BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
advanced school programs should be kept and expanded

I see what you are saying, however the disabled have equal or more classes than the highly capable. These classes are also isolated and not everyone can be in them. You see, opponent, that we can expand both. There are kids in every community that cannot afford to go to private school but are highly intelligent. Many kids will drop out of school because they are getting bored in the normal classes and don't feel challenged. The rate at which kids drop out of school is increasing because of this. {1} High School Dropout Statistics (US) Total number of high school dropouts annually3,030,000 Number of high school students who drop out each day8,300 Percent of Americans with a high school diploma85.3 % Percent of all drop outs that happen in the ninth-grade36 % Percent of students who repeat the ninth-grade that go on to graduate15 % Percent of students in the largest 50 U.S. cities that graduate High School59 % Percent of US crimes that committed by a high school dropout75 % Amount of money a high school graduate will earn more than a drop out$260,000 Percent of black drop outs that have spent time in prison60 % Percentage of Hispanic dropouts that were due to a pregnancy41 % Percent of US jobs a high school dropout is not eligible for90 % {2}"Many teens say they were bored and frustrated with classes that didn't seem relevant to their life." Teens will get bored in class because it is too easy for them and they need more of a challenge, however the students who need to be going at a slower rate are holding them back. {1}http://www.statisticbrain.com... {2} http://www.eduguide.org...
advanced school programs should be kept and expanded

There are more than enough high-end privately funded schools where the rich can send their 'privileged' children (and pay for a high class tutor to take them through test paper techniques). The focus of expansion should instead be on the less able students (the mentally disabled). The current standard of them means that they are often merely in a special section of a mainstream school very isolated and not amongst others like them. They often have no friends because they are trying to make friends with people far above their intellectual capacity. These are the students we should cater for by putting them in schools specially tailored for their needs, and if we expanded them the increased competitiveness would lower the prices of the schools (because the supply of the facilities would increase)(because 'special schools' are currently extremely expensive).
advanced school programs should be kept and expanded

I believe that advanced and exhilarated school programs should be kept and expanded. We should strengthen our enrichment programs for highly capable children. If we open the programs to anyone, then it could be a non-exclusive class. I understand that by being able to enter the program be by a high test score, people feel that it is an unfair chance. However, the work that is in a highly capable class may be harder for some students who were not able to pass the test.
This website sucks and a lot of debaters here suck

There is a realization that needs to be understood. That the Quality and Atmosphere of yourself determines everything. For if you are a Good teacher then your students will take that from you and it will travel to others. If you are a Excel entry debator the impact from your debates will sprawl to others within the site and continue to do so. Think of this world as a heart and you are a tick among the billions of ticksEvery time you tick you impact the rest of the heartWether Darkness or Light
Industrialization is the cause for environmental degradation

Our resources are never going to be depleted (unless a government imposes harsh regulations on new technologies, but my opponent is blaming industry, so this is irrelevant). What industry does is that it makes resources useful. For example, the oil was always under the Earth, but it was not a resource until people like John Rockefeller realized its usefulness. This process is not going to stop. We are going to mine deeper underground, and start colonizing other planets. While individual resources may run out, don't forget that everything industries do is for their own profit, so they will never be so reckless as to lose all their supply. And industrial innovation by other companies looking to make a profit will make the technology obsolete anyway.
Industrialization is the cause for environmental degradation

okay fine all this is agree but lemme tell u this..... in 40 yrs v are running out of petrol! in 150 years 90% of all our resources will b depleted! industries are providing us with employment, shelter, food, etc however imagine the scenario in the future when all our resources are depleted. what will we do then! then we will be in dead lock! completely fixed! what will we do then fight among our selves!
Drug Testing

I am happy to accept the Con side in this debate, and grateful to hoosty69 for presenting the topic. It's an interesting one, and I think it warrants such a debate. As this is the first round, and as Pro's first posting was short, I will keep this brief as well, giving a simple introduction to my arguments. They will be laid out in detail later with citations, but for now, this will suffice to make the debate even. There are multiple reasons I find myself opposing this particular resolution, and I will take the position of arguing against all drug testing, though I most specifically have a problem with testing welfare recipients. I have four main points: 1) Drug testing is expensive. That expense actually outdistances the cost of paying out welfare for welfare recipients who are found to be on drugs, and in other instances, it's even less likely to produce cost benefits. 2) It amounts to suspicion-less search lacking probable cause, with the person who is being tested being forced to turn over something to prove their innocence rather than being presumed innocent. That presumption of innocence is very important to any nation's legal structure. 3) Drug tests are mainly used to detect things that stay in the system for a very long time and can be detected by the given method. I will assume urinalysis, which can't be used to detect many drugs at all, and since most don't persist long, will only be effective for a short period following usage. 4) These kinds of drug testings foster resentment. This is especially true of the workplace, where people feel that their privacy is violated. This negatively affects productivity, and leads to lawsuits, which, even if they fail, will still end up costing the company a tremendous amount of money. I await my opponent's full arguments.
Drug Testing

"If I have to take a drug test to earn my pay, Shouldn't you have to take a drug test to collect your welfare check?" I work in the Oil & Gas Industry in northern Alberta, Canada. Like all working Albertans part of the taxes we pay go to the federal government for welfare. Now I get there are different circumstances with regards to the single mother raising children on her own because her dead beat other half won't pay to the person staying home all day watching TV smoking pot. I say what's good for one is good for all. If you don't do drugs, would it be such big deal to prove it knowing there are so many people out there that have ruined it for the rest of us? I'm sure some will say "crime will increase if they can't get there fix". Why should I pay for that? Can't we have programs to prevent that rather than buying say 10 fighter jets at $100 million each? Anyway before I get carried away I'm for the testing. Your thoughts?
'Merica

I'd like to point out that my opponent listed no arguments for 'Merica, so I'll assume he's debating the pros and cons of the phrase 'Merica. In addition, this is a round one debate, so I basically win by default. Here are my arguments anyway. 1. The term 'Merica preaches totalitarian fascism to children. The main demographic who are affected by this awful phrase are the teenagers of our country, young adults who are so readily influenced by any source. A phrase like 'Merica instills a dangerous sense of national pride and superiority complex over all other national and ethnic groups contrary to themselves. You know who supports that type of thing? The fascists of Europe. Mussolini and Hitler. Does my opponent support Hitler? We will never know. He has not presented an argument. 2. The term 'Merica is stupid and evil. Again, the demographic this ridiculous phrase affects is influential teenagers. If this group of adolescents are taught to say 'Merica instead of "The United States of America" they will start believing it, similar to the uses of propaganda in FASCIST TOTALITARIAN GERMANY. The use of America in such a way demeans the intelligence of children to use the correct word and is a form of dangerous propaganda.
DDO should only have a "more convincing arguments" point

Thanks for accepting, I hope it's a good debate :D"Definitions":The four voting categories that are worth points are as follows:1) Who had better conduct:2) Had better spelling and grammar:3) Made more convincing arguments:4) Used the most reliable sources:My Opening Argument:I will argue that Conduct, Grammar, and Sources should be rewarded with points. I will start with Grammar, move to Sources, and then to Conduct, as I feel that Conduct points are the most essential of the three, although all are important. In all my arguments, I will assume that Grammar, Conduct, and Sources would NOT be addressed at all if Convincing Arguments were the only category.Grammar: Grammar needs to be factored into a person's vote because, if it weren't, arguments could be written hastily and the opponent would struggle to understand the actual points made behind a veil. I have had personal experience with this, with people writing almost incoherent statements that I can hardly argue against. They often actually have good arguments, but it is a huge pain for me to try to decipher their cuneiform. I can provide quotes if you want of some of the awful things I've struggled to read!Sources: I think that Sources is important because it acts as an encouragement for people to USE good sources, if for no other reason. I highly doubt that anyone would use sources if points weren't given for it; I definitely would not. So the question is then whether using sources is a good thing. It is, because points should be validated by sources lest they become bare assertions. Of course, many times sources are not applicable. In this debate, for instance, I doubt either of us will use sources. In that case, people can just mark "Tie". But when talking about science, for instance, or whether the affordable health care act is a good thing or bad thing, or whether the iraq war was a good or bad thing, etc., sources are essential and should be encouraged by having them be worth points.Conduct: Conduct is absolutely essential to have functioning and respectful debates. Even if you thought that Grammar and Sources should not be worth points, Conduct is a must-have. No one wants to participate in debates where ad hominem, personal attacks, and cursing are normal. Many debates would turn into mutual hatred and personal attacking if there was not an incentive to be polite in the form of points. If debates degrade to this, then good argument and intelligent discourse will very often be lost. Conduct points are essential to ensure a healthy and constructive debating environment.I look forward to your response, thanks! :D
China will surpass america as the worlds biggest superpower in 20 years

Your points are invalid because you do not know what defines a superpower. A superpower to the root of its definition, is a country that has a great influence on the world. This includes economy, politics, government, and domestic problems. Chinas economy is among the best when it comes to real GDP growth rate. To argue your first point, Chinas population has already surpassed that of America. Chinas economy is booming and is constantly growing where as Americas is at a stalemate. It is true that Americas military is among the strongest, however military correlates directly with population, another aspect that China is constantly growing. Chinas economy affects other countries as well while the US is more of a domestic type.
China will surpass america as the worlds biggest superpower in 20 years

So i was looking around on the internet because i did not believe that this came from your own words. it had taken me about 2 minutes until i came upon this website http://www.worldcrunch.com.... You copy pasted the whole paragraph. Now please come back with a valid response. The definition of Debate is: a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward. It is not a discussion when the words are not yours.
Has tech wizard made our life graceless

Pro has ventured away from his original resolution that technology is making humans graceless by bringing up issues like global warming and climate change. These are red herrings, so I will therefore not address them. [1] Overpopulation: To be brief, overpopulation isn’t necessarily even an issue. It’s essentially a myth being perpetuated by the ignorant. [2] Social Media: “These things possesses a danger of sharing any sensitive information in a blink of eyes .“ -Pro Pro is referring to the potential of sensitive information being shared on social media. The issue with this is that users on social media have the choice to post as they please. It is their own fault and responsibility if their information is leaked, not the fault of technology. The cases of unwanted events being shared in the form of cyberbullying are so limited that it has virtually no effect on the human race in total. Pro fails to address that essentially ~75% of human beings don’t even use social media (not including bots or sockpuppets that have social media accounts, which I didn’t mention previously). [see previous figures in R1] Deadly Weapons & The Atomic Bomb: Whether or not the creation of deadly weapons and the usage of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are bad is both questionable and subjective. Not fact, as Pro claims in their conclusion. War: Simply put, war is perpetuated by human beings, not by technology. The complete removal of technology would not end war. If technology never even existed, war would still go on. That is human nature. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pro’s arguments are flawed and my primary points remain virtually unrefuted. Pro’s conclusion states that his points are facts when in reality, most of them are extremely subjective and nothing more than opinions. Pro also used a strawman logical fallacy in the end of their conclusion in an effort to make some points I brought up earlier seem notably more ridiculous and unimportant. [3] Pro has not successfully defended their resolution that technology is making human life graceless and that social media is having the effect of turning the population into drones. Vote Con.[1] http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...[2] https://www.pop.org...[3] http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...
Has tech wizard made our life graceless

I duly respect the words of my opponent. As said by my con ,"Technology has advanced the human race as whole". Yes the race is advancing from the scratch ,but the fact is not false that this advancement is leading to many problems like climate change,population explosion and global warming.In all these problems technology has its hands . I am not saying that we should go back to the same old primitive age but I what I want to say is that it has made our life hopeless .My opponent has represented the figures of people using Facebook,twitter, instagram .These things possesses a danger of sharing any sensitive information in a blink of eyes . THE ADVANCEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY HAVE MADE ALL HUMANS BLIND :- The rise of technology have created deadly weapons , the atomic bomb dropped twice on Japan brought to surface the fact that if human minds becomes selfish due to their prestige then its because of technology .The people who dropped the bomb did not even thought for a while what it will bring to the people who face d it. The ravaging wars represent the a greater guilt at the humanity that we are unable to stop these wars . CONCLUSION:- These facts are enough to prove that technology made us graceless as human life is more important than,as my con said "exploring new planets and aliens ","Travelling","or accessing knowledge" .
The main mockingbird in "To Kill a Mockingbird" was Boo Radley.

I believe that Boo Radley was more of a mockingbird than Tom Robinson based on the following quote from Harper Lee's "To Kill a Mockingbird": "Shoot all the blue jays you want, if you can hit "em, but remember it"s a sin to kill a mockingbird." Before we see who fits the criteria better, we must analyze what the quote means. To understand everything that's being said, we must take a quote from later in the text. "Mockingbirds don"t do one thing except make music for us to enjoy. They don"t eat up people"s gardens, don"t nest in corn cribs, they don"t do one thing but sing their hearts out for us.". Now, we can determine that the quote means that you can act negatively towards people if, and only if, they deserve it. Being rude or tormenting those that haven't done wrong is equivalent to killing a mockingbird. Let's now analyze the two characters in question, and why they are considered mockingbirds. Tom Robinson Tom Robinson was a black man accused of rape, found guilty, and killed in prison. While it is not confirmed, it is (I hope) universally agreed upon that he was innocent, Let's look at the mockingbird criteria: Never doing anything wrong, and only helping when he could (criteria 1), and being wrongly punished (criteria 2). For criteria 1, we can assume Tom Robinson did not rape Mayella Ewell, and in fact helped her with household chores on many occasions. For criteria 2, he was imprisoned and murdered for a crime he didn't commit. Boo Radley Boo Radley, the son of jobless baptist Christians, was an innocent boy to begin with. He became part of a bad crowd, and was imprisoned in his basement by his father. This led to at least modern insanity, and had a major affect on his life. Later, he tried to help and, in a weird way, become friends with Scout and Jem, despite being constantly demonized by them. They eventually accepted that he was a good person, and he was able to save their lives near the end. Now, let's examine how well Boo fits the criteria. Criteria 1a, Boo Radley was an innocent child. Criteria 2a, he was quickly corrupted by a bad group of kids, which eventually led to his insanity. Criteria 1b, he spent most of his time trying to befriend Scout and Jem. Criteria 2b, Scout and Jem, like the rest of Maycomb, viewed him as evil and feared him. While both are certainly mockingbirds, Boo Radley fits the requirements in more situations than Tom Robinson.
Even if we could abolish nuclear weapons, we shouldn't.

The semi/non-lethal uses of nuclear weapons can save lives. There are many uses of nuclear weapons other than vaporizing a city. A nuclear weapon can be used as an Electromagnetic Pulse if detonated high in the atmosphere. When a nuclear weapon is detonated that high in the atmosphere there is no fallout, no soot produce to cause a nuclear winter, and no nitric oxides produce to weaken the ozone. Plus use of a nuclear weapon to produce an EMP produces few casualties, while some would die because of vehicle accidents and lack of electricity, it would over all kill fewer people than conventional weapon would require for the same effect. Nuclear weapons are the produce the largest explosion of all current weapons making them some of the best options to intercept a large number of ballistic missiles close together. While alternatives are cheaper for taking out single ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons are the best for taking out a volley or another nuke using counter measures. The shear fact that nukes are the best counter for massive amounts of ballistic missiles is a good enough reason to keep them. Low yield airburst nuclear weapons can be used to take out hardened missile silos. While conventional weapons have some capabilities to take out enemy ballistic missile silos, they don't have as high of probability of success as a single accurate nuclear blast. It is important to note that air bursting nuclear weapons produce little nuclear fallout and little nitric oxide. Also important to note is that low yield nuclear weapons produce less intense flash meaning they are significantly less likely to produce a firestorm and thus would not produce a nuclear winter. On top of that, enemy missile silos aren't filled with much flammable matter as a city thus producing no soot. Nuclear weapons can also be used to deflect incoming meteors and asteroids. It is important to know that meteors and asteroids can do several times more damage than any nuclear weapon can. Giving up the strongest thing we have against these forces of destruction seems like a bad idea. I much rather have a nuclear weapon and not need it, than need a nuclear weapon and not have it.
should the death penalty be allowed for drugs

well marijuana is harmless nobody has ever died from it.death over something that doesint even kill is nonsence. i agree with you death penalty should be for inhumane crimes. and drugs are not inhumane. every body in the world has a drug of there choice (caffeine, booze,weed,nicotine,ect) Albert Ienstien even did DMT and LSD. Unless Given poison like from frog snake(yes considered drug) then should death penalty be in forced, because thats trying to murder. all people are close to one another 1 guys knows this guy that knows that guy ect. there going to get hurt also for what being nice and giving someone something. anyone in possesion of DMT are called instantly for death penalty no court. and there still yet to find one thing wrong with dmt. what if it was in your pocket someone had you hold on to it. and your found with it you will die and cant say idk what it was or your holding on to it you die.
should the death penalty be allowed for drugs

Say, you were an innocent young teen at a party. Someone put 1.5 pounds of liquid marijuana in a plate of food. Baked it inside so there was no scent nor visibility of the drug. You were hungry so you ate quite of few bites. You stay for a while and the party gets crashed by police officers. You have to take a drug test and are arrested for illegally taking drugs. Fair? I think not. The person whom planted the oil or drug into the food is responsible for the crime. The death penalty is meant for inhumane crimes. Not idiotic, unfairness.