BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Examination is the best way to test academic excellence among studemts

Clearly my opponent doesn't understand the definition of academic excellence. This simply refers to the progress of students in terms of knowledge acquired on books rather than on practical skills and experience. Resolved Academic excellence and intelligence are not the same thing. Academic excellence and intelligence are not straightforward measurements. Clearly, there is no defined way to test the full scope of knowledge of an individual. students need to be grouped based on the knowledge they posses so they wouldn't find themselves in unsuited environment and wouldn't be able to study properly. And clearly, there is no other best way to test the knowledge of students based on knowledge acquired on books than the term 'Examination'. Examination is the best because of the reasons; its formality, the idea that it enables students determine their strength and weaknesses and also work hard towards great success, it puts the right people in the right place and lastly it does the work of testing academic excellence. Doubts might exist because of the idea that students cheat during examination and thus their academic intelligence is not being correctly tested. Hypothetically speaking, a TV set lies on the street and gets stolen. Do we blame the TV set for the theft or the condition in which it is in 'lying on the street' that caused the theft. The fact that students might cheat doesn't change the fact that examinations are set to test academic students, blame the conditions of the activity. The idea that examination Induces fear on students and so they are not able to produce their full ability with profound insight, pressure cant be dodged fully. This state trains students for future purposes, It is clear that some on those reading this who have Jobs are given fixed time to produce certain results, so in a way, examination trains students for the days work. Thus rebutting cheating and pressure or uneasiness. Resolved The idea that examination helps students work harder towards greater success is right. In 2014, out of the 800 students from Presby Boys high school in Ghana who took part in the West African Examination, only 8 students got an A in English. After careful study, the council found out that students communicated mostly in their local dialect and 'broken English' which had an adverse results on them. After this encouragement, students adopted English as a common language and in 2015, there was a 70% pass in English Language with about 612 students scoring A. That's the benefit of examination. .. .. Secondly the fact that Examination has been adopted all over the world for testing academic excellence is also a reason, trust me, the facts are the reasons. Resolved, Examination is the best way to test academic excellence among students. Thank you. ..
Examination is the best way to test academic excellence among studemts

There are many ways that examination is not the best way to test academic excellence among students. Some ways include simply sharing ideas, observing students and letting them learn what they want to learn. I'm just going to write about how these ways may be more accurate when it comes to testing academic excellence. First of all, simply sharing ideas can be a productive way to learn another's imaginative abilities. These ideas are often neglected in examinations, or are often limited to a certain topic. An environment where imaginative skills and reflection is encouraged, may bring out the intelligence in students, who don't always do the best in examinations. Such discussions can enhance the effect of creative intelligence, rather than the type of intelligence that is encouraged in a specific examination. Also, simply sharing ideas, can create a more light-hearted atmosphere, so more reserved and aloof students, may bring their ideas to discussion. Carefree ways of testing academic intelligence, can reduce stress, and can make students more relaxed when it comes to confidence. Secondly, observing students can be the most natural expression of intelligence. If you just observe a student and what kind of work they do in class, can give you a more accurate impression of day-day intelligence. There are some kids in class who study hard just for the examination, and simply stay laid back everyday in class. Some others, participate more in class, and are more engaged, then just people who hope to get good results. In this way, observing students can let you find the students that are actually intelligent, rather than the students that hope to get good marks. In this case, students who are more actively existing, as if they reflect from the class, and who don't just memorize, are noticed, which is often a real factor of intelligence. Another way would be letting students learn what they want to learn. If you give a variety of academic choices to choose from, students are more likely to find something to learn, that they are actually interested in. If they are actually interested in a certain topic, they are more likely to try their best, so this would be a tracking of their maximum effort. The maximum effort of a student, would be their highest point of intelligence. In this case, you'd almost find a statistic representation of who is more academically proficient, and who isn't. In this way, academic excellence can be easily noticed. Overall, these are some ways that may do better at noticing academic excellence among students, compared to examination.
whether the government should enforce illegal immigration

America is a free nation where anyone should be free to come and live. America is a free nation dictated by laws to ensure that is remains a free nation. Those individuals who want to take part in this free nation must fall subject to the laws; There are no exceptions. Currently, this country has laws that dictate Immigration. These laws are for the protection of the citizens who have accepted America as their country of origin, by means of legal birth(not birth right) or legal citizenship. America owes nothing to any other individual.
Voting on whether a PRO or CON forfeits is a poor RFD.

This series of events further proves my point. Even though you forfeited (for lack of time/personal events) you did so without presenting actual or reasonable arguments. Furthermore, you debated without as much effort or eloquence in your first speech and therefore should not win this debate. However, if you had presented serious arguments against me in the first round of your rebuttal and I failed to reasonably answer your arguments as judged by any observers, you would still have a/an chance/opportunity to win this debate. You have most ideally complied with the exception I provided (inadequately debated by forfeited side) and proved that some people have better things to do.
Voting on whether a PRO or CON forfeits is a poor RFD.

In response to what you said: Thank you for agreeing with me but I disagree with people having to be distracted by everything. If something comes up, they have the right to make their personal life a priority. In response to what I think you mean: 1. People are often distracted either by major and minor personal events that are both unpredictable and time-consuming. For example, if a relative dies the day the debater is supposed to submit an argument, they have the right and justification to prioritize a funeral or family gathering over an online debate. Essentially, it is valuing real-world situations and consequences rather than debating someone you don't know about a topic that you may be passionate about but will have no further consequence of (nothing happens if you win or lose in the real world). 2. Extend my argument about how if side A is winning, but forfeits for a reason similar in nature to the example above, that they should still win the round because they presented clearer arguments. Essentially, if you are convinced by one side or another, and the debate abruptly ends, you are required to make a decision but you should not weigh or consider that the last person scheduled to argue failed to. Once again, if a person forfeits and they have lost both the round and their confidence in making a rebuttal, they should lose. I am arguing that just because a person is unable to respond within the time limit, they should still have the possibility of winning the round. Voting on whether a side forfeits is a poor RFD.
Voting on whether a PRO or CON forfeits is a poor RFD.

Quite a few debates end in forfeiture. However, that DOES NOT mean that the side that forfeited did not put forward important and convincing arguments. Simply, if side A was clearly winning and was unable to post within the alloted time, they should not automatically lose the debate. People have good reasons for not responding within the allotted time. It is often difficult for a person to devote time every day to debating online when other important events arise (personal events, vacations, etc.). In addition, people are justified in putting real-life events over a simplistic and normative debate. Secondly, when it is obvious that side A is winning the debate but forfeits for lack of time, that does not mean that they lost purposefully or without contention. Lastly, it is better to vote on convincing arguments and weighing them individually than take the easy way out and vote against a forfeited side. Forfeiture does not necessarily means loss in the case of online debate because it is often chosen unwillingly. I do not favor voting for a forfeited side when they are losing, but when they are clearly winning. I am not advocating that you would be unable to vote on forfeiture, but that it would short-sighted and often wrong to do so.
Twilight is better than Hunger Games

Age is just a number, it doesn't necessarily reflect a person's measure of maturity. The fact that Peeta was injured and needed help eating, has nothing to do with his maturity level. Regardless, I believe that the Hunger Games are much more entertaining than Twilight. The story behind the Hunger Games has many different aspects to it, it's not just about one thing, and it draws fans from all age groups. It includes something for everyone, ranging from friendship, family loyalty, politics, action, and sacrifice, to love. According to a survey, (Hollywood Lifers), the majority of Twilight fans are only made up of two types of people. One being, the nerdy girl who thinks that the school hunk ignores her because he's secretly in love with her, and two, her mother, who is saddened by the lack of passion in her marriage, so she writes an amorous fan fiction revolving around Edward and Bella. Katniss is a great role model for girls of all ages because she is brave, strong, passionate, and loyal. She is definitely a relatable character who grows through trial and error, just like we do in reality. The Hunger Games include concrete characters that make you feel what they are feeling. The importance of how we live in society, and how we deal and engage with the media and celebrities, is a major theme throughout all of the Hunger Games books. Katniss becomes the symbol of an entire revolution in her district, and in all of the districts, because of her courageous personality and her willingness to do whatever it takes to protect the people that she loves.
Twilight is better than Hunger Games

EDWARD IS 107 YEARS OLD!!!! He is obviously more mature than Peeta that needs to be fed soup when he is hurt. In conclusion, Twilight is better than The Hunger Games because Bella is both a role model and someone to relate to. She stands up for herself for being be a human with faults. She over comes everything that is thrown at her.Even though sometimes she cant make decisions she eventually comes to an answer. She stand up for the people she loves when the Vulitori attacks and when her own husband wants to abort her child. She ends up with everything she wanted because she worked and fought for it. She goes through rough patches with friends and she learns to salvage all her relationships. The plot of twilight is better because the whole series isn't about one thing like hunger games (the games). Twilight has so many characters that makes the whole plot interesting. Jacob and Edward care about Bella and that is why they fight for her. it just proves their love. Peeta and Gale just sit back and wait for Katniss to make a decision. Twilight has very different well rounded characters that make us the story and a plot the never gets boring or strays from a meaning of our reality without vampires and ware wolfs.
Twilight is better than Hunger Games

I think I have proved my point about how Bella is a character we can relate to and also a role model (at times). No one is a role model all the time. Bella's indecisive and weak personality is very humanistic and the point is that she over comes it in breaking dawn and she becomes who she wants to be and equal to Edward (men and women equal). Moving to another point, Twilight has hotter guys, Edward and Jacob.
Twilight is better than Hunger Games

Katniss and Bella are completely opposite characters personality wise. Katniss doesn't need to be protected as much as Bella does because Katniss is independent and strong. Bella is more needy, although she does act strong in certain situations, such as the pregnancy. Peeta and Katniss both protect each other throughout the Hunger Games, and violence is a part of the game. Katniss and Peeta do not want to harm people, but they also do not want each other to get hurt. Some of their actions are necessary in protecting one another. In Twilight, Bella is pretty much defined by the two men in her life, Jacob and Edward. Both of these guys act out in childish ways to try and win her heart. In the Hunger Games, although there is a love triangle, the primary focus is not on it. I believe that Katniss is a better role model than Bella is. When Katniss' father died, she did what she had to do to feed her family even if it put her own life at risk by breaking the law. She kept the family together, took care of her little sister, and stayed strong while her mother was a wreck. Bella is not as good of a role model because she whines her way through high school and goes back and forth between two boys. Katniss knows what she wants and she does everything she can to get it, whereas Bella is very indecisive and needs the approval and help of at least one of the guys in her life.
Twilight is better than Hunger Games

Bella wanted to be immortal and Edward wouldn't allow it. She had to fight with the person she loved to get what she wanted. Not only did she fight for herself but for her child. She would rather die herself than let Dr. Cullen take kill the baby inside her. You can relate this to today's society dealing with abortions. In the end the woman has the choice and Bella choices the right choice, the harder one. Bella is someone girls can relate to. Katniss teaches girls to be strong but she also harms people with words and actions, for example how she kills someone with wasps or her anger throughout the movie. While HG has a strong woman, Twilight has much stronger men. They fight for Bella instead of just waiting for her to decide. Edward protects Bella throughout he whole series while Peeta needs protection. Katniss nurses him back to health in the first book's game and she stands by him when he tricked into hating her in the last book. Men are supposed to be protective to the girl they love, not needy.
Twilight is better than Hunger Games

I believe that the Hunger Games are better than Twilight because there is a lot of unnecessary drama in Twilight that revolves around Bella's inability to make decisions, whereas in the Hunger Games, the drama is actually suspenseful and entertaining to watch. In the Hunger Games, we are forced to question the society we live in and judge how we're engaging with the media and celebrities. In Twilight, all it encourages girls to do is give up everything to be with their high school boyfriend.
is logic a subset of illogic

Thank you for this highly Intriguing debate. Upon further reflection and research, I came to the conclusion that when logic is considered "Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity", this does not refer to principles which are true, but principles of truth itself. This means that the conditional truths that come across inductively (such as the laws concerning space and time) are not principles of validity, but simply ideas with a grand amount of intellectual merit. Space and time do not decide how validity work, but rather have relative truths associated with them. Principles of validity are the fundamental laws that decide the truth value of everything. When an idea is untrue at any time (for example, the big bang) the untrue idea is not the rule of truth, but just the law. If you can prove the laws of space and time to be relative, then the relativity isn't valid, as proof requires reasoning and is therefore never illogical. At this point, I would normally defend my previous arguments, but seeing as they are irrelevant now, I will refrain from putting them here. To maintain good conduct, I will say that the supposed "actual" definition of fact goes alongside the actual definition I gave. If we accepted the actual definition I gave, then that would prove that there is logic which cannot possibly be a subset of Logic. Your objective statement is rendered subjective. My opponent has given much evidence, but the evidence they have provided has been found without much credibility (as in the claim that the laws concerning time were relative, as opposed to the relativity of time being a part of objective law), and without much relevance to the topic at hand. That was very thought provoking, but your contentions are unproven.
is logic a subset of illogic

RebuttalsThe absolute nature of LawI ask both you and the floor to consider this example, let us take a man who has committed a foul act of indecency but there was no law deeming his act illicit, however after the situation had occurred they legislated a new law making the act the man did illegal, then considering all this my question to you is, has the man therefore committed a crime? if he has not then how is law absolute?Law:a : a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions b : a general relation proved or assumed to hold between mathematical or logical expressions This is the definition my opponent has provided for law, he explicitly states that laws are invariable but intentionally refrains from mentioning "so far as is known" and "under the given conditions" as I have pointed out these conditions may change allowing, by his definition, for the Law to also change. Reality may very well be relative, but the reasoning that is being conducted in relation to its principles is not.So you have essentially said that something dependent on something else which is relative need not necessarily be relative? if reality changes, then the principle of reality changes because the fundamental laws of reality changes and thus the reasoning of principles should change. If I had a ball that bounced and I moulded it into a square, its reality has changed, which has caused its fundamental laws to change - it has no curves, it now has edges, angles and it also does not bounce and so how we reason with it should also change; we now consider it to be a cube or a cuboid rather than a sphere and so treat it accordingly.Fact:something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existenceThis is the actual definition provided by your link of what fact is and does not suggest anything about logic not being relative. I have not argued that these fundamental laws do not truly exist but rather that they have existed but not all the time. Referring back to the unification of the fundamental laws that governed our universe during the very few moments of the big bang, this truly happened and at the time was considered a fact, furthemore at that point in time the 4 fundamental forces weren't actually in existence and therefore did not truly exist and so were not facts.My definition of Facta thing that is known or proved to be true. I now ask you, can something which is unknown but still existent still be a fact? Combining both my definition and your definition, facts depend on what we can observe making facts relative, there can be something that truly exists which we do not know about, i.e Unknown knowns.Conclusionmy initial argument still holdsSources:https://www.google.co.uk...
is logic a subset of illogic

Is Logic Absolute? You argue in your point that the changes in validity proves that logic has also changed, but this is untrue. Your definition of validity is the quality of being logically or factually sound; we can ignore the first as the denotative meaning of logic covers this, so instead let's examine fact. The definition of fact is a piece of information presented as having objective reality [1]. What this means, is that when you present logic as being "relative", you are incorrect by definition. Any points you have made resting on the case for relative logic is false until you can prove otherwise. If we define fact as information having the quality of being actual, then the principles of validity become the principle of being actual. By extension, logic becomes reasoning conducted or assessed according to principles of reality. Reality may very well be relative, but the reasoning that is being conducted in relation to its principles is not. The definition of principle is a comprehensive and fundamental law [2]. Law: a : a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions b : a general relation proved or assumed to hold between mathematical or logical expressions [3]. Since the latter definition loops back to the original one, the relevant definition is the one that says laws are invariable. An invariable statement cannot be relative. So if logic consists of invariable statements that apply to reality, then by definition they cannot be relative so your argument is false. Summary: Your burden of proof has not been fulfilled. [1]. http://i.word.com... [2]. http://i.word.com... [3]. http://i.word.com...
cRAP BATTLE

Sup a cup with the cuppa cuppa cup wup You gonna lose I'ma cruize with the ching along nut cup Bree with a cup of tea Is it just me or are you really ugly When people see you they die just like my bro chugalugaly take a walk and talk like a sock with chalk who gonna lock you away you say no way Jose Like the bay who'll lay your dog another day What are you scared now Feel my fists pow pow pow And take a bow Like a cow you go moo moo moo You don't know what to do So you spew some s**t your raps are full of poo Where is your rap going to All you do is go Tim bim whim Kim HAHAHA as if you have already won the battle But really your just a cow who is cattle
cRAP BATTLE

gup lup dup zup kup loop doop shoop nup dup dup rup rup rup gumbadumbadumbadumdabum hum shum calum badumbadum hahahahahahahahaha lol roll sol knoll hahahahahaha alargobargodededee one in the poopernoodle can't touch mee hoo hoo hoo whathoo gonk doo hup hup hup balupbadup few pew dadoodadoodoodoo ahahahahahahahaha rhyme good ha ha guardo arbogast with the past hahq nup knife life hife rife jife neeneeneeneeneenee one fell down frum da cocconut tre hahahahahahahaha qourgobargodadaada hahahahahahahahaha so do go bo bo low no fro for the bo do do do argee tree hoo hoo hoo ha ha ha gonna win bla bla bla tea see jee me hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha