BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: An ideal form of No Child Left Behind would be beneficial to the welfare of the U.S.

Thank you and good luck. At this point, line-by-line will be redundant and non-beneficial. Therefore I will be summarizing and throughout the speech tell you why I win. My burden of proof is to show that the most ideal form of NCLB is beneficial. Even if it is a slight benefit, I ought to win. To be honest, my opponent failed to truly negate the resolution and go at the true core of the debate… NCLB. He says that NCLB will be bad, but the only argument he provides as to why is that students are apathetic. But as I've shown, it gives more opportunity. With this I provided how the lack of this opportunity fails several students as of right now (like in the ghettos). At this point, you must vote pro because there is an inevitability that at least one student will learn because of this (flow this through as previously argued). As far as ideal goes, I have shown how the current NCLB is not the ideal form. Several people have problems with it, and these problems are the exact same things that my opponent argues as to why it would not be beneficial. He says that it puts too much pressure on teachers well the ideal form would presumably not (perhaps a second chance clause or a re-evaluation or re-education clause). He also states the problem of pressure, but the ideal form of NCLB would be a check, not an overriding barrier of if you get funding or not like it is today. There are flaws now, but these can be over come. In fact, my South Dakota Superintendants argument filters right into this same idea. They have not only found the flaws, but showed several ways of how to fix them. He gives no problem that is unfixable, let alone show how these unfixable problems outweigh the inherent benefits. Another reason to vote pro. In the end, look to the intent. And although I agree that perfect intent does not mean perfect success, you must also look to the fact that this can very well help many people. Furthermore, the intent of NCLB can very well be carried out (South Dakota Superintendents) There has yet to be an argument on the good intent, which is why if we try to achieve whatever this ideal form of NCLB is, we will benefit the United States very much. Because I am the only one to look to a beneficial vs. non-beneficial comparison, and because an ideal form of NCLB would obviously benefit the United State, I urge the judges to vote pro! Thank you for this great debate!
Resolved: An ideal form of No Child Left Behind would be beneficial to the welfare of the U.S.

Good luck, Johnicle, with this debate and the tournament. I'd also like to thank my opponent for a well thought out case, and hope I can answer with equally good, if not better, responses ;) With that said, I'll go ahead and refute my opponent's case. OBSERVATION: I'll go ahead and accept my opponent's definition of 'ideal'. However, ideal is a vague word because there are always at least two schools of thought on any idea. For instance, abortion. Ideally, one group of people would have it outlawed forever. On the other hand, another group of people would have to legalized forever. Ideally, who's right? We'll never know, thus while ideal is an easy word to define, it's a hard concept to grasp. Our ideas of perfection differ greatly. CONTENTION 1: I'll concede that NCLB is not ideal. CONTENTION 2: I'll concede that NCLB has good intentions as well. But, lots of things have good intentions that a lot of people would find wrong. If we want to eradicate AIDS, we could simply take everyone with the disease and isolate them, or execute them. Good intentions? Yes, we're eradicating AIDS. Good idea? No. .. as humans we find that morally repugnant and as Americans, that destroys their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. .. CONTENTION 3: And ideal form of NCLB would NOT benefit education and overall, the welfare of the U. S. First off, we're talking about an ideal form of NCLB, and NOT an ideal education system. A) Students today are apathetic in school [1] -- Schools are competing with things like Facebook, Myspace, music, anything else on the internet, etc. Going to school, where instead of engaging, fun, educational learning is taking place, schools are stressed to make AYP on tests. This contributes to apathy even more, and a regression in society begins, where few understand the benefit of an education and even fewer choose to take it. * An ideal form of NCLB would put stress on schools because NCLB would have to prove an improvement in learning, through tests, and raising the bar would be necessary. B) NCLB tests teachers, not students. -- NCLB tests grade levels, and compares that to the grade levels of years past. This only tests the teachers ability to teach compared to the students willingness to learn. This doesn't improve America's education system. And if you want to argue that ideally we'd test the same group of kids over their education years, that's not good because it allows earlier students an easier road than those later (My class wouldn't have to reach as difficult of standards as, say, this year's kindergardeners). That's not justice, not fair, not what America is based on. I'll leave it at this, and see my opponent's counter arguments. --SOURCES-- [1] . http://www.itsyourtimes.com...
Resolved: An ideal form of No Child Left Behind would be beneficial to the welfare of the U.S.

I affirm: Resolved: An ideal form of No Child Left Behind would be beneficial to the welfare of the United States. Clarification: No Child Left Behind = NCLB OBSERVATION: ‘Ideal' defined and applied ---From: . http://dictionary.reference.com... ---Ideal: "a conception of something in its perfection" -Therefore, within this resolution, all that I have to prove is that NCLB is beneficial for the United States under its perfect condition. To examine this, I will look to the intentions of NCLB, and when they are carried through successfully, it benefits the United States. CONTENTION 1: NCLB is not in its ideal form under the status quo. ---From: . http://harvardcitizen.com... --- "It's a great idea, but the supports necessary in order for schools to reach that performance level are not in place. " -What this means is that when affirming this resolution, the NCLB policy will only increase the welfare of the United States. CONTENTION 2: NCLB has good intentions. ---From: . http://harvardcitizen.com... ---"NCLB has good intentions: It aims to improve teacher quality, provide school choice for families, and hold schools accountable for academic achievement. It does this last bit by measuring kids' performance in grades 3-11. Additionally, results must be reported in such a way that demographic groups are reported separately. This way, a school can't make progress with some groups, while leaving others behind. This disaggregated data reveals the performance by ethnic identification, income level, and disability status. It has the capacity to shed light on the dark corners of discrimination that has been historically reinforced by our multi-tiered school system. " CONTENTION 3: An ideal form of NCLB would benefit education and overall, the welfare of the United States. ---From: 74.125.95.132 (let me know if this doesn't work) --- "The South Dakota Superintendents Association (SDSSA) acknowledges the good intentions of the No Child Left Behind Federal legislation. SDSSA recognizes the positive role it has had in focusing schools on standards-based reform, accountability, data-based decision making, research-based instructional strategies and the needs of individual students. .. At the same time we recognize this legislation has serious flaws. .. These flaws substantially undermine NCLB's intent and foster practices that will interfere with the ability of schools and districts to raise all students to a meaningful level of proficiency. " ---The proposition of SDSSA then continues on to point out flaws and ways to fix them. This just shows there are flaws, but that doesn't mean that an ideal form would not solve these. Therefore, I advocate that an ideal form of NCLB would successfully: 1) Standardize a high quality of teachers. 2) Hold improper educational facilities accountable to their improper actions. 3) Target facilities that improperly teach students to adequate levels. -Therefore, education in the United States would be substantially increased. Because of this, the welfare in general would as well be increased, thus I urge you to affirm the resolution.
Rap Battle Tournament - Round 1

You just vanished from this battle and I'm all for it. I expected a rebuttal not a f*ckin' forfeit! You're finished. You couldn't sit and write for a minute? or was your style diminished because you know you can't win it? Look dude, you're no candidate. you can't handle it. You're as bright as a single candle lit. Not a fan of it. Go ahead, respond to this. I can't wait to hear excuses. Of how your computers slow, or you don't know its uses. Sorry to say, but your raps aren't even worth pennies. No one wants a guy who hit puberty in his mid twenties. I'm explosive like a fuse lit from both ends. You're just a hopeless joke with no friends. Go ahead, crack a beer, see if this hurts less. at the bottom of the can reminds that your worthless. That's it for you, no trophies on the mantle. you rap like you took a blade and tried to stab me with the handle. You're not worth my insults, I'll spare you the full hurt. And you you're not worth my time, not even a full verse.
Rap Battle Tournament - Round 1

Yes girls want a "real man" if they're too stuck-up, But I've never heard 'em ask for a 40 year old f*ck-up. Took you long enough to accept like "thank god, its on folkes!" Can't wait to hear more weird references and mom jokes! I really don't care where you wish to stick your genitals.. I get not using proper grammar, but did you have to insult English in general? "Ade ya moms gator" you think that'll get you compliments? All your last verse did was up my self confidence. I never claimed to be in "the circle of winners", of DDO But I'll make them choke on their dinners when they hear me flow. You fuckin dinosaur, I'll rip out your spinal cord. Leave you more then " kinda sore" And you'll want more then a band-aid after I pull your head out of a fan blade. I know you, you'll insult me, then ask for my help later. And I hope you feel proud fighting a 12th grader! In fact, after this, you'll miss me. When you're broke workin at thrifties. You'll be that shifty guy, drifting by, dissing moms at fifty five! Not even a round in this tourney and you're wanted out. And sure, I'll be a ghost. Welcome to my haunted house. Leave you cornered, whimpering like a taunted mouse. You talk pretty big for some dude laying on the couch. My words are the only weapons I need, won't bring a light sabre. But if that's what it takes to shut your mouth, then I might later. Anyways, that's all I'll say, mind my harsh statements. The only thing I have left to say is: move out of your moms basement.
Rap Battle Tournament - Round 1

3-1and zero update ya post/ talkin battle rap losses, you still got the most!/ In the circle of winners, Rayp's a ghost/ there is no pimp CUP for him to hold UP and toast/ So, with that said, Lef illegal drop bombs/ only, fat as a blimp Shiftin stick in ya moms/ relaxin, gettin head,like "Keep that baby calm"/ "'Fo I turn into his daddy, and give that youngen a palm!"/ "Seriously dude? I promised to be mean later",/ right now I'm too busy tryin to ade ya moms gator!/ U can keep cryin', playin' yo role as hater/ Women want a real man, not a little 12th grader/ Im Darth Vader, Whats yo knife to light sabre?/ Yo bars are boring flat, like lines on white paper/ Mine levitate as high as skyscrapers/ Yours goin down like basement elevators/ One glimpse at yo faggot attempts/ This is not ape planet, am I battlin' chimps?/
Rap Battle Tournament - Round 1

Before I get in deep, I'll start this off simply.Why begin steep, and make you fall limply?Like I've got my weapon, and I stab it in slow.Despite the fact that I finished you with an intro.I'll make you sweat now, you'll wish I hadn't begun.Phoenix promises a battle like "oh boy, this'll be fun!"You pair me with this guy!? Next time try finding me one!I want an opponent. Not this Lil Wayne rerun!And "lefillegal" or what ever your name is,I can't promise that this'll be painless..Don't call me heinus when I say this,But you and I know that you'll never be famous.Apparently you're 3-0-0. Or so we're told.. [1]But on one wants to battle a lying 37 year old! [2]Seriously dude? I promised to be mean later.But you're pushin' 40, Rap battling a teenager?I have a question, don't mean to Be weird, but:How far away from your computer when it hits your beer gut?You claim to use punch-lines and spit bars?After lunch time, your waist line could lift cars! The last thing you said "I'm in love with you"Was a teen burger and shake at A&W!I'm waiting for you man. This I just updated.Added this stanza, let you know my style was upgraded.You've clearly read this, but can't click to accept it?How much pre-writting does it take for you to select sh*t?So there, you just got beaten, go lie about that.But with you're defeat, would you like fries with that?[1](Stated he had 3 wins with no ties or losses)http://www.debate.org...[2] (Clearly lost this battle]http://www.debate.org...
If you suppart LGBT then you are not a true christian

Yes only God judges, but he did give us eyes to see and ears to listen. A blind man could tell you what path you are taking. You are taking the scripture and changing it. You are trying to tell God what you can and can't do. You have to get an internet source that you did not make your self to back it up. You don't have God on your side, only a hyperlink. And all the other people of wrath
Dissing Philosophy = Dissing Knowledge

My whole argument was, to be blunt and informal, that the "study of knowledge" is a scam. You're not acquiring usable information about the subject matter, you're just seeing how many different ways you can define "knowledge". It's like a pyramid scheme, where you sell somebody a license to sell licenses to sell licenses but never actually sell them a good or service. If I studied knowledge, what would I have actually learned by the end of it? Just because a study is stupid doesn't mean the the thing studied is stupid. I repeat my homeopathy analogy. Studying homeopathy supposedly makes you better able to understand disease, but actually doesn't because it's a load of bull. That doesn't mean that the subject matter, disease, is also bull or that it's in any way connected to homeopathy (in that calling one rubbish makes the other fiction). I am yet to see you prove that we can obtain useful stuff from the so-called "study of knowledge". So far, we have just made assertions and discussed word definitions. This is the last round, so if you have some evidence now is the time to present it.
Dissing Philosophy = Dissing Knowledge

I accept your apology, and suppose I should offer one myself. I get somewhat hostile when I feel someone has put words in my mouth, but I will give Jack the benefit of the doubt, and believe that was not intentional. I apologize if any offense was taken from my previous round. Dissing"Dissing a study (real or not) is not the same as dissing the thing studied. That is an Association Fallacy." - ConAlthough the syntax suggests otherwise, I'll assume "that" is referring to my argument from the previous round. That argument is not an association fallacy. However, I admit it was poorly worded, and so I can see why my opponent thinks it is. Because of this, I will reword it as a proper syllogism.P1: Con says the "study of knowledge" is B.S..P2: Saying the "study of knowledge" is B.S. is dissing the "study of knowledge".P3: Saying the "study of knowledge" is B.S. is the same as saying knowledge is not worth studying.P4: Saying knowledge is not worth studying is a verbal attack on knowledges' worth. P5: Verbally attacking knowledges' worth is dissing knowledge.Conclusion: By dissing the "study of knowledge", Con is also dissing knowledge.As for the fallacy Con is pre-emptively declaring, he is correct. Regardless, I would not have used this argument, as we are talking about "the study of knowledge", not philosophy as a whole.ValidityIn my opinion, "Knowing stuff" is an oversimplified definition for "knowledge", and "acquiring knowledge" is simply an innacurate definition for ""study". However, I am rather burnt out from work at the moment, and Con is the one who initiated this debate, so I will agree with those definitions as far as this debate is concerned.Basically, since study means acquiring knowledge, and according to Con, one must be be acquiring knowledge from the "study of knowledge" to consider studying knowledge valid, the "study of knowledge" validates itself.Simply put, what the "study of knowledge" actually means is "acquiring knowledge of knowledge". So if one is studying knowledge, they are, by definition, acquiring knowledge. If one is not acquiring knowledge, they are not actually engaging in the "study of knowledge".Therefore, by Cons own definitions of study and knowledge, and his own belief of what makes the study of a subject valid, the subject of knowledge, or any other subject for that matter, is a valid subject of study.The resolution is proven, the "study of knowledge" is a valid subject, and by dissing the "study of knowledge" Con is also dissing knowledge.
Dissing Philosophy = Dissing Knowledge

I apologize if I misquoted you, I assure you that it was was unintentional. The Oxford definition is good, but rather long. We'll use the definition "knowing stuff". Wiktionary has several definitions for "study", but most of them are basically "acquiring knowledge" ( http://en.wiktionary.org... ). So the "study of knowledge" is basically "getting to know knowing stuff". To me, that sounds a bit circular/redundant/vague/suspicious. To be less confusing: studies must produce knowledge. If I study something, it must increase my knowledge. If I study Science, it must increase my knowledge of the natural and physical world. If I study History, it must increase my knowledge of what happened in the past. If I study Cooking, it must increase my knowledge of preparing food. There are some so-called "studies" that do not produce knowledge. If I study Creation Science, it will not increase my knowledge of how the world was created. If I study Women's Studies, it will not increase my knowledge of women. If I study Alternative Medicine, it will not increase my knowledge of treating disease. Calling something "the study of knowledge" isn't enough. The question is: If I study "the study of knowledge", will it increase my knowledge of knowledge? If the answer is not "yes", then "the study of knowledge" is not a real study according to the Wiktionary definition of "study" because it doesn't increase my knowledge of the subject. BOP is on you to prove that studying knowledge increases how much you know about knowing stuff. And just to cut off some fallacies that you've used or may use: 1. Dissing a study (real or not) is not the same as dissing the thing studied. That is an Association Fallacy. The study could be flawed, but the subject matter still useful. For example, Homeopathy is flawed because it doesn't treat disease, but that doesn't mean treating disease is flawed. "The study of knowledge" could also be flawed, but that doesn't mean knowledge itself is flawed. 2. In most cases where I've debated the merits of Philosophy, my opponent has said something along the lines of "all other disciplines are based on logic, which is part of/founded by Philosophy, therefore Philosophy is useful/correct". Don't do that, it's a Fallacy of Composition. Just because Philosophy contributed something useful (logic) to the world doesn't mean that Philosophy as a whole is useful. You haven't made this argument yet, but I thought I'd refute it now in case you did.
Dissing Philosophy = Dissing Knowledge

Although Jack has misrepresented what I actually said, I would be happy to accept his challenge to prove the "study of knowledge" is a valid subject, and that by "dissing" it, he is "dissing" knowledge.DissingI'll start with the latter of that challenge, as it is a rather simple deduction. To say that studying knowledge is B.S., is to say that knowledge is not worth studying. A verbal attack on somethings worth is one of many ways to "diss" that thing. Therefore, by "dissing" the study of knowledge, Con is also "dissing" knowledge itself. Validity To show validity for the study of knowledge, we must first define what knowledge itself is, that which is being studied. The Oxford Dictionaries describe knowledge as, "Facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject." [1]By studying ones own knowledge, e.g. how well they understand a subject and the facts, information, and skill related to it, they can come to a better understanding of it, and more effectively apply that knowledge.As I said at the beginning of this round, Con has misrepresented what I said. In doing so, he has given an example of how studying knowledge can be practical. Now, before I explain how this is an example, I'll tell you what I actually said. "I find it kind of funny that Pro disrespects philosophy, considering it's the study of knowledge, reality, and existence. This implies that he disrespects at least one of those things; knowledge, reality, existence, or possibly even studying itself. (I'm gonna go ahead and guess the first one)" - Myself [2]Con seems to believe this is the equivalent of him saying that, "...because I have no respect for Philosophy that I must have no respect for knowledge, because Philosophy is supposedly the study of knowledge."There are many clear differences here, and I'll explain them all if Con contends that there are not. However, for example, one of those differences is that "implies" is not equivalent to "must". But, perhaps if Con had studied his own knowledge of what it means to communicate, he would come to the realization that in order to effectively paraphrase someone, you first need to understand what it is they said.Simply put, because the study of knowledge can help us to apply the knowledge we have more effectively, the resolution stands. The study of knowledge is a valid subject. I'll leave it at that for now, and await Con's response.Sources:[1] http://oxforddictionaries.com...[2] http://www.debate.org...
Dissing Philosophy = Dissing Knowledge

Mrsatan commented on my "Molesting children is wrong" debate, saying that because I have no respect for Philosophy that I must have no respect for knowledge, because Philosophy is supposedly the study of knowledge. I dispute this claim, and demand that Mrsatan prove that it holds. I don't hate knowledge. Knowledge is cool. I think the "study of knowledge" is B.S. though. Similarly, I don't hate women yet consider "women's studies" to be rubbish, and don't hate UFOs yet consider "UFO-ology" to be rubbish. I challenge Mrsatan to prove that the "study of knowledge" is a valid subject and not a bogus one (i.e. that it actually reflects what it's talking about and has use beyond being a generic university degree with logic and communication skills), and that by dissing it I am in fact dissing knowledge.