BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Merit based pay for the Education System

Good luck ;-) As much as I agree with the intended results of this claim (pushing teachers to teach better to earn more), I don't think that it is practical. First, each state would probably be in charge of it's own system and that would create inconsistencies in the grading and rewarding of the teachers. Second, how would the schools "prove" that students had indeed improved. Third, the "scores" would more than likely follow the trends of past school evaluations. The huge task of trying to manage this on a national level would prove more than any department of our national government would want to handle. This would lead to "general" guidelines being set, with which every state would be individually responsible for following and managing. This leads to the problem of each state (or groups of states) coming up with different scales. Some on a rubric style (0-4), others on a percent or grade scale, and so on. This would cause confusion when talking about state comparison. This could be further complicated if the states passed the ball to the local school districts. Another problem would be how the teachers would be rewarded. How would you prove that a student truly improved? Testing every year? That might prove mildly difficult for the big/objective subjects (Math, Science, History), but what about the smaller or more subjective subjects (Art, English, Gym)? What about dealing with past evaluation methods such as the Ohio Proficiency Exam (I'm from Ohio) or the more widely known ACT/SAT. Not only were the tests made easier over the years to increase the scores, but it also caused a lot of teachers to switch their method of teaching. Instead of encouraging students to learn, they started encouraging students to memorize exactly what was on the tests. Critical thinking was replaced with memorize and forget. Because of these downfalls, I believe that adding ANOTHER test to evaluate how teachers and students are doing, will just create more problems then it will fix. Teachers will care less about their students and more about getting raises. I challenge my opponent to give me resolutions to these problems and also to prove why this would be a better system. Thank you, -Aaron
Merit based pay for the Education System

I will refute the 9 rebuttals (if necessary) and then make my conclusion. 1. The grading scale used will at first be used to grade the teachers, but then could be used to grade the school and funding could be adjusted according to the ratings. 2. School funding is used to pay the teachers so it's natural to assume that the more funding a school has, the more it can pay its teachers. My point in bringing up private school's salaries was to prove that the "better" teachers will follow the money. They also are regulated to standardized exams and can actually push the students to learn. 3. Agreed, however, every testing method myself or my opponent has brought up has been shown to be flawed and therefore, not any help as to how to rate the teachers, as required by the first proposition. This would be the first crucial step and my opponent has given no argument that it will work better than it has in the past. 4. Again the performance is usually based on a flawed testing method. What would be different with teachers. It's not the quality of work they do, it's the test scores they provide. 5. Just because you agree that one method doesn't work, doesn't mean that another will. Again, I have yet to hear how the students will be tested to avoid the problem that standardized testing also has. 6. Not all colleges are research colleges. I'm sure there are still bad teachers in the non-research colleges. 7. This is only true if all states enact the merit based system. If they don't, and it's very likely they won't (just look at trends of other subjects and laws), teachers will go to states with the best package. This will leave shortages, just like we have now. 8. Again, no solution to a testing method was provided. 9. This was meant as a better method for our current system by allowing teachers and future teachers to understand the better teaching methods. Conclusion: My opponent never answered these key points. 1. How would the teachers be tested without having the teachers focus on the tests? 2. How would subjective subjects be graded against the more objective ones? 3. Why would implementing a system of merit based pay that has the same if not more flaws as the current system be of any benefit? The problem is that this system wouldn't fix any of the issues that are being dealt with today in our current system. So what would cause people to want to throw more money away in getting a "new" system started when it wouldn't fix any of the problems. There is no reason. Instead, improvements in the current system should be looked into. This would be at a far less cost then trashing the current system and creating a new one. Thank you. -Aaron PS This was a pretty fun and entertaining debate.
Merit based pay for the Education System

Claim: 1. It is impractical on the federal level. 2. State and Local levels would complicate the grading and rewarding of teachers. 3. It is difficult to prove there is improvement. 4. 'Scores' on standardized tests to measue improvement would result into the same problems of the past. 5. Teachers will care less about their students and more about getting raises. Rebuttal: 1. My opponent is correct, it is both impractical and unconstitutional at the federal level. Education has been delegated a state function. In turn, states often pass this along to the local level. 2. Certainly states could be convinced of the benefit of a universal grading system. Even if they could not, would it not be simple enough to devise a conversion system between the two (or more)? More importantly, it is to a particular state and/or region that each teacher must answer. That makes this an unimportant issue. Finally, private schools already measure teacher performance in a number of ways: peer review, parent feedback, standardized student testing, subsequent education levels (for students), or any variation thereof. 3. The same method that suggests the U.S. is beginning to lag behind other nations would be the same method to 'prove' student improvement. If we can measure a drop, certainly we can measure improvement. Quick facts on student test scores in relation to other nations: http://nces.ed.gov... 4. You may be correct in this respect, however there are other was to measure a teacher's performance, as mentioned above. 5. Almost every other profession has a merit based pay. If you are a poor lawyer you will not retain clients and/or lose your job. Teachering as a profession is in the minority in a tenure track system, that is to say, pay based on years on the job and degree, not performance. Is it my opponent's contention that all professions that are merit based suffer the same as he claims teachers would? Is it necessarily a bad thing for a teacher to care about a raise? On a merit based system, in order to receive a raise a teacher must earn it based on his/her performance. Therefore the fate of the student and that of the raise go hand in hand. Resolved: That more pay with rewards based on merit will attract a higher quality of educator. Resolved: That more pay for teachers will justify raising the education requirements for educators, resulting in a higher quality of educator.
Evolution contains enough evidence to override religion

I will accept your challenge. Evolution shall be defined as "change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift." http://dictionary.reference.com... Override shall be defined as "to prevail or have dominance over" http://dictionary.reference.com... Religion shall be defined as "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." http://dictionary.reference.com... For Religion I will be using Christian beliefs that God created the world in its entirety. Pro will cave burden of proof. ...Please keep an open mind and lets have fun :)
Like smoking, extremely heavy perfume wearing should be prohibited in public buildings.

Considering the bans on public smoking that have swept the nation, I feel as though a similar ban should be placed on extremely heavy perfumes. My reasons are thus: 1) Many people are allergic, and can suffer health risks as a result of exposure to heavy perfumes in enclosed spaces. 2) It is extremely unpleasant, especially in restaurants when someone is wearing perfume so thick that you can literally taste the air. 3) It shows a gross level of inconsideration for both of the previous cases. Like cursing in front of children, or indecent exposure, the wearing of extremely heavy perfumes should be considered a rude, uncouth act. If we as a society are going to continually augment our smoking bans, we should also consider other, similar offenses to public air space.
Science proves God's existance

"Proof is a burden for those who cannot meet it" -Me Allow me to address my opponents arguments, and then I shall make some arguments of my own, regarding the current status of this debate. "Allow me to begin with the name of the scientist who tried to create life. Stanley L. Miller was a scientist who was so die-hard for the evolution theory that he and one of his partners attempted to prove creationism wrong with an experiment that could never work. Today we call this the Miller-Urey experiment." My opponent has made numerous errors. 1). Abiogenesis,(1) the origin of life, has nothing to do with Evolution,(2) the beginning of life. As to why two people who are so die-hard for the theory of evolution to be spending their time recreating an event that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution is puzzling. 2). The experiment was not trying to create life, but rather, trying to demonstrate the hypothesis of whether the early earths atmospheric conditions favoured synthesizing more complex organic compounds from simpler compounds. This experiment was a success.(3) "What came out of the experiment was mostly tar with some carbolic acids, glycene, and alanine. No cells were made in any of the attempts, it just can't be done." I would like to ask my opponent how this demonstrates, scientifically, that God exists. "And as for space/time and the Big Bang: space/time would need to exist for matter or energy to exist/change." Space/time would need to exist in order for matter or energy to change, yes. But for matter and energy to exist, no space/time is necessary. A singularity, for example, is a dense point of matter that does not require space/time to exist, and when it exists within space/time, it effectively creates a hole in space, where the gravitational forces are so high, time stands still to the outside observer. However, I do not understand what any of this has to do with science demonstrating that a God exists. My opponent has yet to provide any scientific evidence that proves the existance of a God, and instead, has resorted to attacking scientific theories that he believes contradicts his own creation story. Abiogenesis, Big bang theory, Evolution, all of these things could still be true, and God could still exist. I am still awaiting the scientific evidence that God exists. When will my opponent provide such evidence? We are already halfway finished with the debate. I suggest my opponent pick up the pace, and provide scientific evidence that demonstrates that a God exists. Sources: 1. http://dictionary.reference.com... 2. http://evolution.berkeley.edu... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Science proves God's existance

"Proof is not always a burden for some people" -me Allow me to begin with the name of the scientist who tried to create life. Stanley L. Miller was a scientist who was so die-hard for the evolution theory that he and one of his partners attempted to prove creationism wrong with an experiment that could never work. Today we call this the Miller-Urey experiment. It consisted of glass flasks to simulate an "early earth" atmosphere. and passed an electrical charge through a substance containing water, ammonia, methane, and hydrogen. No oxygen was necessary, because it would have oxidized into amino acids. At the bottom of the device was a trap to capture any particles produced by the apparatus, and prevent the new particles from being destroyed by a second discharge. What came out of the experiment was mostly tar with some carbolic acids, glycene, and alanine. No cells were made in any of the attempts, it just can't be done. And as for space/time and the Big Bang: space/time would need to exist for matter or energy to exist/change. That is all for now. sources: http://www.apologeticspress.org... (i also used https://www.truthinscience.org..., but they refused to accept that photosynthesis requires plant life.)
Science proves God's existance

My position in this debate shall be that there is not enough evidence to support the claim that Science proves God's existence. The burden of proof shall rest on my opponent, to demonstrate that there is indeed enough evidence to demonstrate that science proves the existence of God. First off, some definitions. Science is defined as "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. "(1) Since my opponent is a christian, I will assume that he is talking about the Christian God, and the attributes commonly applied to such a God, including Omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, etc. Now, onto my opponents initial claims. "Evolution, the Big Bang, and other theories are clearly disproven by themselves. For anything like these to originate, it would require a power that we humans cannot comprehend. " I would like to ask my opponent, how he knows this. Since we are talking about science, he must provide evidence that demonstrates that Evolution and the Big Bang theory are wrong or disproven. "How could you create life from an inanimate object without a being such as God? The simple answer: you can't; it's been attempted, and it failed. " What specific experiment is my opponent referring to, here? "And the Big Bang claims that the universe came from an unfathomably dense particle of matter exploding with enough force to expand to the universe as it is now! " The Big bang did not explode with force. It was a rapid expansion of space/time. (2) My opponent should read up on what the theory actually states, instead of relying on his misconceptions. "This is bull crap, and anything that dense would only create a Black Hole. " My opponent is correct. It would have created a black hole. .. . If only space/time had existed, and was not expanding rapidly. I eagerly await my opponents response, for I would like to disprove Evolution and the Big bang theory and win a nobel prize. Sources: 1. . http://dictionary.reference.com... 2. . http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov...
Science proves God's existance

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -Albert Einstein Evolution, the Big Bang, and other theories are clearly disproven by themselves. For anything like these to originate, it would require a power that we humans cannot comprehend. Evolution claims that every creature on the planet evolved from a similar ancestor, but where could it have started? The dirt, perhaps? How could you create life from an inanimate object without a being such as God? The simple answer: you can't; it's been attempted, and it failed. And the Big Bang claims that the universe came from an unfathomably dense particle of matter exploding with enough force to expand to the universe as it is now! This is bull crap, and anything that dense would only create a Black Hole. If my challenger is voted as winner, then i am forced to believe that there is no hope for the human race.
Science proves God's existance

Again, my opponent fails to realize that disproving one claim, is not evidence that another claim is true. Throughout this debate, I have asked my opponent what the scientific evidence is, that proves that a God exists. Instead of providing any evidence, he merely repeated his arguments to demonstrate how Evolution/The Big Bang theory is false, without the slightest understanding that Evolution or the Big bang theory could still be true and God could still exist. Evolution, the Big Bang Theory, all of this is irrelevant as to whether there is scientific evidence that a God exists, because the truth or falsity of either theory has no relevance to the existence of God. Even if we assumed that Evolution and the Big bang Theory were false, what would be the scientific evidence that God exists? Sadly, despite my attempts at reasoning with him, my opponent chose to ignore my pleas to have a decent debate. As my opponent has failed to provide any scientific evidence that a God exists, he has failed his burden of proof.
Science proves God's existance

Here we are, the final round, and all my opponent has done is look things up in a dictionary and use the Fallacies handbook. I have brought evidence disproving two of the most used atheist theories, and all my opponent* has done is try throwing fallacy number one (that's attack the evidence) at me. Well now it's my turn, and prepare to feel the pain; my older brother and I have been arguing since he was six (I proved with logic to my brother that Santa isn't real, and I was four). Opponent of mine, you have been completely oblivious to this one truth anyone, atheist or religious, knows: to win an argument, you must know where you stand, and then attack relentlessly. In round one, my opponent posted openly "I would like to disprove Evolution and the Big bang theory and win a Nobel prize." so where does my opponent really stand, if so eager to disprove those theories?Evolution is easily disproven by itself and it's theories of origin; the "primordial sludge" theory can easily be disproven by my only comment so far, which brings forth the evidence that nothing can randomly happen. The "high energy shot into the earth and creating life" theory: I can prove it wrong with far less than a complete sentence - but that docks our points on this website. Pure energy is nothing but destructive, and the only reason Miller was able to produce any results in his experiment was because of his trap for the produced molecules. The "Aliens" theory produced by History Channel: they'd say the same thing about a kid's lunch money being stolen, no evidence whatsoever.I could disprove evolution with some of the "common ancestor" ideas, too. College professors teaching evolution have said that there was only one species to begin with on Earth, but then they'd either have to eat each other, or be plants and never become animals like us humans. If the first species was a mutated amoeba, comprising of plant and animal attributes, why would a multi-celled organism need to be formed, and how long would it take before they were all eaten and the last survivor starved? Why is the only thing atheist scientists have to say about evolution is that "we don't really know about it, and we may never know" Evolutionism could easily be renamed to a more accurate name, such as "stubbornism" or something else with the same definition (and an -ism).It appears that all you need to do to be considered "smart" in modern times it closed off your mind and use traced footprints to find the path; my opponent has failed to truly argue with me, all he has done is this(https://www.google.com...)! This hasn't even been a contradictory, and my opponent should at least try to use his vast knowledge of definitions and synonyms to try and prove that he has been arguing. Thank you all for coming, you've been a wonderful audience. Good night. *op·po·nent əG2;p!3;nənt/ noun 1.someone who competes against or fights another in a contest, game, or argument; a rival or adversary. 2.a person who disagrees with or resists a proposal or practice.
Science proves God's existance

Instead of making a reply to your words of stubborn doubt. I am going to tell you something from one of my journals my little brother accidentally burned. you may find it interesting.Two years ago as I ponder the meaning of life, I decided to just lie down and think about the origins of the universe, from present to past. I sat thinking of the conflicts between evolutionism and creationism, the laws of conservation of matter and energy, the evidence - if any exists - of our species evolving from others. I sat for fifteen hours thinking, calculating, contemplating, not eating or drinking, and suddenly I realized something: If the theory of evolution was real, why are there still chimps and gorrilla's on the planet with us, where could it have begun? If the Big Bang is truth, how did it happen? how could there truly be a "beginning" to the universe? The answer came to me clearly: if we understood infinity our minds' full capacity would be unveiled, and then they'd melt in the process. Our physical forms are incapable of comprehending time; it is impossible to describe with our limited brain capacity.The moment the thought completed it's cycle, i felt a fire inside my skull, and then I blacked out. I awoke knowing that I knew nothing. And that is the only truth that the human race needs. We are insects trying to comprehend the infinite capacity of forever, and heading in the opposite direction. Our current knowledge is an illusion we have convinced ourselves is the truth. But popular vote cannot change the fact that the whole population of Earth might agree on something being correct, and it could still be wrong. My opponent may think that, because I am a christian, I do not question my teachings recieved in church. But i do question them, every second of every day. I open myself to new ideas, and that is what makes me strong. Some have limited yourself to the theory of evolution without sufficient evidence to say it is truth, and that makes them weak.To understand Infinity and control it, that is how gods are formed. We are born into forms that cannot understand and accept the full truth. Evolution, according to evolution, needs to begin somehow. Some say space/time did not exist during the Big Bang, but how could something of such magnitude happen without the essence of the universe previously existing as well?Instead of simply denying everything, think about all this with an open mind.