BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The No Child Left Behind program hinders the more capable.

Let's think about schools before and after NCLB. Before NCLB, a school gets X money. We'll call x 1,000,000 USD. With NCLB, a school either gets that same 1,000,000 USD [If they don't meet the NCLB standard], or they receive more money, we'll say 1,300,000 USD. My opponent's first point is that NCLB will make education worse. If schools get more money, though, it just so happens that this means more salary for teachers, or more money for other educational tools. This has the direct effect of making edcuation better. My opponent's next point is that teachers spend more time on the students that are struggling than on students who are already doing well. This is true with or without NCLB. Teachers teach the curriculum required for their class. If some students aren't fully understanding that curriculum, it would be quite irresponsible to delve into new material not required for the course. Next, my opponent criticizes standardized state tests [oddly enough, this was but a few paragraphs after criticizing non-standardized tests]. He claims that teachers will usually teach the test material with NCLB. This is true, but it's true regardless. The test's whole purpose is to test if you know the important material from the class. Just as above, teaching anything not on the test would be irresponsible if students are still having trouble with the material deemed important enough to be possible questions on the test. If everyone understands the material, then it's fine to go on to more obscure or complex things than is necessary. With or without NCLB this is true. If you want a school that allows you to maximiaze your learning if you are gifted, go to a Montessori school, a private school, or some other specialty school. The public school system, with or without NCLB, is meant for the everyman, and classes with move at the everyman's pace. And as far as finding the money for paying the teachers more money: I am not here to argue that NCLB is a wise monetary decision, or that we can easily afford it. I'm here to argue that it is not what is hindering more capable students.
The No Child Left Behind program hinders the more capable.

While it is absolutely true that NCLB's (No Child Left Behind) only purpose is to provide funding for schools, it is still a major hindrance. NCLB provides not only beneficial consequences but also punitive consequences. These rewards or punishments are based on performance to a standard level and increasing this performance every year. However, there is no requirement as to what the tests are that measure this level. By punishing schools for not meeting a standard grade, yet not requiring a mandatory ubiquitous test, schools lower their standards as to avoid cuts in funding. Does this lowering of standards affect a slower progressing student? No, but it does take away much motivation for more gifted students that no longer have to try on the tests. Also, with a standardized state tests, teachers are encouraged to "teach the test". This means they teach what they think will be on the standardized test. This lowers many of the broad range subjects that classes used to include to focus on helping struggling students pass a test. The more intellectual students do not require half of a year to prepare for their standardized test and have to waste time that would be better spent on furthering their education instead of learning that one should "narrow down the answer first and then if you don't know guess..." And to answer the funding of teachers; go for it. Give the teachers more money. But the taxpayers are stretched pretty thin right now so good luck with finding the funds.
The No Child Left Behind program hinders the more capable.

The "No Child Left Behind" act hurts no one but taxpayers. All it does is allocate MORE funds to education. It does not take money from more gifted individuals. My opponent uses a false dichotomy. He claims that we can either help disadvantaged kids or help kids who are succeeding. This is untrue - we can do both. We start with more money for teachers. The effect is more people willing to teach, higher competition for teaching jobs, and therefore we have more and better teachers. No one suffers, except the taxpayers who have to pay for it. So basically, the No Child Left Behind program is a boon for all students, even the already-capable. I believe I have established this firmly, so I ask my opponent to establish a means by which capable students are hindered by the program.
The No Child Left Behind program hinders the more capable.

Short and simple is the way to keep opening arguments I believe so here it goes. No Child Left Behind hinders students that are more capable of learning. It also spends valuable tax money on students that will not affect society in largely positive way. Money should be spent on students and people that have potential. Why does society make us elaborate dreams and futures for kids that obviously won't have any. If a child shows potential at anytime or any subject that is valuable to society, then spend money, give time, offer assistance to that child in that subject. If a child shows no potential for anything but manual labor, don't force education on him. He will become, with the help of the school or without it, a man working a minimum wage job.
Resolved: The US should pass a law prohibiting the personal ownership of firearms.

CONSTITUTIONALITY DA The Second Amendment is a critical part of the Bill of Rights. Its impact is HUGE, with over 70 million Americans owning a gun. Obviously, the Constitution gives them a right to own such a weapon. Everyday citizens may not have to fight against the British in a militia, but they do have to protect their homes and their families from the crime rates that plague our nation's cities (including the one where we both live, my opponent!). Alternative impact- Once the law is passed, your law will be challenged by the U.S Supreme Court, after it ruled in 2008 in D.C. v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. Once it is assessed, the law will be declared unconstitutional. PUBLIC SUPPORT DA Maybe my opponent is unaware of the historical facts of our country. There are numerous examples of when unpopular policies created riots and revolts that turned violent: - In the Revolutionary era (1765-1786), hundreds of protests and violent riots plagued the 13 colonies to protest unjust taxes and government intervention in personal liberties. - Between 1890-1968, racial riots broke out in New York City, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Detroit, Chicago, and other large cities because of the segregationist policies in the South and racial tensions. - Among many others listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org... CHILD MORTALITY Honest tax paying citizens need firearms to keep their homes and families safe (as I mentioned above) from criminal elements and the increase of violent crime rates in the United States. SOLVENCY I concluded that the violators of your law being "apprehended" and "charged" meant they would possibly be thrown in jail. Even so, these punishments are wrong. Because states will be able to set their own punishment levels, this will lead to chaos because why should "violators" in Texas be charged with a $20 fine when people in Connecticut might be put on probation with a $50,000 bail? This isn't fair and isn't justice at all. COUNTERPLAN Actually we do have Solvency. Under President Clinton's presidency and after the Assault Weapons ban, the Clinton presidency had the LOWEST CRIME RATES IN A GENERATION. -Under the Clinton-Gore Administration, overall gun crime has declined 40 percent, and firearms related homicides committed by juveniles have dropped by nearly 50 percent. There were 227,000 fewer gun crimes in 1999 than 1992, and 1,246 fewer children were killed by guns than in 1992. -Background checks performed under the Brady Law have prevented more than 611,000 felons, fugitives and domestic abusers from buying a gun. We actually have more Solvency than your plan because the counterplan has been implemented already and has (and will continue to solve, with the added procedures outlined in the CP text) solved these problems and more within historical context. Therefore, you must perfer the CP. - Banned the manufacture, sale and importation of 19 of the deadliest assault weapons.
Resolved: The US should pass a law prohibiting the personal ownership of firearms.

Constitutionality DA- The second amendment was needed when the constitution was written because everyday citizens could be called upon as a militia at any given moment. But times have changed and it is not necessary to have this right anymore. Also, the impact has very low probability. Only two presidents have been impeached in our history and they were not the only administrations that passed theoretically unconstitutional laws. Public Support DA- There have been unfavorable laws that caused tension in the past that did not cause riots. If the government never passed laws that the entire population did not support, we would be in chaos. Therefore this DA has a very low probability threshold. Child Mortality- "Honest tax paying citizens that do not murder their neighbors" should not need to have guns in their homes. Therefore your claim that we are punishing them is unwarranted. Solvency- The Affirmative case did not say jail. This is an overdrawn speculation by the negative and should not be considered in the debate. The case specifically said that individual states will be in charge of how much or how little punishment those found with guns will be subject to. Also, since most gun owners should have a license for their firearms, an order will be sent to licensed owners requiring them to report to the drop off site and turn in their firearms. Those who do not comply will be subject to the judgment of their individual state. CP: The USFG tried an assault weapons band in 1994. Contrary to what it was supposed to do, manufacturing of certain assault weapons actually increased by 114%. http://www.vpc.org... Therefore the CP has no solvency.
Resolved: The US should pass a law prohibiting the personal ownership of firearms.

DISADVANTAGE: CONSTITUTIONALITY In the Constitution of the United States, the second amendment clearly states that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. " Therefore, your entire plan is entirely unconstitutional and will be declared so in the Supreme Court once this plan is passed. The impact is the impeachment of your administration. DISADVANTAGE: PUBLIC SUPPORT According to recent CNN polls, public opinion of strict gun control laws is only supported by 39% of the American population. Therefore, public support for this policy is limited and passage of this law will increase tensions in this country. The impact is thousands of riots around the country which will lead to civil war over a policy that no one wanted. . http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com... This will not link to the counterplan because our c/p is not gun control, only stricter regulations (see below). CHILD MORTALITY Alternate cause- When we ban all firearms for all Americans, we are punishing those honest tax-paying citizens who do not murder their neighbors. Instead, as the article below states, the cause of the high homicide rates in the U. S. is due to the large number of assault military-grade-like weapons that plague the inner city streets of our nation which are being handled by dangerous criminals and former felons. SEE OUR COUNTERPLAN which will solve both of these issue without causing the disad impacts and alienating the rest of the American people. . http://www.usnews.com... SOLVENCY How will you be able to take away all of America's guns? And even when you do, YOU'RE GOING TO PUT THEM IN JAIL FOR IT? ! This is extremely horrifying and you should be impeached. I also question how you will be able to execute this. . which questions if you'll be able to solve your advantage at all! COUNTERPLAN The United States Federal Government shall 1) Ban the use/sale of assault weapons in the United States; 2) Implement mandatory background checks and restrictions to limit the sale to those persons on a "gun-watch list"; 3) Funding for anti-firearm-smuggling programs for the U. S. Border Control will be increased to limit illegal arms flow into the U. S. ; 4) Create an independent federal commission under the U. S. Department of Justice to regulate all federal guidelines, of whom the members shall be appointed by the U. S. Senate Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs; 5) All guidelines, including definitions of "assault weapons", will be revised every 5 years. C/P S: This counterplan will solve your Child Mortality advantage while ALSO being constitutional and not causing our disadvantages.
Resolved: The US should pass a law prohibiting the personal ownership of firearms.

INTRODUCTION: Personal ownership: The independent ownership of a firearm. This includes hunting and personal defense. This excludes firearms owned by police officers and those of related professions. These guns, however, shall only be on the officer's person when on duty. Firearms: a rifle, pistol, or other portable gun :http://www.askoxford.com... If such a law were passed, the following changes would be made in society: -Guns for hunting shall be rented at the designated hunting area for use during recreational hunting. -Temporary Government depots will be stationed in communities where citizens are expected to turn in their personally owned firearms. -After the return period, anyone apprehended with a personally owned firearm will be arrested and charged according to the will of the state. RESOLVED: THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD PASS A LAW PROHIBITING THE PERSONAL OWNERSHIP OF FIREARMS. Contention: Prohibiting the personal ownership of firearms will decrease child mortality rates. According the University of Michigan, an average of nine children are killed per day by firearms. "This includes homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries." Taking away the firearms in homes owned by their parents or even themselves, they will not have access to the weapon in order to use it to kill someone or themselves. Also, they will not be tempted to mess around with the firearm and accidentally shoot someone or themselves if the firearm is not accessible. The negative may argue that they are other weapons available in homes, but when firearms are used these situations are 90% lethal. If the child was to use a knife or a blunt object, the result will be injury but possibly not as fatal as quickly. http://www.med.umich.edu...
For a woman to be rich, She needs to be a slut

Acquiring wealth from family fortune doesn't make someone rich, You just had the riches handed down to you from a family business. Inheriting your families billion dollar venture like India Rose James is not becoming rich on their own. Maybe I should have clarified my debate better. Women who work to become rich need to be sluts to move up the corporate ladder and become successful Just having billions handed to you from family, Or inheritance is different than what I'm referring to. For any woman today to become rich from nothing, She will need to whore herself out to a billionaire like Anna Nicole Smith did, Or to become a rich CEO, The woman will need to sleep her way to the top. Women need to be sluts to get to the top and be rich, Unless you have a rich family already that you don't need to whore yourself out, They will just give you money, But for the rest, The unfortunate truth is that women need to be sluts to get rich, As men have all the power and money, Although times are changing at a very slow pace. But for now women have to be sluts to be rich
For a woman to be rich, She needs to be a slut

There are at least thousands of rich unmarried women who have not needed men to reach their positions. This link provides 5 of the world's richest unmarried women: https://www. Businessinsider. Com/wealthiest-bachelorettes-2016-2#20s-india-rose-james-1. Unless my opponent can prove they are sluts, Their argument is completely null.
For a woman to be rich, She needs to be a slut

In order for a woman to be rich and highly successful, She needs to be a slut. Woman generally make half of what men make in the work force, They are promoted less to higher positions and not as respected in the labor force as men, As the general thinking is still that women need to stay at home in the kitchen and raise children. Therefore a woman has to be a slut and sleep her way to the top, Or be a prostitute to be successful and rich. Or be a slut with a billionaire old man who will leave his billions in his will to her. Therefore a woman needs to be a slut to be rich. And before you say that this is not true and start mentioning celebrities like Beyonc" or any other actress, Don't forget they had to start with a talent agent and whore their way to the top. Or be a slut with Weinstein to get a successful movie career. Every successful women's journey to the top has been through being a slut. If a woman is rich it's because she had to be a slut to get there. Prove me wrong
Is hidan of the hidden mist village really dead

According to your first definition of immortal, if someone is immortal they are remembered through time, if the Hidan fan-base still remembers him he is immortal." My first argument against this is that this definition is objective, not subjective. Objective, in this sense means, "of a noun, excepting a pronoun". It refers to a pronoun, a living being, and so it is not immortal. My second argument is that your reference to immortal was of the latter definition, "4) of or pertaining to immortal beings or immortality." A reference to this reference is, "if a surgeon ninja were to find him he could be sown back together and thus be a mobile threat again." As this refers only to the said definition, assumptions must occur of its ultimate reference to the definition. "In your second definition of immortal you state that something's not liable to perish or decay. A body is still in a living state if it is not decaying and instead growing. Hidan is not truly dead but instead is incapacitated. By your framework Hidan is immortal and still alive." Pro has given no evidence, merely statement, that Hidan's body is not liable to perish or decay and so this argument is invalid. Pro argues that Hidan is said to be incapacitated. Definitions of incapacitate: 1) to deprive of ability, qualification, or strength; make incapable or unfit; disable. 2) Law . to deprive of the legal power to act in a specified way or ways. Definition of incapacitated: 1) unable to act, respond, or the like (often used euphemistically when one is busy or otherwise occupied): He can't come to the phone now—he's incapacitated. I cannot see how Hidan being unable to act is evidence against him being dead. Pro has failed to give unchallenged valid evidence and so has not yet produced proof. Also, could Pro send the link to Wikipedia, as I have searched and not found a reference to the word "incapacitated", other than, "During Part II, the team reforms with two new members, Sai, who occupies Sasuke's position, and Yamato, who acts as Kakashi's replacement when he is briefly INCAPACITATED and later stays with the team when Kakashi returns." http://dictionary.reference.com...
Is hidan of the hidden mist village really dead

According to your first definition of immortal, if someone is immortal they are remembered through time, if the Hidan fan-base still remembers him he is immortal. In your second definition of immortal you state that something's not liable to perish or decay. A body is still in a living state if it is not decaying and instead growing. Hidan is not truly dead but instead is incapacitated. By your framework Hidan is immortal and still alive. Even Masashi Kishimoto stated Hidan is in an incapacitated state, not saying if he was alive or dead. Also on the Naruto wikipedia page, in Hidan's stats he is listed as incapacitated, not dead. In the most recent series of naruto Kabuto was unable to resurrect Hidan. Using this information we must assume Hidan is alive as part of a writing plot to keep readers interested.
Is hidan of the hidden mist village really dead

Definitions of immortal: 1) remembered or celebrated through all time: the immortal words of Lincoln. 2) not liable to perish or decay; imperishable; everlasting. 3) perpetual; lasting; constant: an immortal enemy. 4) of or pertaining to immortal beings or immortality. Definitions of immortality: 1) life of which death is produced, only subject to or productive of war or conflict. 2) enduring fame. The first reference to immortality speaks of Skoll and Hati: Skoll the wolf who shall scare the Moon Till he flies to the Wood-of-Woe: Hati the wolf, Hridvitnir's kin, Who shall pursue the Sun. Skoll was an immortal being and Hati, a princess of the wolf Gods, was jealous of Skoll's power. In her envy, she created war and cursed all immortals to fall to the fate of conflict. Hidan's death was a product of war and he therefore "fell to the fate of conflict". Moreover, he did truly die.
Animal rights

"G-d did not create Adam to take care of the garden or the animals in it. The whole purpose of the garden was to eat and drink without any physical exertion. And besides, I'm not interested in what happened thousands of years ago. The point is that now, we are permitted to use animals as long as they do not suffer unnecessary pain." I know that, I challenged you to this debate to dispel the notion that animals were made for our consumption, no, tare tolerated for our consumption. Even if we are permitted to eat animals now, back then, when animals were created, they were made with no intention of being eaten. I, on the other hand, am a vegetarian, it's much easier to keep things kosher seeing as though all the food restrictions apply to meats, with the exception of the law against gluttony.
Animal rights

"It is forbidden to show cruelty to animals, since this falls under the category of "tza'ar ba'alei chayim". However we are permitted to use animals for food and cloth, as long as they do not suffer unnecessarily." I was arguing that animals were not created for humans to eat/use, originally, everything was vegan, humans and animals alike ate only herbs, fruits, and vegetables. Eating meat came later on, after Adam sinned. It would logically follow, that seeing as though eating mean followed sin entering into the world, and resulted because of sin entering the world, that eating meat is a sin. A minor sin ob-course, but a sin nevertheless. Since sin means "to miss the mark", eating meat can be considered "a sin", because G-d created humans to take care of the garden and the animals therein, not eat them. G-d initially intended for humans to be vegan, eating meat is "missing this mark", hence it is a sin.
Animal rights

In this debate I will express my views that animals should have rights, my first point to make here is a few scriptures, Genesis 2:15: "Adonai, G-d, took the person and put him in the garden of "Eden to cultivate and care for it." Yonah 4:11 "So shouldn"t I be concerned about the great city of Ninveh, in which there are more than 120,000 people who don"t know their right hand from their left " not to mention all the animals?" Please note: 1. G-d made humans "to take care of the garden", which includes the animals therein. 2. G-d cared about the animals being destroyed, just as he did the humans. I await your responses.