunter gatherer societies were growing in population and wanted to feed more people. The alternate solution that I argue they should have taken is to simply have not made more babies. This would have been very beneficial. Hunter gatherers work less, about 3 hours a day on average(1). They also are healthier, as forensic analysis of their bones has shown. Also, height is indicative of nutrition. The average human height before agriculture was about a foot taller than the height after agriculture. The height of agricultural people did not pick up for a few thousand years, and still is slightly shorter than HG's, even in rich developed countries. Third, any modern problem one could think of, global warming, war, pollution, poverty, social inequality, persistent crime, et cetera arose from agriculture. If we were still hunter-gatherers, we would not have coal plants and oil cars that emit CO2, war would be much less deadly, and much less frequent. Pollution, also would not occur without our industrial factories. Poverty would not exist because HG's worked with each other and shared food. HG's were also very egalitarian, and had little sexism or social classes. Crime only happens on a large scale when there are large populations, 60000 years ago, when everyone was an HG, there were only 10000 people. Sources: 1.http://www.environnement.ens.fr...... Read it, it's pretty short and it's interesting. The world problems points I made are pretty much common knowledge, we all know that what I said is true, but I can find a source if you need me to.