BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Uniform should be mandatory at all high schools.

Uniforms have gained popularity in high schools throughout the world, however despite the few obvious benefits there are a number of disadvantages to them that people fail to acknowledge. Some of the key disadvantages include things such as students being compelled to conform and so their freedom has been infringed upon, the discomfort of wearing an uncomfortable uniform and the cost of uniforms that parents are forced to pay each year. The main reason uniforms should not be made mandatory is because they infringe on human rights. People have the to express themselves. One way of doing this is to select items of clothing that reflect your personality and personal beliefs. In doing so people can reveal their character and so be drawn to like-minded people. By making uniforms mandatory students are prohibited from being themselves. This is a major breach of an individual's rights. Additionally, uniforms do not always fit a student the way their normal clothing would. Hence, students do not feel comfortable wearing their uniform. This has the potential to distract the student at school and so their education will be at jeopardy. By allowing students to wear mufti they are more likely to feel comfortable in their own clothes and so focus on the material covered in class. Lastly, schools tend to be rather expensive which is a major issue for struggling families who may have a number of children and so not be able to purchase the mandatory uniform for their children. Furthermore, the problem with this is that such children will be disadvantaged as everyone is entitled to a free education. The moment uniforms become mandatory education will no longer be free. If society is going to continue to improve we need to ensure that children are educated so that humanity can make progress. Thus, as a result of the infringement of a child's rights, the discomfort of school uniforms and the cost of these uniforms, high schools should not make uniforms mandatory.
Education: Testing

Standardized testing is a efficient strategy that improves the work, effort, and dedication teachers put into their job. "Education researchers gauge the quality of an individual teacher by looking at student test scores. If scores go up in a teacher's classroom, that's a sign the teacher is doing a good job" (1). This is, and has always been, a just way to measure teachers' ability to build their students knowledge. In addition, most teachers and administrators approve, even, of these standardized tests, "Minnesota teachers and administrators interviewed for a study in the Oct. 28, 2005, issue of the peer-reviewed Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA) approved of standardized tests 'by an overwhelming two-to-one margin,' saying they 'improved student attitudes, engagement, and effort.' An oft-cited Arizona State University study in EPAA's Mar. 28, 2002 edition, concluding that testing has little educational merit, has been discredited by educational researchers for poor methodology, and was criticized for wrongly blaming the tests themselves for stagnant test scores, rather than the shortcomings of teachers and schools" (2). Not only does the government believe that standardized test are a quality way of judging teachers based off their students' work, but the majority of teachers do as well.
Education: Testing

Standardized testing, if anything, has not improved student achievement. In 2002, the US slipped from the 18th spot in the world for math scores, to the 31st slot in 2009. This drop was due to standardized tests and the stress they put on the students (1). The failing attempt to improve the test scores have gotten worse as the tests get harder, which also only test a small portion of the curriculum in schools. Math and reading courses have been told to teach different information in order to cover the tests questions, resulting in a lack of regular curricular (2). (1) http://standardizedtests.procon.org... (2) http://www.education.com...
Education: Testing

Test scores is a superior way to measure teachers" effort and ability to do their job (1). The higher the test courses from students, the better the teacher is. Furthermore, standardized tests are a just measure of student achievement, along with ensuring teachers and schools are accountable to taxpayers (2). Standardized testing is approved by students and parents for being such an efficient system. (1) http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org... (2) http://standardizedtests.procon.org...
Education: Testing

What people do not understand is that standardized testing is a waste of time due to the fact that the information on these tests are not relevant to the school curriculum and do not help the students in their life beyond high school whatsoever. Excessive testing may teach children to be good at taking tests, but does not prepare them for productive adult lives. China displaced Finland at the top of the 2009 PISA rankings because, as explained by Jiang Xueqin, Deputy Principal of Peking University High School, "Chinese schools are very good at preparing their students for standardized tests. For that reason, they fail to prepare them for higher education and the knowledge economy."China is trying to depart from the "drill and kill" test prep that Chinese educators admit has produced only "competent mediocrity"" (1). Not only are these tests incompetent, they also create extra and unwanted stress on these children. Standardized testing causes severe stress in younger students. According to education researcher Gregory J. Cizek, anecdotes abound "illustrating how testing... produces gripping anxiety in even the brightest students, and makes young children vomit or cry, or both." On Mar. 14, 2002, the Sacramento Bee reported that "test-related jitters, especially among young students, are so common that the Stanford-9 exam comes with instructions on what to do with a test booklet in case a student vomits on it" (2) Students do not need these tests, the stress that comes along with it, nor do they benefit the students in the least. Overall, standardized testing is not important to a students learning curriculum and should be taken away.
Education: Testing

Standardized testing has been used for many years, so why should the US change the system now if it has obviously been running well this entire time? "Standardized tests have been a part of American education since the mid-1800s. Their use skyrocketed after 2002's No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) mandated annual testing in all 50 states" (2). It is an extremely useful tool when measuring students, teachers, and schools overall. It is ignorant to think that standardized testing is unfair just because one student may have less intelligence than other. In fact, that just proves both the students focus skills during school and their teachers ability to teach. Examples of a pro-testing education leader is Michelle Rhee, the public schools chancellor in Washington, D.C., who said, ""In order to have the privilege of teaching kids you have to be able to show that you can significantly move their academic achievement levels, she says. "And if you can't show that, then you need to find another profession." Rhee launched a controversial evaluation system in Washington where test score growth counts as 50 percent of a teacher's annual performance score" (1). In addition to Rhee"s statement, standardized testing has other positive outcomes: "Standardized tests are not narrowing the curriculum, rather they are focusing it on important basic skills all students need to master. According to a study in the Oct. 28, 2005, issue of the peer-reviewed 'Education Policy Analysis Archives', teachers in four Minnesota school districts said standardized testing had a positive impact, improving the quality of the curriculum while raising student achievement" (2). In conclusion, not only is standardized testing proven to be fair, but it is also proven to be beneficial to everyone involved.
Education: Testing

Although the test grades would vary, it is unjust that all the states take different tests, making the comparison of the whole country unreliable and inconsistent. Each state develops its own NCLB standards and assessments, providing no basis for meaningful comparison. "A student sitting for the Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) is asked a completely different set of questions from a child in California taking the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) test, and while the former includes essay questions, the latter is entirely multiple-choice" (1). All students should take the same test, only different levels of intelligence should be taken into consideration to test the level of education of a certain child. Standardized tests are also an imprecise measure of teacher performance, yet they are used to reward and punish teachers for the results of their students scores. "According to a September 2010 report by the Annenberg Institute for School Reform, over 17% of Houston teachers ranked in the top category on the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills reading test were ranked among the two lowest categories on the equivalent Stanford Achievement Test. The results were based on the same students, tested in the same subject, at approximately the same time of year, using two different tests" (2). The method of judging a teacher by the scores of these students are not an effective way to do so, making the tests an unimportant task.
Education: Testing

No matter the intelligence level of one student versus another, if the nation decided against standardized testing, measurements would seem unfair when basing students and teachers off of tests created by individual school systems. "Standardized tests are reliable and objective measures of student achievement. Without them, policy makers would have to rely on tests scored by individual schools and teachers who have a vested interest in producing favorable results. Multiple-choice tests, in particular, are graded by machine and therefore are not subject to human subjectivity or bias" (2). In order to measure students" knowledge and ability across the country, it is necessary to compare students. The tests which these students take must be the same, therefore no test is more difficult than another. Proponents of standardized testing would agree with this statement due to the fact that "standardized tests are a fair and objective measure of student achievement, that they ensure teachers and schools are accountable to taxpayers, and that the most relevant constituents " parents and students " approve of testing" (2). As stated before, it is very necessary and just for tests across the nation to all be the exact same. If they varied, so would the scores, so would the measurements of the school systems, and so would the tax paying of the schools and teachers.
Education: Testing

The fact that these tests are all the same difficulty is not fair to the students with slower learning habits and the varying strengths of these students are based off of the lack of regular curriculum in these schools. "A national 2007 study by the Center on Education Policy reported that since 2001, 44% of school districts had reduced the time spent on science, social studies and the arts by an average of 145 minutes per week in order to focus on reading and math. A 2007 survey of 1,250 civics, government, and social studies teachers showed that 75% of those teaching current events less often cited standardized tests as the reason" (1). Because most of the attention of the students is directed towards standardized test information, the children are not learning the basic information. Not only do the students learn nothing from these tests, the government is not benefiting from it either, the billion dollar testing industry is notorious for making costly and time-consuming scoring errors. "NCS Pearson, which has a $254 million contract to administer Florida's Comprehensive Assessment Test, delivered the 2010 results more than a month late and their accuracy was challenged by over half the state's superintendents. After errors and distribution problems in 2004-2005, Hawaii replaced test publisher Harcourt with American Institutes for Research, but the latter had to re-grade 98,000 tests after students received scores for submitting blank test booklets" (2). Overall, it seems as though no one strongly benefits from these tests, all together making them unimportant.
Education: Testing

I strongly disagree with the fact that standardized testing are discriminatory against students who, for example, are unable to speak English well. In fact, "Standardized tests are inclusive and non-discriminatory because they ensure content is equivalent for all students. Former Washington, DC, schools chancellor Michelle Rhee argues that using alternate tests for minorities or exempting children with disabilities would be unfair to those students: "You can't separate them, and to try to do so creates two, unequal systems, one with accountability and one without it. This is a civil rights issue"" (2). In continuation, the United States is not the only nation using standardized testing: "20 countries studied "have achieved significant, sustained, and widespread gains" on national and international assessments had used "proficiency targets for each school" and "frequent, standardized testing to monitor system progress," according to a Nov. 2010 report by McKinsey & Company, a global management consulting firm" (2). Standardized testing is not only an efficient way to measure school progress, but it is also a common way.
Education: Testing

Although teachers find this beneficial, it is discriminatory to children who do not speak English well, exchange students who have trouble with American work, and also children with special needs who need extra help. "English language learners take tests in English before they have mastered the language. Special education students take the same tests as other children, receiving few of the accommodations usually provided to them as part of their Individualized Education Plans (IEP)" (2). The students who require extra help with their work do not receive it during these tests, which is unfair and unjust to them. Furthermore, these tests are unreliable to judge the students on their level of education and their learning performance. "A 2001 study published by the Brookings Institution found that 50-80% of year-over-year test score improvements were temporary and "caused by fluctuations that had nothing to do with long-term changes in learning..." (1). Due to the variety of students who take this test, everyone learns differently and at different paces. The test does not give an overall view of the students learning capacity.
is weed worst then drinking

Eyed is currently illegal in most states, and beer is not. If you smoke weed there are legal ramifications, but drinking a beer won't get you in trouble. Since the definition of *worse* was never clarified, I'm going to take it legally. My opponent hasn't made his position entirely clear, and I have. Under the premise of the debate that I set, and am allowed to do because it wasn't specified beforehand, my opponent's argument is entirely irrelevant. That means I have the only standing argument in this debate.
is weed worst then drinking

Drinking too much alcohol can quickly kill a person. The inability to metabolize alcohol as quickly as it is consumed can lead to a buildup of alcohol in the brain that shuts down areas necessary for survival, such as those involved with heartbeat and respiration. [7 Ways Alcohol Affects Your Health] "You can die binge-drinking five minutes after you've been exposed to alcohol. That isn't going to happen with marijuana," said Ruben Baler, a health scientist at the National Institute on Drug Abuse. "The impact of marijuana use is much subtler." (Of course, subtle effects don't equate with no danger, as is the case with smoking cigarettes, which is linked with 440,000 deaths per year in the U.S.) Marijuana affects the cardiovascular system, increasing heart rate and blood pressure, but a person can't fatally overdose on pot like they can with alcohol, Baler said
God is an illogical concept

Thank you for your answer. If I may, since you partially agree on my discussion of point ii and v, let us put those two aside and focus on the rest. As far as science explaining God, I apologize but my wording did not reflect accurately my thought. What I was trying to say is that by examining what science is and how it works; you will realize that there is an unknown. I disagree with you about no proof of the unknowable. I might dare to say, the proof of the unknown is the drive for science. Science will never venture anywhere if it doesn"t know that there is something out there that is real but unknown, therefore it wants to discover it. The most noble and purist cause for scientific advance is scientific curiosity, and this human "itch" that wants to know what exists beyond what we know today. Of course I am talking about pre-savage capitalist era, where we started charging people money for our discoveries. But this is another debate. As far as the cosmological argument, yes it is somewhat similar to my logical question, but without making the final assumption. The cosmological argument says since my question exists, therefore there is God. I do not claim that. I do not know what lies at the end of this logical "journey" but I only want to say this place exists. We might find the famous south park rat for all I know but the point is, logic does take you there. As far as the virtual particles sorry I did not understand how this means "some things do not need a cause" As far as point iv. Sorry if I explained my idea wrong. I was not saying logic can be wrong. I am saying logic is incomplete. To go back to my computer crash simile, the computer will always compute that 2+2 = 4 but sometimes it will crash. Crash in this sense is failure to achieve the intended task. The most famous proof for what I am saying is what you mentioned, which is paradox. Paradox in a way is the "crash" of logic. There are countless paradoxes out there, they are known, predictable and reproducible. A final point, you finished your rebuttal talking about a quality of the subject matter, and I believe we are not discussing the qualities but the idea of God and whether it is logical or not. We are also not discussing whether God exists or not so I did not feel the urge to come up with arguments supporting the existence of God. I am trying to exactly tackle the frame and content of your initial statement that says "God is an illogical concept". In conclusion I would say, logic takes you to the concept or possibility of God but that"s it. After that you"re on your own. It is like hitchhiking to the beach. Logic offered you a ride to the coast but then you have to find the beach on your own. Thank you for your time.
God is an illogical concept

Science does not explain God. I agree there are unexplained questions in most scientific fields, but it does not believe, however, that there is a reality to the unknown in itself. Science is expanding in answers and questions, but it does not follow that this is a proof of the unknowable. Just as dark is an absence of light, the unknown is simply waiting to be understood. Science is expanding in answers and questions, but it does not follow that this is a proof of the unknowable. ii. I apologise but I do not understand what you are trying to say. I gather you may be using the Cosmological argument or First Cause argument, to which I can say the observation of 'Virtual' particles shows that not everything needs a cause. Sorry if I've misunderstood you. iii. I totally agree you can have an evil God, but this argument was aimed simply at the Christian God which is the most believed God in the world[1], pretty clear evidence that billions are believers in an illogical concept, but I agree not logical proofs. iv. Woah, sorry but I have to stop you there. Logic is infallible, I would argue, by definition - there are no glitches unless there is incorrect input. I am saying: 1. God is able to do anything. Ergo God is unable not to do anything. This works BY DEFINITION, as we are simply rearranging the terms of the initial statement. It follows therefore, as the two are mutually exclusive, that it is illogical to believe in a God that is all powerful as there is a paradox in the very concept. v. You have my apologies, again this is good evidence for common illogical beliefs, but I gladly admit this is not logical proofs. It adds to my case nevertheless. (I would have appreciated some counter arguments rather than just rebuttal, but I'll add another few arguments to my case all the same. ) vi. 1. God is omni-present. 2. Evil is present. Ergo God have evil in Him - again just evidence against common perceptions of God [2] vii. Another contradiction. .. 1. God is omnipotent. 2. 2+2=4. 3. Ergo if God decides 2+2=5, it is so. An impossibility. [3] This whole argument is flawed, because while there in no fault in 2, and 3 is an impossibility, it follows that 1 is a false claim, thus defeating the common concept of an omnipotent God. Thanks! [1] . http://upload.wikimedia.org... [2]. http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://www.mathmojo.com...
God is an illogical concept

To answer your points i. Science does explain God. In every scientific field there are unanswered questions. As each field evolves with time the number of unanswered questions increases. Science therefore proves that the unknown exists and it expands with time and magnitude. This unknown generated by science is real. Therefore you have something real that is not explained by science. ii. There is a need for God logically. A simple logical question: What caused x where x=(what caused x) leads us to a place beyond our current 4 dimensional world. iii. You are assuming that Evil is outside God. You can have an Evil God iv. You are exploiting a "glitch" in logic. If logic was a computer and the glitch was the occasional crash, you can still make the computer lead you to a specific accomplishment. v. You should make a distinction between religion and the concept of God. All religions could be false and God could still exist. Thank you
God is an illogical concept

This is a serious debate in which I will argue that God is an illogical concept. I will begin with my arguments and await for counter arguments and rebuttal. i. There is no evidence for a God that science, our most reliable system for finding truth, can base any small claim on. ii. There is no need for a God in logical terms, as Occam's Razor would say. If there is no need for a theory that science can explain with the Big Bang, then it is illogical. iii. The Problem of Evil shows a logical flaw in the Christian omni-benevolent, omnipotent God, as evil still exists without lasting intervention from heaven. iv. The paradox of omnipotence, as summed in the old question, "Can God create a stone he cannot lift?", shows that there is no way anything can be all powerful as it would be unable to do something it couldn't do. v. Religions have many mutually exclusive traits (e.g. belief in a jealous God vs belief in a loving God, a vengeful vs a forgiving, one vs many, etc.) If the Christian God can be broken by logic, we're just as safe turning to Zoroastrianism or Falun Gong. Fundamentally it shows that there is no correlation between commonly accepted stories and the truth, only a story which is most pleasing, and this is not logic. So I await the kind opponent who will correct me.