BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Middle Schools Should Not Use Letter Grades

1a. Precision is EVERYTHING, let me make this more clear, if yo see a big A- on your paper, you don't know how many questions you got right or wrong, you will simply know the approximate number you got right. Have you ever wondered if you got a letter grade on a test (B+) if it's an 86- or an 89) I believe that should be shown by number grades. Con Also stated that the behavior can be represented by a LETTER GRADE, on the topic of behavior, with something that could be influenced by many factors (participation= 1 point, attitude= 1 point) then you should know how may parts of the [lets say 10] points you got right. It seems just a hassle having to guess for better or worse. 1b. On the contrary to con's second point, wouldn't you want to be given a more specific letter grade rather than just a letter? Also a percentage grade is a size that fits all, instead of PROFILING your grade by saying "A= Excellent, B= Above Average C= Average, etc. ) you could see your own level of grading. Instead of thinking of yourself as "below average" you could profile that grade as "my average" this could raise self esteem. Instead of saying "I'm average" you could say "I'm doing fine" because you aren't being profiled by a letter! 1c. Onto the con's third point, con stated that "proficiency can alter in certain areas. For instance, in some subjects, tests or areas of education, an above average proficiency might mean only having to get a score of 60. If someone sees a 60% grade, they might assume automatically that one's proficiency has failed. " I will refute this by saying that the teacher has to tell them about these differences to the grading system. Even if the teacher didn't say that, she would get loads of parent's complaints, so she would have to tell them. So this point is irrelevant. 2. Con stated that "since an A = above 90% then these 2 statements are saying the exact same thing! " These are not the same thing, they are different in many ways, first that a 90% or higher is a much broader area, rather than just 3 grades, so it gives a student more options to aim for, if he/ she is aiming for consistent grades. 3. Con's next point explains that "Hardly anything is so competitive in middle school" but this is false, having gone through middle school myself, I would know that grades get very competitive. We NOT enable more competition, even (in the outlandish statement) if there is little competition, why not fuel that competition? 4. Con also states "My argument isn't that less precision is better, but irrelevant and unnecessary. " This is a very foolish statement because I have explained why precision matters over and over again. 5. Con's last point is that "one will still be able to figure it out. If there were 20 questions on a test (worth 5 pts each) and I received an A- grade, then I know my score is between a 90-92. So, it's easy to see that I got between 1 and 2 questions wrong. " So as pro has stated before "i might not know [as a middle schooler] what the math is off the top of my head" so con has COMPLETELY contradicted themselves!
Middle Schools Should Not Use Letter Grades

1. The con refuted my first point by saying "number grades don't report these things [how well he's doing socially, etc. ]" however, each week, or month, or certain increment of time, a teacher inputs a "behavior" or "social" grade. This would clearly be displayed in a progress report and the report card. If the child isn't doing well socially, or has very bad behavior, he/ she will get a low grade on that grade, which will be shown in the progress report, (ex: 2/10 on behavior). A low percentage will [and should] be noticed by the parent. 2. The con also called my second point "irrelevant because the same reality still applies even if number grades were used" this is not true, letter grades are much less diverse, let me explain: Anecdote: [[[ A student wants to get better grades, he says "I will get an A" which makes him concentrate on that ONE single "A", if there were number grades, he wouldn't concentrate on that one letter, but will concentrate on getting a RANGE of numbers, which would lead in less stress on hitting one exact point. So instead of "I will get an A" it would be "I will get Above 90%! ". This refutes my opponents refutation. 3. Now to refute my opponents third refutation: Con stated that "When you receive a certain letter grade, it's indicative that you scored within 3 measly points making competition still widely accessible. " This is not true, if two students score an A- on a test, how will they know who got the higher grade? They will have to assume a grade, "was it a 91? or a 93? " So to clarify my third point, competition will be more fueled with number grades. 4. My fourth point ties into my last point: As con said "So long as one knows that an A- represents a score of 90-93 percent, then one's achievement or rather comprehension of the subject material (which is really what grades are supposed to represent) are acknowledged with a letter grade. " but As I have stated before, if I get a test with a big red "A-" on it, what will I think will go on the report card? This is unnecessary that we will be less precise for no reason! ALSO con HAS NOT STATED why less precision is better. 5. Now onto con's 5th refutation: Con stated that number grades can actually be confusing, by saying "For instance, if I received a 51/60 on an exam, I might not know what that translates to of the top of my head. .. especially if I'm in middle school. However, if I saw a big "B" on the top of my paper, then I will know how I did right away. " This may be true, but at least with a letter grade you would know the following: How many you got right, how many you missed, and [if the teacher used a percentage] the percentage you got right. But with a letter grade you would just know the approximate area of scoring. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Now to summarize my points. In my refutation to my opponents refutations I have stated that number grades are more precise, accurate, efficient, and they make kids more competitive for grades.
Should i have flicked the insect off my hands?!

"It"s always best to relocate insects! Never to kill them" [1] " ' Insects were here first, by over 300 million years. Technically, we're on their turf. 'Insects killed the dinosaurs. What if T. Rex was still wandering around here, eating small children at will? " Other things eat insects, like birds and lizards and my cat. 'If you kill a good insect, you'll wind up with more bad insects than you can possibly kill. Then you'll be sorry. 'Some insects do essential jobs that Americans won't do, like pollinating flowers." [2] "... it is unnecessary to kill other animals without reason." [3] I hope my opponent will return shortly. [1]http://www.peta2.com... [2] http://insects.about.com... [3] http://newbuddhist.com...
Should i have flicked the insect off my hands?!

"Bugs do serve useful purposes in this world, but God also designed them to be prolific so that they become food for animals and so that the species survives..." [1] Every species in the world has a purpose, and by killing it for no reason the stability of the food chain could be ruined. "People should ... coexist with the harmless spiders and the mosquito eaters and release the other bugs outside. " [2] I await my opponent's response next round. I can not extend my arguments due to my opponents action of making only 15 minute arguments. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://www.democraticunderground.com...
Life without parole is more ethical option than capital punishment.

With that said, I will summarize my debate. Believing that the death penalty is morally right over life in prison, I value utilitarianism. As provided before, [1], utilitarianism is defined as the belief that a morally good action is one that helps the greatest number of people. The way that the most people would benefit from the death sentence is that they would be better protected. In past years, over 40 escapes, some containing thousands of people, of prison have put criminals and murderers in society, which would endanger the people as a whole [2]. Also, many studies concluded that the death penalty has shown to lower murder rates. Once again, the public would be safer, because the murder rate would drop if the death sentence were to still be in place. "". .. our recent research shows that each execution carried out is correlated with about 74 fewer murders the following year. .. " [3] "New Yorkers live in safer communities today because we are finally creating a climate that protects our citizens and causes criminals to fear arrest, prosecution and punishment. . .. This has occurred in part because of the strong signal that the death penalty sent to violent criminals and murderers: we won't excuse criminals, we will punish them. .. " [4]. With enough quotes, it can clearly be shown that the death penalty deters crime and should be put in place. One of my opponents main argument was the cost of the death penalty. But I ask my opponent, and the audience, this: Would the money saved through refraining from using the death penalty make up for the crimes, murders, and lives lost? Money can't by happiness and surely can not buy life. And the questions asked on most of the cites: Does the death penalty deter crime? Most certainly yes [5] [6]. I am glad that my opponent submitted most of his arguments, though I was looking forward to seeing his conclusions. All in all, after a good debate, vote con. [1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://online.wsj.com... [4] . http://deathpenalty.procon.org... [5] . http://www.hawaii.edu... [6] . http://www.judiciary.senate.gov...
Life without parole is more ethical option than capital punishment.

You have focused your response in round two on how the escape of murderers could lead to more murders. While this is true throughout history is has only happened a mere five times. Also, you must focus on key words in the term 'capital punishment'. It is not 'capital prevention'. It is capital punishment and punishment is stated word for word by Merriam Webster Dictionary "suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution." Retribution is in simplest terms revenge. Capital punishment is referred to as punishment, an eye for an eye and social justice among society. It is clear that capital punishment is in place merely for revenge. Your example of the escape of in Benghazi, Libya is negligent because the United States has a much more stable government and security force. Also in the extremely unlike event that this did happen and suppose we were talking about a regular prison in which only about 17% of the conviction rates are murderers a task force would be en route in mere minutes. Many of these individuals would not commit a deadly crime if there is a "mass escape". Unless you are talking about a death row facility, primarily designed to house all convicted murderers and an ever so large factor in capital punishment. The event of a mass breakout would result in one to none murders keeping in mind that this unlikely event would happen. For your statement on bribery, this event has resulted in escapes, it has never resulted in a murder. This event is also very unlikely due to the sheer numbers of other security guards and checkpoints located throughout the prison that a convicted felon would have to travel through. I will continue the next round extending my arguments from the second round and replying to my opponents conjecture.
Life without parole is more ethical option than capital punishment.

Although my opponent has not done so, I will offer a few definitions for clarification. Life without parole - Life imprisonment is any sentence of imprisonment for a serious crime under which the convicted person is to remain in jail for the rest of his or her life [1] ethical - following accepted rules of behavior : morally right and good capital punishment - the legally authorized killing of someone as punishment for a crime. If my opponent would like to change these definitions please state so in comments. You may post your arguments, and I wish the best of luck. [1] . https://www.google.com... [2] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] . https://www.google.com...
Breast feeding is healthy for your baby, and able mothers should at least try it.

Having a baby is a beautifull,and bonding with your infant directly after it's birth is crucial. Breast feeding inables you to be very close to your new child and give him or her affection every time they eat. A new borns eye's allow them to see only to the mothers face while breast feeding! It takes patience, and a little bit of pain sometimes, but being a mother your job doesn't stop when tht baby is born, it just begins! Parenthood means sacrifice and your body is not yours any more. Sacrificing things you would like to do, such as drink alcohol, smoke, or drugs aren't healthy for you anyway. It would be selfish to decide to bottle feed just based upon the mothers wish to break free from her new little "bondage". Breast milk (starting off as colostrum) has antibodies,fat,vitamins,and minerals that your baby needs. Unlike formula there's no air (which cuts down on gas), and your body actually formulates and changes the milk as the baby grows to give them everything there body needs. Formula does NOT do that. Formula can also lead to constipation, stomache aches, makes poop smell bad (YES, breast fed babies do not have smelly poop) it's expensive, and if not used properly unsanitary. Babies need nurturing, eye contact, fondling and to be held and suction (breast feeding takes longer than bottle feeding, and this could eliminate pacifiers). Breastfeeding insures that a baby gets all of these things. Forget about geting together bottles every time you go out. Just take a blanket and you can feed so descretly sometimes my own husband doesn't know I'm doing it. Breast feeding is good for a mother and a babies developments, and should be tried and embraced.
Breast feeding is healthy for your baby, and able mothers should at least try it.

Again , I don't believe that any mother should be obligated to try breastfeeding if she doesn't want to and I don't think not trying it makes her selfish in any way. I dont think someone should push their views on another. What is right for you may not be right for someone else. Some women would just rather bottlefeed their baby. Its a personal decision. MY daughter is 4 and is doing just fine and she was bottlefed. We are very close , bonded and she is a healthy little girl. I don't think a women who doesn't breastfeed because she wants to continue smoking is a selfish women. I think she knows she will not be able to succeed and for her and baby it is a better choice if she bottle feeds her baby. I don't think that is selfish. What is right for one woman is not right for all women. I am not saying breastfeeding is bad, just not for everyone. I do not think any woman should have to try breastfeeding , some people just aren't comfortable with it ...that should be their choice. It's their body , their child. Children that drink bottles are not in any harm , so why should it matter if someone doesn't want to do it. I am not saying it is bad to breastfeed , I am saying it is NOT bad if you don't want to do it. I do not think it is right to think my way is right over anothers. AS long as the child is not being harmed in anyway , then why does it matter how a mother chooses to feed her baby. MY grandmother bottle fed her 7 kids , my mom bottle fed her 5 kids , my husband's grandmother and mother did the same. I bottle fed my daughter so that my husband and her could bond as well and it was the right thing for us. I didn't have to try breastfeeding , because my decision wasn't based on whether I would like it or not , it was based on what was best for us and our family.
Breast feeding is healthy for your baby, and able mothers should at least try it.

I don't know where your geting I said that a mothers job was done after giving your baby a bottle. Not to be redundant (because I know you like to quote my arguments): As you say there are other ways you can bond with your child. Personally, I think there all good interactions... but don't discredit the fact that breastfeeding is a good way to bond. Personally, I believe you should do more than one thing to bond with your offspring. Where does it say that a bottle feeding mother does not interact with her baby? My saying i believe you should do more than one thing with your offspring means, I don't just breast feed, I do all the other things you mentioned as well. Just as a bottle feeding mom would... If you can't find it in yoru heart of hearts to stop smoking or drinking for your family, I believe fully you ARE selfish. Addicts can quit. Being an addict is not a very good excuse to keep doing something you shouldn't. Many addicts have quit, it's not imposible. How do you know that breastfeeding is "not fit" for you if you haven't tried it? Trying things is a very zesty interprise for finding if you like something. Again, never did I say that bottle feeding is negligible. You are arguing that breast feeding shouldn't be tried. Which is wrong. Of course breastfeeding is a personal choice, but I believe a woman should at least try it, and see if it could work for them.
Breast feeding is healthy for your baby, and able mothers should at least try it.

So, lets take a look at the topic of this debate: Breat feeding is healthy for your baby, and ABLE mothers should at least TRY it. Never in my opening statement or topic, did I state that bottle feeding mothers were bad. Nor, did I say that everyone should (for one year) breast feed their babies. My debate is about TRYING to breast feed. In the begining colostrum is very important. The arguments I gave were incintives to why you should at least TRY to breast feed. Some mothers don't even see if they could or like to breast feed. Of course not everyone feels that breast feeding is exceptable because of societies biased it is not gross or perverted to breast feed. Our culture should make natural feeding mothers feel more comfortable. As you say there are other ways you can bond with your child. Personally, I think there all good interactions... but don't discredit the fact that breastfeeding is a good way to bond. Personally, I believe you should do more than one thing to bond with your offspring. Just as you say there's more than one way to bond with babies other than breastfeeding, aren't all the wonderfull examples you gave ways for a Father to bond with the baby as well? It takes patience, and a little bit of pain sometimes, but being a mother your job doesn't stop when tht baby is born, it just begins! Parenthood means sacrifice and your body is not yours any more. Sacrificing things you would like to do, such as drink alcohol, smoke, or drugs aren't healthy for you anyway. It would be selfish to decide to bottle feed just based upon the mothers wish to break free from her new little "bondage". // In the excerpt, I never said a mother was selfish for having to go back to work, or having something physical happen to deter breast feeding. Not sacrificing uneeded things is what I suggested was selfish. Was the smelly poop baby eating baby food? Some familes are not in the proper financial bracket to receive WIC, and you can only get certain types of formula with it. Please realize this is not an attack on bottle feeding familes... and if there's any more confusion please report back to the topic of the debate. So, do you belive women SHOULDN'T TRY to breast feed?
The Bible does not teach that women should teach men in church

Yes, in fact i conceded the majority of your arguments but you never refute that this is extremely skewed, you vaguely state that it's possible to win, but we need to really ask, how possible? Your burden of proof isn't challenging, all it is, is that "This book says this. " and honestly when your burden of proof is just affirming that a book states or supports something it's not a fair debate for both sides at all. If the debate was whether woman should preach, the burden would be balanced. But the burden is, "Does the bible's contextual wording condemn women from preaching" and of course the bible does, the con never has a chance. If the bible was made in a more modern era, there wouldn't be mentioning of women submitting, or leniency towards slave owning or a light sentence towards rape. My opponent automatically will win because the bible was made in a era where different genders and racist were discriminated against.
The Bible does not teach that women should teach men in church

Con conceded all my points. Thus I win this debate round. Now onto the point about being too biased of a topic: I actually had the same topic, based on the Bible. I was advocating for this position. I lost. It's possible to win. Of course, Con has lost because he conceded everything now. Please vote Pro because I have adequately proved that the Bible does overall teach that women should not teach men in church. Also because Con misunderstood the meaning of this debate, even though the resolution obviously states what it is. When you are voting, please cast aside personal bias on the issue. If you disagree with me for some reason, please do not take it out on the ballot. You are voting on what we have said in response to each other's arguments, not what you believe on the position. (Except for the top two options). I thank Con for the debate, and you for voting.
The Bible does not teach that women should teach men in church

It seems i have misconstrued the topic, i thought we were debating whether they should, not that the bible says they should. My mistake. However it seems that this is a meaningless debate then. If i say, "That history book does not teach mathematics, and then ask you to prove how it does. That is pointless. The bible doesn't speak highly of women because of the time it was written, so of course it's not going to teach of women ministry. It even says directly in the bible, "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says" This debate then is completely skewed in the affirmatives favor, and there is no possible ground for the con to take.
The Bible does not teach that women should teach men in church

I will first begin by rebuilding my case. My opponent said that the main point of my argument is that the old testament is sexist while the new testament is not. However my opponent misconstrued my case. I in fact said that the mind set of those times tended to subjugate women. Women now, however are equal to men because of progressive reforms and a remolding of our culture. So we must look at this as a matter of a cultural premise. The bible was written in a time when women were looked at as no less than property, so naturally this is a major influencing factor when it comes to the understanding of the book. I also pointed out in my first argument that man is fallen. Since sin has been introduced into the psychosis of man. We must concede that discriminatory actions stem from hatred and hatred stems from sin. Since sin is a huge factor in the ways of gender treatment, We must finally conclude that sexism is in fact sin. God does not endorse sin of course, so we must finally see that god would not approve of rendering women from preaching. Therefore the law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith. Galatians 3:24 From that verse alone we can see that we are all the same. There are no genders nor races to be held specifically accountable we are all responsible under Christ. Thank you for voting, i now give it to the Pro