BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Drug Testing

In your argument you explained that people may get the best treatment. Meaning there is no guaranteed benefit to putting your life on the line. Even though there are precautions to drug testing testers do not always follow those lines. Drug testing is like a gamble you may be benefited by it or you can get nothing out of it and or die. Now even though it is a slim possibility it can still occur. With drug tests on people we can never fully predict if the patient will live or die from the new drug. There is always these unknown dangers of these trials. Helen Anderson states that, "International clinical trials often violate the principle of justice by conducting experiments on foreign populations." This here is already unethical because scientists are testing on people that may only have a 3rd grade education. Even if they were to give them consent there is no telling if the person even understood what they were explaining to them. This will set them up it tests with very little health care after words. For those inside America there are still potential dangers and corrupted testers. According to Rutgers.edu "There is so numerous Americans, and is hard to monitor that it is too easy for researchers who are arrogant, reckless or just plain sloppy to harm people." So not only is there the danger of the body not responding the way that may want it to but there is also the danger of the person giving the test. The tester should always know what they are doing and shouldn't get bored with their jobs. There are those people out there and we really cant stop that danger. Discovery.com explains that many participates often are serving as their first time and could lead to discomfort to permanent physical damage or to death. Just like any drug is bad for your body you don't know if it will harm you the first time you try it or the thousandth time you use it drugs are bad for the body.
Drug Testing

Drug Testing has its perks. Through drug testing, the patient may be able to gain access to new treatments. If you have a condition that does not have a medicine available, then you may gain the availability to a newer drug for that condition. The National Institute of Health explains how drug testing can provide the help your condition requires through the newest treatments, before they are widely available to the public. The NIH says that the premature availability of advanced medicine means that, granted that the treatment works, you could be among the first people to benefit. Drug testing makes it possible for a person's condition to be attended to earlier than other people's conditions. If a new treatment is not provided to you through drug testing, NIH explains that you may be provided with the "current standard" of medicine for the specific condition. This means that you will be compensated with the best available treatment/medicine for your condition.
Resolved: An ideal form of No Child Left Behind would be beneficial to the welfare of the U.S.

Thanks you :) I'll go ahead an accept my opponent's definitions. As for my opponents contentions... a) He claims that an ideal form of NCLB would see an increase in expulsion rates because schools are feeling the pressure to pass these tests. However, this isn't the case. Whenever you have an ideal form of anything, it's perfect. It neither relies too heavily nor too little upon the test scores. Right now, I think most would agree that the pressures applied on schools to pass tests, and the punishment for lack thereof, is a little high/harsh. Once an ideal form is implemented, schools won't have as much as a burden and school could actually become that fun, engaging place it was intended to be. When school becomes a more inviting place, as opposed to one of boring lectures and simply copying notes, students will become more engaged, and in turn, do better on tests. One of NCLB's goals is to provide quality, qualified teachers to all schools, and ideally, this would happen. Ideally, NCLB would accomplish all of it's goals, thus benefiting the welfare of the U.S b) NCLB tests are measured against standards, I'll grant that. But these standards are based upon a curriculum that allows students to survive in the "real world". A twelve part study that offers the skills necessary to get a job and provide for a family. However schools need to teach said standards so as to allow society to benefit is perfectly fine. As long as the students can do the problems on the test proficiently, they'll do just fine in society. And then my opponent describes NCLB and poses the idea of schools choosing not to participate in NCLB, using Utah as an example. However, with an ideal NCLB, one that would absolutely guarantee that NCLB would accomplish all of its good intentions, why would anyone choose to opt out? Opting out would place a state's children at a disadvantage. And maybe the ideal NCLB mandates that states must participate, to ensure that education is getting the funding it deserves? I'll close there, and turn the floor back over. I apologize for my delay in replying, it's been a hectic three days :\
Resolved: An ideal form of No Child Left Behind would be beneficial to the welfare of the U.S.

Due to a previous meeting, I know I can expect some great arguments :) That said, let's get onto the case. .. DEFINITIONS: ideal- a conception of something in its perfection. CONTENTIONS- 1) NCLB is already proving successful "Spellings also said big gains on the 2004 National Assessment of Educational Progress show the law is working. The nation's 9-year-olds posted their best reading and math scores in more than 30 years on the test, sometimes referred to as the nation's report card. " [1] 2) NCLB has good intentions "Ronald Forster, a Georgia lawmaker, said he and several other state legislators recently sat down with her to discuss the negative response to No Child Left Behind. Mr. Forster said he asked Ms. Spellings why the act asked for an unobtainable 100 percent graduation rate. ‘Why not have a high goal like 95 percent? Something more reasonable,' he said. ‘She looked at me and said, "OK – who do you want to leave behind? "'" [1] I'm running short on time, so I'll leave it at this. But first, an analysis. When we see that NCLB has good intentions, that it aims to make America a better, more prosperous nation, coupled with the facts that we're seeing results stemming from NCLB, creating an ideal from of NCLB would rid it of problems and allow the good to shine brighter than ever before. Good intentions + Ideal policy = Amazing results. --SOURCES-- [1] . http://www.ed.gov...
Resolved: An ideal form of No Child Left Behind would be beneficial to the welfare of the U.S.

Alright, final round, this one will obviously be a lot shorter. The thesis of my argument is simple. A thing in it's ideal will meet it's goals perfectly, but only it's goals. Not other goals. Thus at the end of this debate I believe I have found multiple loop holes in which an ideal form on NCLB would only worsen the situation while perfectly meeting it's goals. Additionally, considering that NCLB is only a federal program which does not specifically mandate it's goals there also exists loop holes in which states can just flat out leave under too much pressure. All of this in mind, I ask that my last round arguments simply be extended into this round considering that none were refuted. Especially the argument about how schools will be forced to lower their own curriculum. I'd argue, as my opponent said, that the current situation is already pretty sweet. Stick with it, an ideal, in this case, would quite simply not help at all. Thank you all. Have a nice read!
We should end wars and end evil once and for all

I agree that War and Evil should be ended, but I think that perhaps there is a chance it should be allowed to continue. I doubt that Evil is a part of Human nature, and instead suspect that Evil is a learned behavioral trait. Would it be better if there were a method devised to stop all War and curb or dissolve all Evil that works without flaw? Yes, ideally if it somehow manages to respect people's rights and such at the same time. Dunno how that'll happen, definitely. x) But will that last? I ask you, why not allow it to evolve, to continue? Why not let the "Evil" and the "Wars" become so gross and horrific, that it tramples on the ratings of every horror film ever made with its sheer festering terror? Why not allow it to continue until every Human being knows evil so well, they're deadly sick of it? Then perhaps they would want peaceful lives so much, they wouldn't just make a Utopia. Maybe they'd make paradise. x)
We should end wars and end evil once and for all

For far to long it has been human killing a human. A human abusing a human. I want that to end. We need to end the corruption that is in so many governments. We need the stop the people who abuse other humans. We need to unite this world and end the evil that is in everyone. Think about it, who would not want to live in a world without war, murder and other atrocities. We have to by any means.
Ayn Rand was a poor philosopher

To discuss if Ayn Rand was a poor philosopher, you have to answer the question: Compared to whom? I didn't had much time to respond your every argument. So I will follow my logical aproach to wha, i think Ayn Rand saw the moral problems of altruism. Ayn Rand defended above all freedom, that you have the right to own property, and that includes your body. No one has the right to use coersion, and you have the right to defend your rights. For Rand, the use of force is immoral, and the only moral way is by reason and voluntary cooperation. Altruism is the sacrifice of yourself for the "greater good", and that "good" is dictated by someone who has the power. It's the root of all religions and all systems of control. Altruism gives a "immoral" reason to force submission. When somebody believes he is altruistic, he is lying to himself and others. There are no one that isn't individualistic. When you give something, without asking for anything in return, you may illude yourself to think that you are being altruistic, but you are wrong. Usually that ilusion leads to disillusion, when the person you gave something for "free", doesn't act the way you expected, you will feel betrayed. And so the confusion begins, because you thought that you were being good, and by being good you expected to be rewarded, but as we all know, not always an altruistic action is rewarded. The reason is because it's an illusion, and in reality you are being totally selfish. You give something because you want something in return. If you know that you are not getting payed, you can still help, but you you won't sacrifice yourself, if you still love your life.. We fight to survive, and we make choices, and that choices are not, in the beggining, for others but only for ourselves. But then society tries to make us feel guilty for being selfish, and you start to focus your objectives for the benefit of others. Then, slowly, you begin to lose your ambition, and when you notice, you don't know who you are anymore, and you become a sacrificial animal for others. I know it because something like that happened to me, but I never gave up, and when I heard about Ayn Rand was when everything became clear. Is the ilusion of altruism that makes people fear freedom. This is why the governments always use scare tactics for us to feel weak, helpless and in need for guidence. The more we believe we are victims, the more freedom is taken away from us. Like Benjamin Franklin said: "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither". In the next round I will speak about capitalism and socialism and develop on your arguments.
Ayn Rand was a poor philosopher

I'm for the idea that a "poor" or good philosopher doesn't have to be about if the philosopher got his history of philosophy right, or if he was original. A good philosopher is when his logic is true now as it was since the begging of recorded history. And Ayn Rand philosophy, in my understanding, achieves that. So if it is true, the originality is irrelevant. You can show your facts that points to your criteria of "poor". And I will show you that your criteria to define Ayn Rand as a "poor" philosopher is poor compared to the relevance of her philosophy.
Religion has had a positive impact on the world

What a nice Christian way to round out this debate. Personal insult, bastardizing my name again, and to round it out, a rape joke. What pro didn't manage to get around to this last round, or the round before that, is a point. I would have assumed there would have been plenty of meat on the bone for pro to choose from to back his assertion. I guess I was wrong. Religion has NOT had a positive impact on the world.
Religion has had a positive impact on the world

"Tobester" - Well, first, I gave you my name since you wanted to use it. Uses it, not just whatever you feel like."my life has been positively influenced by religion and so have countless others." - Waiting for you to prove that. "Also, if there no religion, rapists would run rampant." - There is notihng in this debate that shows this statement in any way.I have little doubt that pro and countless other religious people THINK that their religion has been a "positive impact on the world". I extend my argument that regardless of what positive impact the religious want to attributed to religion, those same positive impacts would happen without religion.Untill I am given a point to actualy rebut, I am sitting tight.
Religion has had a positive impact on the world

Religion is the belief and worship of a god. For this debate to have any meaning, pro must provide some proof that belief has provided a positive impact. While I am not attempting to make only a semantic argument, even if it could be proven that individual followers of any religion had positive impact on the world, it would have to be shown that they as individuals would NOT have had that impact without religion. It would seem a low bar to pass, positive impact, but it"s not my job to prove the resolution. Religion, the belief, or particular system of faith and worship, has enumerated morals as pro mentioned. The genesis of any morals could be argued, but I will play along with the common notion of the believer that morals are handed down from a God. If that"s the case, the believe in a God, the religion, and the individual believers has nothing to do with the good works of any moral. That is, any positive impact from moral code are completely apart from any religion. That the "Without these moral codes, societies would run rampant with rapists, and the world would never have expanded to the place it is now." is, within the context of the debate question, either saying the morals are not a product of a God, or as I would propose, completely man made, and would be build and accepted out of conscientious with or without religion.
Religion has had a positive impact on the world

Alright Tim, thanks for accepting. Historically, religion has been a way of establishing a moral code for a society. If you look at the basic elements of all religions you see some sort of way of keeping order and making sure people are nice to one another, whether it be the concept of karma in Hinduism and Buddhism, the way that Confucius describes a healthy superior to inferior relationship in Confucianism, or the five pillars of Islam. Without these moral codes, societies would run rampant with rapists, and the world would never have expanded to the place it is now.
Gun control will make places safer

Ill get straight to it and try to be brief. Since the gun-control issue is of major significance in America right now, and obviously doesn't apply to other countries that already have gun control, I will argue from the perspective of gun control in America. I. INTRODUCTIONGun control is doomed to inefficacy because the easy access to weaponry and safeguards against overly-invasive policing would only serve to create a bureaucratic nightmare that would have too many holes. It is nigh impossible to stop people from obtaining and using a gun if they are committed. Furthermore, it would hassle citizens looking to carry arms for non-malevolent purposes. II. CONCEALED CARRIESAs "concealed carry" weapons are already an established product, there are a variety of arms designs that would allow a person to hide a gun on their person. This is well known to everyone, and well publicized, with a community of support[1]. Any person looking to discretely arm themselves would know to obtain a concealable gun. The only way that people could be prevented from carrying these into places would be invasive stop-and-frisk style policies where police would need to search people constantly. This would not only be incredibly inefficient but a violation of our constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure[2]. III. EASE OF ACCESSThe illicit trade of arms is estimated to account for up to 20% of all arms trade[3]. For a multi-billion dollar trade such as that of the US, that could mean hundreds of thousands of unregistered guns exchanging hands. There is already a massive infrastructure for this trade in the criminal world which is already illegal, yet the government has been unable to stem. Furthermore, with the advent of 3D printing technologies[4], the already relatively simple process of manufacturing a weapon has been made nearly autonomous. Once printers are optimized for cost, anyone could create a simple disposable gun. Trying to impose gun control only incentivizes people to use these illicit methods, as there is no reason to want a stable long term gun if it is illegal or overly difficult to obtain one. IV. RIGHT OF OWNERSHIPThe second amendment is often quoted as the basis for not restricting gun control[2]. " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"This clearly is written constitutional law allowing not only for the posession, but also the carrying of arms by citizens. Any attempt to subvert this is to subvert the basis of our constructed society. If we ignore the basis of all the laws in the nation then what significance does any law have? As government itself is intended for the betterment of society, which to an extent makes people "safer", then supporting its continued existence also would in theory be working towards making places safer. V. CONCLUSION AND REFERENCESThis concludes my opening arguments. I await my opponents response, and wish him luck in this debate.1. . https://www.concealedcarrymagazine.com...2. . http://www.law.cornell.edu...3. . http://www.fas.org...4. . http://www.forbes.com...
Republican Candidates

Pro's arguments are not Pro's arguments. Anyone with common sense would have got this vibe just by reading his case. https://www.donaldjtrump.com... My opponent has basically done plagiarism. I already by default win this debate, but I still feel the need to refute the pathetic claims of the Trump campaign Obamacare has raised economic uncertainty. Trump must provide actual evidence that Obamacare has raised economic uncertainty. Here are the actual benefits of Obamacare which Trump and the Republican candidates simply ignore. -New Health Insurance Marketplaces allow shoppers to compare Health plans that count as minimum essential coverage, and include all new benefits, rights, and protections. How does this produce economic uncertainty? -Cost assistance is available to individuals, families, and small businesses through the Health Insurance Marketplace. How does this produce economic uncertainty? -Medicaid eligibility is expanded in 26 states to 138% of the federal poverty level giving millions of Americans access to healthcare. How does this produce economic uncertainty? -Large employers must offer coverage to full-time workers. How does this produce economic uncertainty? -All major medical insurance is guaranteed issue, meaning you can't be denied coverage for any reason. How does this produce economic uncertainty? http://obamacarefacts.com... What are you even going to repeal Obamacare with? Trump is such a broad candidate. "We will work with Congress to make sure we have a series of reforms ready for implementation that follow free market principles and that will restore economic freedom and certainty to everyone in this country." Again, Obamacare is consistent with Free-Market and humanitarian values. My opponent has to answer this question. Would you give health insurance to a dying poor person on the streets. Right Wingers would not. This is not only immoral, but inconsistent with American values. All of the other things that Pro has plagiarized is just returning America to the same system that lets poor people die on the streets. I am not for that. I hope my opponent is not for that. I hope that the majority of Americans are not for letting poor people die on the streets. Let's work together to destroy conservative propaganda about Obamacare.
Republican Candidates

I believe that any of the republican presidential candidates would be better than Hillar Clinton and/or Bernie Sanders. I believe this because the Republican Party has better plans to solve the national debt crisis. The Republican Party unlike that democrats have a good tax plan that will not scam every working hard American. Also the Republican Party candidates have better plans to get rid of Isis and they have a better plan to help the economy. Not only are the republican candidates going to help money wise but they will also help when it comes to healthcare. The republican healthcare plans are smart and they work. Also the republican candidates acknowledge that climate change is real but know that it Is not a problem. Thank you
morality=survival truth

Again I am really not at all sure how to respond to that. Without pain there would still be a need to survive (ie one can fight for one's life without pain), pain is just an evolutionary mechanism which helps us with survival. Thus far, pro has made no arguments which I can see that correspond to the debate which we are having. He has not addressed my arguments and the psuedo-arguments he has given have been mostly non-sensical. Because pro has not responsibly debated I forfeit my last round.
morality=survival truth

RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS OF PRO: I am confused as to what you actually mean but I think I can show that these are wrong. Firstly, if we follow the chain of equals signs (crossing out necessity and pain) we are left with survival=death. This is I think obviously not true as survival is in many ways the opposite of death. Furthermore, I fail to see how pro's arguments do anything to prove whether or not morality is the same as survival. The word morality is not used and as I am really not exactly sure what he meant by his arguments (it is possible that I have just misunderstood you) I will stop criticizing his arguments and bring forth some of my own. ARGUMENTS FOR MORALITY NOT BEING THE SAME AS SURVIVAL: I admit that morality is developed through evolutionary processes but the fact remains that morality is different than survival. If morality is indeed survival I assume we mean that morality is just what is necessary to survive. This is not the case, things are done which are necessary to survive which are not moral. Take for example in the case of you starving while your friend also starves. Killing and eating the flesh of your friend may be necessary for your survival but I think it is quite obvious that this is not moral. Morality is essentially a mechanism which we have developed to help each other and act kindly rather than maliciously against our fellow humans/animals. This extends beyond simply what is necessary for survival. I would be willing to expand upon these arguments in round three if pro desires, seeing as he has not yet (to my knowledge, once again I may just be confused) addressed the question I will not develop them any further.