BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States

you are saying that standardized testing is racist but to me I don't think it is. I believe that when someone is grading your standardized test that they do not know who you are. They don't know anything about you except for how old you are and what grade and academic level you are at. I have evidence stating that standardized testing is not racist. Standardized Tests Are’t Racist: How Brown Kids Can Ace the Test to Get Into New York’s Stuyvesant McWhorter 14 we see what is felt with breezily accepted notions such as the idea that black kids can’t do math, or the idea of the NAACP—arguing for the advancement of colored people—intoning that because black and Latino kids don’t pass the test much, the test is racist. Yet the way this is discussed and written about, you’d assume that the reasoning has already long been laid out. Is it the moral thing to exempt black and Latino kids from the serious competition we consider a normal part of life for all other children, instead of making an effort to prepare them for it? That’s a peculiar and, at least to me, counter intuitive proposition. 1964: We demand to be treated as equals. 2014: We object that we cannot be subject to serious competition until society is something close to perfect—and roll our eyes at anyone who does’t “get it.” But what we need to “get” is that insisting that black and Latino kids can’t be taught to ace tests is, itself, racist. Or, at least, that is a perfectly fair assumption until we have a less coded discourse about the matter. Otherwise, it comes down to this: If racist underestimation is what brown kids need to succeed, we are faced with a truly novel take on what civil rights, justice, and morality are.You also said that our data is collected and mined, perhaps sold to companies for school profits. You you never gave any specific evidence that they are doing that what your data. Counting with your sold to companies argument. You said that they sell it to schools when they can barely balance their own budget due to systemic racism. But selling your data had nothing to do with racism. Your evidence is also from 2013 and if i'm correct its 2015 almost 2016. So your evidence is invalid because that is from almost 3 years ago.
nuclear power is a reasonable approach to generating electricity

I present Rebuttals regarding to Pro`s arguments for Round 2. A) Pro says that ``coal-fired power plants as the single largest industrial contributers to this crisis, producing carbon dioxide, fine particulates, and cancerous heavy metals including mercury.``(http://www.ncpa.org...). However, in the developed country like the U.S. I understand that new, innovative technology is being tackeled for coping with the defects of coal power as a energy source. We must admit ``coal-fired power plants generate 52 percent of the electricity in the United States.``(http://www.ncpa.org...). And ``Modern coal-fired power plants produce 90 percent less of major air pollutants than previous generations, and because of their increased efficiency, they emit less carbon dioxide(CO2) into the atmosphere per kilowatt produced.``(http://www.ncpa.org...). We must pay attention to the economic benefits of coal. For example, according to the researchers at Pennsylvania State University, ``By 2015, the annual benefit of coal use at currently projected levels is estimated at more than 1 trillion dollars in gross domestic product(GDP), 360billion dollars in additional household income and nearly 7 million jobs.``(http://www.ncpa.org...). Furthermore, ``a 66percent reduction in coal-fired electric power generation would reduce GDP by 371 billion dollars, household income by 142billion dollars and employment by 2.7 million.``(http://www.ncpa.org...). Therefore, coal-fired electric power generations play an important role in American economy. We can say that coal-fired electric power is not inferior to nuclear power from the economic and social point of view. B) Pro argues wind and solar power. I present my opinion. Wind power needs stable amount of wind blow and solar power needs stable amount of sun shine. However, coal-fired power plant can generate electricity constantly and safely if the operation of plants are effectively controlled. Therefore, it is better than wind and solar power. Conclusion: Oil, coal and nuclear power are three major approach to generating electricity. Each of them has advantages and disadvantages. It is important that each country must choose the best energy from among them by taking the economic, social and financial situation into consideration. It is urgentry required that government and industry of the world should spend much money in developing a energy source constantly which is less harmful not only for the environment and the planet but for the human being for a long time. From above arguments I believe that nuclear power is not the best approach to generating electricity.
nuclear power is a reasonable approach to generating electricity

Rebuttals:I believe my opponents arguments boild down to the matters of:a) Safety for the environmentb) Safety for humansc) CostHis last argument did not attempt to negate the resolution and thus I will not address it.a) My opponent quite obviously did not read my arguments which demonstrated that nuclear plants are the cleanest non-renewable resource. His claim that technology is making them better than nuclear is also invalid and unsourced. The impovements he speaks of that are being done to cars only work due to the fact that the methods employed to run the engines are becoming more efficient. In a fossil plant, all efficiency is determined by the quality of the fuel. His next contention against nuclear power plants is that a safe way to deposit radioactive waste is non-existent. Please read my previous post, as for the notion that earthquakes can break these chambers? Unreasonable. The deposits are built into hard rock in the middle of tectonic plates. Their designers considered just about everything that could go wrong, from terrorist strikes to volcanic activity, these deposits are safe.b) My opponents argument that nuclear power hurts people can be dismissed by the following statistic: for each person killed by nuclear power generation, 4,000 die from coal. [1] So how can you argue that Coal isn't as destructive to human life?c) My opponent claims that the construction costs of a nuclear power plant are rediculously high, and thus we shouldn't build them. The cost of a nuclear power plant is quite expensive during the construction phase but is amazingly cheap in the maintanence and running factor. My opponent curiously forgot to put this fact in. Maybe because it trashes his argument? I think so. After a while of running a nuclear power station, you would save more money than coal plants, and you would save more lives too.In conclusion, my opponent has given us no good reason to belive why he is correct, I look forward to his defense and rebuttals.[1] http://www.the9billion.com...;
Consent is SEXY

Thank you for the opportunity to debate this topic. I have accepted this debate on the points made in the first round (i.e., consent is what matters in sexuality, everything else is a side note), and not the title itself, as the two are mostly unrelated. If this is an issue with my opponent, speak now and I will offer my apologies and forfeit the rest of the debate.___Consent should not be the only factor in a person's sex life. What if a person consented to sex at a younger age, say 13, despite what the law said? This sounds a tad young, so what if the other person was also 13? I don't know; maybe I'm not with the times, but I do think 13 is too young to have sex, even when it's completely consensual. There's far too much that's over a 13-year-old's head as far as sex goes; even a 16-year-old may not completely comprehend the potential consequences of his/her actions. We can't be judges of teenager's consents as there is no quantifiable way to measure that. We live in a world where we encourage free speech and the right to do with our bodies what we will. We might even be pushing these boundaries- we're so concerned that we're going to offend somebody, we can't tell a 16-year-old that they might not be ready for sex without being slapped with "It's my right to do it!", ignoring the fact that they really might not be ready.I do have more to say on the topic, but I kind of need my opponent to bounce ideas off of, otherwise I'll just ramble. I look forward to your response.
Consent is SEXY

All people should be allowed to express their sexuality in whichever way they please as long as they do it safely and consensually. For example, in many states, the age of consent is 16. If a 16 year old woman decides that she is prepared (emotionally and physically) for sex so she and her boyfriend (16) both protect themselves and they have consensual sex. Many of their peers or family members would either a) judge them for being "too young" or b) try to discourage them from having sex because they think that these individuals are not yet ready. What do you think? Even though it is legal, should these two be allowed to have sex? What if it was two women? Two men? 16 and 18?
Social security should be privatized.

As Daniel Webster once said, "A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures." This fits the concept of Social Security privatization quite well. You seemed to have missed the point on the Chile example. Our current system performs 8% better (according to your statistics) than Chile's private system, likely at a higher cost. So in doing nothing (not a position I advocate, of course), we still have our citizenry better off than under a private system. One thing I should clear up is whether this is still a government program. Most advocates of privatization do assume that the government will still have oversight over the program. That means the bureaucratic overhead will still exist. If you're advocating getting the government out of it altogether, you'd be pressed to provide some details, especially regarding transition issues and costs. You have me sold on the benefits of a retirement account outside of social security. I have one and recommend everyone do the same. Only one problem, if we crash, like we did in 1939, our retirement accounts likely go with it. That's what happened to millions of retirees in the 40's (and for a contemporary example, take a look at Enron). That was why FDR created Social Security to begin with. It was designed to provide a bit of a safety net independent of our economic performance. This ties in neatly with the risk argument I was making that I think was misunderstood. I was referring to the risk of these retirees becoming welfare recipients due to economic downturns or poor savings rates on their part. Social Security buttresses that risk at least in small part. As I've said, I don't believe social security is the only answer for retirement, but the problems it has can be fixed and I think we can encourage folks to diversify their retirement portfolio to include some of the measures you've mentioned. The 4-12 trillion dollar cost of the transition to a private system can't be justified unless there were a remarkable difference in the results. Thus far we haven't seen a good example to support such a costly move. The fixes available would resolve much of Social Security's ills, and still allow folks to retain private investment accounts today as part of a complete retirement portfolio.
Social security should be privatized.

Social Security has serious issues, but I wouldn't characterize it as a complete joke as the proponent has. Moreover, I am ill convinced that turning our system over to private firms is the answer. First, privatization has a shaky track record. A 2004 report from the World Bank (http://wbln1018.worldbank.org...) indicates that, the case of Chile, 41% of the accounts created have funds so small that the retirees are forced to continue work. Relying on individual savings rates pushes us into a further risk bracket that many will make poor choices and then wind up being on the welfare dole. That's hardly a solution. Second, the cost for transition to private accounts could be astronomical. Even conservative estimates put this cost at $4.9 Trillion. The estimates to recoup these losses have been estimated at 45-70 years! (1) (1)http://www.epinet.org... Third, replacing one bureaucratically bloated system with another (to manage all these private accounts) really doesn't substantively resolve the issue. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater doesn't resolve issues that our society faces regarding a largely aging population and poor savings rates. Lets try and address the actual issues and fix the system instead of trying to replace it with another, possibly more complex one. Finally, most folks today have been told, correctly, that social security should only be one part of your investment portfolio when it comes to retirement. Its not designed to be a pension system like the ones that exist in Latin America & Europe. There is no reason we can't have both by fixing what ails social security and help folks focus on retirement savings accounts as well. I agree with my opponent that we should hold the government more accountable as to how it invests and spends our tax dollars. I believe we can do that without destroying social security under the guise of a private, government managed system that only shifts money to the private sector in the form of transaction and administrative fees. The patient known as Social Security isn't terminal, the problems can and should be addressed. Privatizing isn't the solution to those problems.
Social security should be privatized.

Social security is a complete joke. Although it was originally designed so that people contribute funds which will eventually be paid back to them to support them in their old age, it has become a means through which the young are forced to subsidize the old, a facet of socialism. Retirement funds would be much better off in the hands of private companies. As is stands now, the government is not accountable for how our retirement funds are used, and therefore have no incentive to administrate them effectively. Private companies WOULD be accountable to the public. If a fund did not perform, we could transfer our money to a more profitable fund. In addition, the government would not have access to our money and would not be able to spend it indescriminately. Why shouldn't we privatize social security?
Nuclear Power Vs. Solar Power (Future Electrical Needs)

Thanks to my opponent for taking his time to write his argument. Solar plantCost: $100 million[4]Capacity factor: 33%[1]Net capacity: 370.0 MW[2]Nuclear plant:Cost: $12.1 billion to$17.8 billion, two 1100 MW plants.[5] ($6.05-$8.9 billion for 1, if divided by 2)Capacity factor: 60.1%(2007-2011 UK average)[1]Net capacity(one unit): 365MW[3]As you can see, solar plants wins from every way except for the capacity factor.SafetyThe unsafe factors are not only Fukushima and Chronobyl. Here are some accidents that have happened:(from wikipedia)Serious nuclear and radiation accidents include the Chalk river accidents (1952, 1958 & 2008), Mayak disaster (1957), Windscale fire (1957), SL-1 accident (1961), Soviet submarine K-19 accident (1961), Three Mile Island accident (1979), Church Rock uranium mill spill (1979), Soviet submarine K-431 accident (1985), Goiânia accident (1987), Zaragoza radiotherapy accident (1990), Costa Rica radiotherapy accident (1996), Tokaimura nuclear accident (1999), Sellafield THORP leak (2005), and the Flerus IRE Cobalt-60 spill (2006).[6]ArgumentsCapacity: It would take more than five el-cheapo solar plants to produce the same average energy as one el-cheapo nuclear plant.However, from my imformation above, nuclear power does less net power than solar. Cost: A Nuclear Power Plant will cost less than half of a comparable solar power plant per megawatt. Even factoring in fuel, security and maintenance, nuclear power costs about 4 cents per kWh, and solar power costs 22 cents per kWh produced (7).The cost for building is lower with solar plants though, which is 100 million[4], 1/10th of a billion. Therefore there is no problem financially to build more to increase power output to lower the money consumers have to pay for the power.Life Span: A nuclear power plant can be used for twice as long as a solar plant. Why build 2 solar plants over 60 years if you could just build one cheaper, more reliable nuclear plant?Your source says that PV installation should produce electricity for 30 years or longer, and the effects of age on performance is limited.[7]Notice the "or longer". Land Use: It would take almost 20 square miles to build a 1500-megawatt solar plant, however a 1500-megawatt nuclear plant only takes 3 square miles. The nuclear plant therefore further reduced environmental ramifications for animals, by disturbing fewer habitatsMany solar plants are built or will be built in deserts, like the one in California. [8] This is because deserts have lower cloud cover, making them good places to build solar plants. [9] Deserts have less than enough precipitation to support growth of most plants.[9] Plants are scarce in deserts.[9] Only few animals inhabit deserts, they are adapted to the dehydrated place. Therefore, solar plants do not destroy much habitats with lots of animals and plants.[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://www.nrel.gov...[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...[4]http://www.metaefficient.com...[5]http://www.synapse-energy.com...[6]http://en.wikipedia.org...[7]http://info.cat.org.uk...[8]http://www.wired.com...[9]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Nuclear Power Vs. Solar Power (Future Electrical Needs)

I feel that Nuclear Power is superior to Solar Power (Solar Cells) at generating cheap renewable energy, for the future electrical needs of the United States.Terms1. The First Round is for acceptance only2. No new arguments in round 53. For the purposes of this debate, lets assume that Nuclear power is renewable, as that is a major topic of debate.4. Pro: Argue that Nuclear Power is Superior5. Con: Argue that Solar Power is Superior6. No Semantics7. We will also limit this debate to technology that is commercially available as of January 20138. Contesting Terms 1-8 is an automatic forfeit
Does God exist

[This is a re-upload of my previous debate (of the same topic) because a troll accepted it and ruined it.] Con This is how the debate will go (read very carefully): Round 1 Turn 1: Rules and definitions (Con) Turn 2: Acceptance and first argument for God's existence (Pro) Round 2 Turn 3: Rebutal (Con) Turn 4: Counter-rebuttals and extra arguments (Pro) Round 3 Turn 5: Rebuttals and questions (Con) Turn 6: Answer questions and rebuttals (Pro) Round 4 Turn 7: conclusion (no rebuttals) (Con) Turn 8: conclusion (no rebuttals) (Pro) End ----------------------------- Debate positions Pro: God exists Con: God may exist, though is unconvinced. Con will try to rebut Pro's arguments. ---------------------------- Rules: 1) Burden of proof is on Pro. I am not making a positive claim (that God does/does not exist) but I will try to rebut all arguments from Pro for God's existence. Pro is making a positive claim (that God exists) once he accepts this debate. Though I created this debate, the debate is structured as though my opponent (Pro) created the debate, to make it fair. 2) If Pro or Con forfeit any turns, Con or Pro will have to likewise forfeit (respectively) to make the debate fair. 3) No one who is a troll and/or debates like a moron can accept this debate. Only those who seriously want to debate maturely can accept this debate. If a troll/moron debater accepts this debate, I automatically win. 4) Do not take advantage of any missing rules that could make this debate unfair. If there is a missing rule you would like added, please say so in chat (for anyone else interested in this debate, please look in chat in case of added rules). 5) Pro will be arguing for a deistic God (one that does not intervene in the universe, yet he still created the universe and is required for the universe to exist). Therefore, only deistic arguments are allowed for this debate (I.e. Logical arguments that aren't religious). 6) Keep all arguments precise and to-the-point. Preferably, arguments could be structured as follows (but doesn't have to be): P1: A P2: B C: C Definitions God: "the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being." I will also add that God is invisible, above laws of physics but not above logic. He is omnibenelovent, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient. Truth: "that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality." Exist: "Have objective reality or being". Evidence: "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." Deism: "belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe." Deistic: anything according to deism That is about it. If you want anything changed, please say so in chat.
Does God exist

Round 3 was not only for answering questions, it was for rebuttals. The information I gave concerning the improbability of evolution was in rebuttal to Con's claim that its more likely the complexity we see in living things, the math etc, is due to evolution. Con falsely claims abiogenesis is not part of evolution. I would just invite readers to examine for themselves any article on evolution that includes abiogeneis. "Highly energetic chemistry is thought to have produced a self-replicating molecule around 4 billion years ago, and half a billion years later the last common ancestor of all life existed. [4] The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions. [270] The beginning of life may have included self-replicating molecules such as RNA[271] and the assembly of simple cells. [272]" . https://www.google.com... Con argued that natural selection selects the organisms that work better, which just happen to be the ones with mathematical structures as their blueprint. This never answered my question of where the mathematical blueprint comes from in the first place. Nor did he give any satisfying answer to the fine-tuning argument, except to hypothesis about things he gave no evidence for. While I was giving my evidence that I believe shows their is an intellect at work in creation, he gave no evidence at all for the existence of a multiverse, but simply assumed without proof that it "could" be the case. He didn't address the point about the house being designed except to clarify that it wasn't designed "for life," but this doesn't touch my original argument that it was designed "by God," regardless of His reason for designing it. I have said in this debate that the earth will not be forever, obviously, if (as in Christian theology) it will be ruined, all the cities will be destroyed, etc, then earth as we know it will be gone. But the nucleus of the earth, the rock itself, will last forever for it will be renewed. I think it was obvious what I was saying. I saw no contradiction here. It was Con who was claiming that if andromeda is headed for us, this somehow proves the earth wasn't designed for us, as if He could judge what goes on in the mind of a deistic god whom he says (for the purpose of this debate) does not intervene in our lives. Con never showed any reason to doubt the calculations of the eminent scientists I quoted in this debate, who showed that if you change any of the constants I mentioned by a hairs breadth, we would not be here, and in some cases, the universe itself would not be here. Con tried to challenge me to disprove things that he could not prove, such as how did I know the universe as it is not very probable, which he made no effort to show that it was, but I replied that the laws of physics were not yet in place at the Big Bang in order to determine things like the expansion rate the universe would have, etc. So without any guiding laws, there is no reason to think life-permitting universes like ours are more probable. We didn't see any good answer to this from Con.