BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Utopia is impossible to achieve within any given society

If I say Yes to the last question, I might have to deal with several issues that God, Jesus said them in the Bible about the humans and our way of being, sinful, so I'll have to take back my argument about the religious community and I will not debate anymore using facts from the Bible or any religious materials. Utopia, dictionary, link can be found at the end of the post. 1.an imaginary island described in Sir Thomas More's Utopia (1516) as enjoying perfection in law, politics, etc. 2.(usually lowercase) an ideal place or state. 3.(usually lowercase) any visionary system of political or social perfection. 1. In the book, an IMAGINARY Utopia was reached, so it is possible, it was possible for the author to live in this so-called "Utopia" and for him, it really existed. 2. An ideal place or state- In my country, people see America like the land of hope, an ideal place where they would like to live and die on. 3. Also, as the presidential voting is coming closer and closer in Romania, many of the candidates for the "throne" of Romania keep repeating that their visions for Romania are perfect, the visions that they have for this country, will make it perfect, a semi Utopia.
Utopia is impossible to achieve within any given society

Thank you for taking this debate, and sorry about the miss-click I will begin with my rebuttal, and then move in to my real arguement . . . . Starting with your second point, "the best example possible is the society of religious people, knowing the written law which says the following: "Love your neighbour as yourself" which refers to harmony and even more, peace between people." This quote comes straight out of the New Testament of the Bible, a quote by Jesus himself i believe. However, the Bible itself stands in my favor because Jesus taught how to live a prefect life, he did NOT however expect people to live this way also, as seen in the verse "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."(3) It is well known that in the Christian Faith God is the only perfect being, therefore, it is impossible for any society to truly "love your neighbor as yourself" due to the sinful nature of man. As an argument against the idea of a political party . . . You say that the members of a political party "live in harmony together having same goals, ideals, purposes." this is not necessarily the case. For example, in Florida on Nov. 9th, a Tea party was formed. This party was largely made up of former Republicans. I would contend that in order for the former Republicans to split there must have been some internal conflicts, specifically the GOPs catering to special interest groups. (2) Now . . . for the argument I would argue that it is impossible to truly show that Utopia is impossible, however, i would also argue that all attempts made in the past have failed. These failed attempts ultimately tend towards dictatorship or tyranny. - An example of this is the Soviet Union. Ultimately this was a nation that tried for utopia however human greed and corruption lead it to tyranny under Stalin. - Another example is the Synanon communities. Originally a method for rehab and a community for alcoholics/drug addicts that wanted a better life. This society attempted at utopia and ultimately lead to the dictatorial rule of Charles Dederick(1) lastly, i would like to know if my opponent considers the Bible (NIV ESV King James versions) a reliable source works cited: 1 ~ http://en.wikipedia.org... 2 ~ http://www.politico.com... ~ 3 ~ NIV Bible ~
Utopia is impossible to achieve within any given society

First of all I want to communicate my opponent that I had no purpose on taking on this debate but I miss-clicked so I have to go on with it, even if I want or not. Society: An organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes. I suggest we take a political party as an example, let's say they're the ones in the opposition, they live in harmony together having same goals, ideals, purposes. It's a way of expressing a Utopia state of mind. Also, the best example possible is the society of religious people, knowing the written law which says the following: "Love your neighbour as yourself" which refers to harmony and even more, peace between people, so, for religious people going to church is more than Utopia, it's the place where they find the one that they believe in, experience harmony and enjoy peace.
Utopia is impossible to achieve within any given society

The topic is pretty self explanatory, however here are the definitions of some of the words. Also, I'll allow the "con" side to make the first argument . . . Definitions . . . I. Utopia: an ideal place or state. Ia. Ideal: A society in which all participants thereof live in complete harmony together. (I made my own definition for this in order to allow it to relate better to this particular debate, if there is a problem, make your own correction and state it at the top of your first argument) II. Society: An organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes. works cited: http://dictionary.reference.com...
personality test psychology is overused in employment

I disagree exceptionally. Some personality tests are clearly boring and obnoxious, pure pseudoscience, however there are scientific ones. For example the big five personality test (http://personality-testing.info...) has been extensively scientifically validated (http://psycnet.apa.org...). I am sorry to hear you were rejected at your job, but frankly your argument is too brief to respond to appropriately.
Filibuster Reform

The purpose of filibustering is understood to be the delay or prevention of the vote on an issue. This tactic is a waste of taxpayer money as we are, essentially, paying elected officials to waste time. The goal of any government should be to run as effectively as possible, but this speaking marathon that some politicians choose to invoke prevents this goal from being met. It slows down the progress of government and only creates the problem of doing less work than is coming in. While freedom of speech is certainly a right not to be questioned, any amount of talking extending more than an hour is simply excessive and should not be permitted. An entire hour is ample time to make one's point clear. Every person's opinion in the government should have the opportunity to be voiced, but the use of filibustering goes against this idea, as it uses up others' time. Furthermore, for one political party to form a chain of filibusters is only a worsened form of this already unethical and inefficient tactic. Therefore, a standard rule that would give all politicians ample time and opportunity to voice their opinions and views would be to not allow members of the same political party to speak consecutively. While these suggested rules obviously have room for refinement, the basic claim remains the same in that there should some form of filibuster reform.
Filibuster Reform

Welcome to the debate. In this debate, I will be arguing that filibustering should be an offense if used in an official government setting. Opponent will refute. I have the burden of proof since I am the one making the claim. Rules: 1. First round is acceptance. All other rounds are for debating. 2. No profanity. 3. For this debate, filibuster will be defined as a party speaking for more than one hour at a time; this includes entire political parties. 4. Have fun with it!
Filibuster Reform

First, while the majority should receive priority in having their ideals come into law, filibuster prevents a substantial portion of the population from coming into law (49.9% of the population could simply be ignored without filibuster). My opponent then says that if filibuster were to be banned, that compromises and backing-down from extreme positions would increase, however the exact opposite is true. With only a 51% majority, extreme legislation could be enacted without so much as asking for the minority’s opinion before voting. If filibuster was outlawed, there is no reason to compromise because the minority party has no power whatsoever. “Say the majority party wanted to pass a law providing equality to all citizens regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc., but the minority party opposed. What would be stopping them from filibustering that law into never occurring?” This argument is essentially nullified by the fact that the United states already has complete legal equality among all people. Unless you can prove significant legal discrimination in the United states, your point is nullified (Please remember that you have the burden of Proof), and stands as a simple unjustified statement. As I have shown, banning filibuster will only feed ideological extremism and will allow for tyrannical and discriminatory legislation. While filibuster may seem to breed inefficiency, it actually protects a large portion of the population and fosters compromise. My opponent has not fulfilled their burden of proof, therefore I urge you to vote Con! Also-Please take note that my opponent used no sources whatsoever!
Filibuster Reform

My apologies for my lack of argument in the third round. While the minority party certainly should not be ignored, if one's ideals are to become law, it is only fair that the majority have priority seeing as how they are the majority of the population. Regarding the comprise aspect of filibustering, if this is the only way that lawmakers can come to a compromise, then the use of filibustering will only increase, leading to an even slower and less efficient government that the one that we have today that only uses it rarely. Should filibustering be done away with, lawmakers will be forced to seek compromises from less extreme circumstances as they most likely would not be so inactive as to cause a government shutdown. While there have been what some call "close calls" recently in the U.S., these were most likely bluffs in an effort to "turn up the heat." While filibustering could theoretically prevent terrible, discriminatory, or tyrannical legislation from being enacted, it could also be used to prevent beneficial legislation. Say the majority party wanted to pass a law providing equality to all citizens regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc., but the minority party opposed. What would be stopping them from filibustering that law into never occurring? Nothing. Because there are no restrictions with filibustering as we know it today. Filibustering only contributes to the already excessive partisanship because it causes parties to become annoyed with the one filibustering. The fact remains that filibustering only feeds the flames of partisanship and the sentiment to have it remain simply because the minority party might be getting the short end of the stick is absurd for reasons already explained.
The US should get rid of No Child Left Behind and come up with a new program for education.

I reserve all source verifications at the end of my final round. My opponents first rebuttal of my comments states that all the states have fully implemented the act, and rules there of. FALSE,... As my opponent states, funding would not be given out to those that had not met certain bench marks,.. those that did not, received little funding available and again failed to meet the criteria. - In my opinion, here is where the federal govt, should step in and provide extra funding and guidance,... fix this flaw, and even better results may follow. I am a federalist, I believe the STATE should empower itself in implementing NCLB,.. My opponent then goes on to completely mis quote my statements of the role of the Bush administration,... I looked over my previous arguments and in NO WAY did I accuse my opponent of "Bush Bashing," and I certainly did not defend Bush as well,.. In fact I "shamed" Bush for his lack of "follow through" on NCLB. As for for my opponents claim of "nationwide" test scores... This claim fails in this debates context because NCLB was implemented as federalist rules, as in individual state performance dictates federal funding. If one really wants to "fix" NCLB,.. look at the weaker states, compare to the stronger states, and analyze the differences, I say weaker states should be nurtured, not penalized. My opponent claims the education recieves enough funding,... For NCLB to work properly, teachers need to become more specialized, training to be provided, books, tests, etc. IN the eight eventful years since NCLB was enacted, funding HAS NOT been enough to adequately provide for the needed changes. My opponent claims that low income districts are "drop out factories," this is a social trend, NOT an education system flaw,.. economic structuring, job training, and social improvement such as federal land grants for community clubs, restoration, etc,.. improve the communities, job training and education to the parents, so that they can improve life at home, and provide proper care and attention to the children, self pride, and confidence, mixed with better standard of living can provide motivation. To finalize this debate,.. There is light at the end of the tunnel,.. NCLB is showing hope where it was properly managed, The plan was enacted in 2001 with a goal to in full swing by 2008,.. However, lack of support, motivation, and funding from the federal govt. has left things slow to get on its feet. To simply scrap, would waste billions already invested, and slap the districts that followed the rules, and invested so much in the face. WE MUST NOT!! We can not alter our STANDARD, and lower the bar. Needed changes and increased funding could have NCLB increasing the standard of education and quality of the schools. sources,..> www.educationworld.com www.news-press.com www.wrightslaw.com/nclb/goodlaw www.ed.gov
The US should get rid of No Child Left Behind and come up with a new program for education.

The problem with NCLB is not that it wont work, as several want everyone to believe, it is that NCLB can't work if it is not ENFORCED. When NCLB is properly enforced, the results have been awesome! The TARGET in 2001 when NCLB was pushed forward with BIPARTISAN support, was for NCLB to be completely implemented in 7 years! Which, well is now! People were so fast to dismiss NCLB from the beginning, most really wouldn't want to give it a shot. The BIGGEST flaw in NCLB next to lack of enforcement, is Bushes lack of support in recent years and lack of funding. A big shame on Bush in my opinion. It easy to pick out the states that have performed poorly,.. but has the stats changed much from before the NCLB act was passed? I doubt it. We must look at the states that have shown considerable growth and find to what that growth was contributed to. Florida, The Florida Department of Education has just released the 2008 school grades results. This year, Florida has more schools earning "A's" and "B's" than ever before. Of the 2,889 schools graded this year, nearly three quarters are considered to be high performing (receiving either an "A" or "B" grade). The number of schools considered to be low performing decreased significantly compared to last year. These results are a clear sign that — like or not — the policies of No Child Left Behind are working. But we could do better. Unfortunately, No Child Left Behind has not been funded nearly as it was promised when reauthorized in 2001. Indeed, one of its greatest problems through these years has been insufficient funding. President Bush's proposed Fiscal Year 2009 budget has again failed to provide adequate funding to pay for the full implementation of No Child Left Behind. It's a shame. Many people complain about the FCAT, that teachers are teaching to the test and so forth. But standardized tests and assessment systems are a way to ensure that all children receive the same quality education. We know public education in the United States does not serve all of its students equally well. There are people who believe that the education of children in low-income neighborhoods or the so-called at-risk or underserved children is a major, national problem. It should never be a "problem" but a challenge for an outstanding school system. Indeed, I believe ours is a world model for a public school system that is available to all, rich and poor, bright and not so bright, in excellence and competency. I'm proud of our education system, despite all of its flaws. And I'm proud of today's results; proud of parents, teachers and students who put the most effort. Other states that have shown great improvement, Texas, Iowa, Wisconsin, Mass., Washington D.C. district schools have all but came full cricle improvements!! But we the taxpayers should insist on the federal government to commit full funding to No Child Left Behind.
The US should get rid of No Child Left Behind and come up with a new program for education.

On his first argument that all programs have flaws is true but this one has failed to meets its targets year after year, and it hasn't gotten one school out of the "failing" status since its introduction. I decided to search the progress in my state from NCLB and I found that test scores in the state of Alabama have fallen by 8%. (www. ed. gov/nclb) Also currently, there is only one A Honor Roll student at Woodlawn Academy in the city of Birmingham, and there are over 1400 students currently enrolled. On his second argument that it will take massive amounts of money to implement a new educational program, I have a way to pay for the plan, and it is simple when we enact the plan test scores will rise paying for itself. The way I come to that conclusion is that because if a new program is implemented and test scores rise by 12% that will give the US a one trillion dollars rise in GDP. He next makes a point that teachers like the plan, but he uses a quote from a few years ago. This isn't a good idea when debating the present. (www. thisweekineducation. com) "I feel that NCLB is dooming our children to a fate that isn't fitting to them, and I feel that we as Americans should rise up and fight to make sure our children receive a better education than they are getting now. This is America and we deserve the best. " That quote was from July 18, 2008 so you must look to this first when evaluating the round. On his forth point that we don't need to repeal it because its working now, but he gives no evidence on his claim I have given you lots of evidence to show how it isn't working. Again from ed. gov, since the passing of NCLB we have seen no progress in our educational system, and we have fallen from 11th place in the world in education to 23rd. On his fifth argument that it would slap the nation in the face, we have a duty to our children and others to make sure that they can receive a top rate education and the one they are getting now is a slap in the face. We have to create a new program in order to ensure we maintain our place as number one in the world. His final argument, he says we should restructure NCLB but keep the idea is completely false because he has given no evidence of what progress we have made, but I have cited evidence even from the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT stating that NCLB is failing. So to wrap it up, we must get rid of NCLB to ensure we don't lose our hegemony and to keep the train of American success going. Also, when the Federal Government says something is messed up its messed up.
The US should get rid of No Child Left Behind and come up with a new program for education.

I feel that in arguing the case in favor of No Child Left Behind, one does not only have to reveal the QUALITIES in the program but the ease of improvement of an "flaws" or "lags." As any program, it is not always perfect. The problem my opponents proposal is that a new program has not been implemented, planned, would take time to do so, and cost tax payers millions or billions to establish. It is more responsible for the govt. to simply improve the system already in place. I will now list possitives that this program contributes. I will rebuttle my opponents claims in further rounds. I will reserve this round for my own claims in favor of this program. "Overall, we are supportive of it -- probably more so than most organizations," says Jamie Horwitz, a spokesman for the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), which represents 1.2 million education professionals nationwide. "We like the professional development component, the emphasis on reading, Title I, and that it did not include a voucher program. We think it will have a positive affect." This was a quote taken a few years back. As most may know No Child Left Behind act is up for reauthorization. I think this debate fits perfectly with the times. Important changes are surely needed to make the No Child Left Behind more effective, but the law has led to progress in improving achievement for all students, particularly low-income and minority children. Rather than scrapping the law entirely, President Bush and lawmakers should step up this year and commit to making it more effective. Why do we need NCLB to be reauthorized now? Because it is beginning to work. Data from the National Assessment for Educational Progress demonstrate achievement gains since its enactment. Student achievement in fourth grade reading and mathematics is increasing and we are closing the achievement gap between white and minority students. All of the states have developed standards and assessments in reading and mathematics. But most importantly, states, districts, and schools are being held accountable for the achievement of all students. Because NCLB requires student achievement data to be disaggregated by subgroup, we can no longer mask the achievement of some students. It is obvious the program has flaws. But to simply scrap it and try to find a new one, would only slap this nation in the face. This program alone was targeted for implementation in 7 years. Now we should throw it out and put together a new one that will take another 7 years. Every issue with NCLB can be adjusted. My opponents platform in this debate is that the "US should get rid of No Child Left Behind and come up with a new program for education." My platform is we must address the needed changes to NCLB and reauthorize it immediately so that we can continue to nurture growth and the qualities that the program HAS put forth.
Should School Employees Recieve Firearms Training

Con, my friend, I'd love to live in a world where we don't need guns. I'd also love to live in a world without dangerous narcotics like heroin, but, unfortunately, we do. I simply believe, based on my own study and personal opinion, that armed professionals are much more likely to protect our children. It's a cliche argument, but I agree with the thought that "if we protect our banks and our politicians with guns, why not our children?" I value your opinion, as you've taken the time to defend it and have done so with fact. That's why I joined this site, to find people who have a plethora of opinions, but are willing to debate them and give audience to their opponents. Till next time!