BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Standardized testing is hurting our school population and community

I believe that standardised testing is beneficial to students. Indeed, there will be an added amount of pressure and stress, but I believe that this helps them propel them forward toward striving for success. Stress is an important catalyst in one's motivation to work and if wisely wielded, can be a powerful tool in the advancement of education hence it is not necessarily a bad thing. Standardised testing is a means for a government to know where it stand in terms of further educational and holistic development and is also highly useful in education analysis. Without standardised testing, it will not be known if the students of a certain level are performing up to par, and without the proper Intel to make due changes and altercations to the education system, this can be dangerous for a country to be grooming substandard future population which would inevitably hinder society and have drastic implications on the work force. For example, in Singapore, there are standardised tests that occur twice each year on the average in primary, secondary schools and even junior college. These tests give the schools and government information on the amount of resources that should be diverted toward education sector, whether the Budget should increase or decrease, and also gives insight on the effectiveness ok current curriculum and providing incentive for change or improvement. Standardised testing has proved to be extremely beneficial to Singapore, and it is one of the most educationally advanced and successful countries in the education sector that many other countries tend to go on a pilgrimage for.
Standardized testing is hurting our school population and community

The increase in standardized testing over the last few years has been harmful to students, staff, and the community at large. Students have been exposed to mandated state testing, district testing, and everyday curricular tests given by the teacher to assess acquisition of skills. According to Cox (2015) "Increased pressure on students has resulted in more test-taking anxiety. Sleeplessness, loss of self-esteem secondary to poor performance and lifelong mental blocks can be seen in individual children" (p. 1). Parents are also affected when the children come home from school feeling frustrated or exhausted from days of testing. With the mounting pressure for high performance on these tests, teachers have changed their teaching approach to focus more on test preparation than educating the whole child. Lastly the community has been forced to take on the burden of standardized testing as well. Many schools, especially large inner city schools, have had to totally revamp their technology infrastructure to accommodate the thousands of children that need to be tested each year. Cox, E. (2015, November 16).Author, A. A. (Year, Month Day). Standardized Tests Making our Students Sick?. Us News and World Report. Retrieved from http://health.usnews.com....
Gun control in America

I believe firmly in gun control. I believe exactly the following statement: The government should legislate a ban upon all firearms including, but not limited to: handguns, shotguns, assault rifles, and sub-machine guns. I do believe there is a case for small caliber rifles being legal for recreational/hunting purposes, with the stipulation that they be stored in a public government building, and dispensed collected according to the nature of use. You would still own them, just turn them in when not in use. I acknowledge this is something that could be done on a state level, which is probably the only way any gun control law of that nature would ever get passed. With that exception, I believe gun control is a good and necessary thing for the bettering of our nation. I am not saying my proposal is the best without question, just that I think it would work and I think the logic behind it is pretty solid. I am certainly open to other ideas and opinions. Bottom line is this: I am against the right to own any gun with the possible exception of small caliber hunting rifles. If you disagree with gun control, please challenge me, I am interested in what you have to say.
Gun control in America

I should first of all say two things about American legislature: I don't believe rights are God given or self-evident. There is no part of me that says God has given me the right to own a gun, and that the government can't take that away. BUT, there are a lot of people who take preserving the original bill of rights very seriously, particularly the second amendment. However, people think that just because we have the right to bear arms means that the government can't regulate them. The gap in this logic is that every other right is already regulated with no protest. We have the freedom of religion, with the exception of if it would involve cannibalism, terrorism, or other perceived extremes. We have the freedom of speech, with the exception of if it would involve threatening the president. So why is it that people believe it's unconstitutional for guns to be subjected to the same type of regulation upon which is placed every other right? Also, when the founding fathers wrote the constitution, they had slow firing low powered muskets. This was their definition of an "armament". In today's day and age, weaponry is far more advanced and thus more capable of causing destruction and loss of life. You couldn't go on a school shooting with a musket. Following this thought, I believe that since what an armament is and what they can do has changed to dramatically, so should gun laws. Additionally, It could certainly be argued that the second amendment was targeted more towards the right to have a standing militia already in possession of weapons. The statement "the second amendment guarantees us the right to bear arms" isn't quite as cut an dry as you have been led to believe.
Gun control in America

Oh so misguided. I firmly believe that banning of firearms by the general public is a terrible idea for many reasons from which I will choose some of the most obvious to make my case. I am, however, interested in hearing your side of the argument. I have followed this issue for a long time and so far I have seen no rational argument that can support your position. Perhaps this time will be different. I will say this much in my opening statement. The right to bear arms in America, has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. Here is the actual text of the 2nd Amendment: "Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." http://www.archives.gov... I defer to you to make your case.
Anger Can Be Good Moral Motivation

IT IS IRRELEVANT if men are morally motivated. This case that is being defended if anger is good morally motivation. The fact that you stated, "IT IS POSSIBLE that each of these virtues maybe loosely related to another, and it is quite the point that virtues can change the way men act." This is defeats your statement of anger being morally good to be not true. Also you failed to show how exactly anger is a anger at birth. Because of this your claim cannot be true. Anger is an act that is destructive to an individual and those that surround them. The mind state of the individual is not controllable because they are thinking in the train of thought they arent accustomed to. You have not demonstrated how anger has been evaluated in a good way by either Aristotle or Seneca which leads me to believe that one way doesn't exist. Yet again, I may not agree with your claim.
Anger Can Be Good Moral Motivation

ITS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE that anger can not be defined without the input of pain. Pain - physical suffering or discomfort caused by illness or injury. Anger - a strong feeling of annoyance, displeasure, or hostility. These here are the definitions of both. Within those definitions neither are seen within each other. IT IS POSSIBLE that each of these virtues maybe loosely related to another, and it is quite the point that virtues can change the way men act. In fact, anger effects judgment heavily, but it can effect judgment in a positive and good fashion as well as morally motivate people to act. As to what you say about morality in terms of intellectualism, you are reading incorrectly. Aristotle claims there to be two parts that collectively make up a virtue, Those are moral virtue and moral intellectualism. More virtue is with us since birth and is then activated through practice and habit. Moral intellectualism is in turn learned from those who are able to teach it. Anger morally motivates through judgment, and that judgment can either be morally good or bad. So you are correct in saying that anger makes men judge, but in the judgment they are morally motivated in the first place.
Anger Can Be Good Moral Motivation

IT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE, that pain and anger are two separate virtue, and we do with them what we must in order to find what is morally justifiable. This is because anger can't be defined without the input of pain. Anger is an emotion that provokes different judgement out of an individual. Emotions are feelings that change men as to affect their judgments, and that are also attended by pain or pleasure. ITS POSSIBLE THAT, By practicing the virtue of anger, we can apply it in proper amounts as to protect ourselves and our loved ones from the moral unjust of the world. But that doesn't verify that virtues are apprehended at birth. In the reading Aristotle states that intellectual virtue in the main owes both its birth and growth to teaching( for which it requires experience and time). This means that virtues cannot be upheld by someone who has never experienced anything on earth. It is not the case that anger is a good moral trait because it conflicts the mind-state of the individual. According to Seneca, those free of anger are able to make better decisions because pain is not overwhelming them.
Anger Can Be Good Moral Motivation

ITS POSSIBLE THAT cowardly actions can be made when angry, but it is necessary to not confuse the two virtue for one. For instance IT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE that we are born without virtue. Much like that of our own senses, we have to tap into our virtues and learn how to use them and harness their power in order to provide moral goodness for the world around us. What is mean that we are given the tools to handle the situations we are place in (Virtues from birth) but depending on the situations we place ourselves in determines the moral goodness of the virtue. It is IRRELEVANT that pain is brings about a conspicuous revenge for a conspicuous slight at the hands of men have no call top slight oneself or ones friends. What one should realize is that pain and anger are two separate virtue, and we do with them what we must in order to find what is morally justifiable. By practicing the virtue of anger, we can apply it in proper amounts as to protect ourselves and our loved ones from the moral unjust of the world.
Anger Can Be Good Moral Motivation

IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE THAT virtues are characteristics develop upon the situations we are placed in. Seneca states that anger provokes wildly and cowardly actions. Seneca states that we have control of where we place ourselves and how we react in return. Also, the idea that Aristotle states that anger is developed at birth is incorrect because he already determines that it is learned from situations we are placed in. First lets define anger, a desire accompanied by pain, for a conspicuous revenge for a conspicuous slight at the hands of men who have no call to slight oneself or one's friends. Anger has no intention of creating positive reactions because it's intentions are evil. It is not possible for anger to be good because it only makes an individual develop a different state of mind. The frame of mind of someone enduring anger leads to unpleasant actions. Some examples of anger provoking bad outcomes are a ruler demanding respect from those ruled.
Anger Can Be Good Moral Motivation

1)According to Aristotle virtues are characteristics based upon situations we find ourselves frequently placed in. 2)Out of the two types of virtues, moral and intellectual, moral is learned by habituation. 3)Anger is a virtue in which we have had in us from our birth. 4)Since a young age we have had the ability to become angered, but not the refinements of as to why or when. 5)By being placed in situations where anger is prominent, we then ourselves gain anger as a virtue in either a negative or positive moral way. 6)To be excessive, to have deficiency, and good temperament are three ways in which the virtue of anger can be seen within an individual. 7)By practicing the right habits, an individual can tell the morally acceptable from morally unacceptable 8)By using this sense of good and bad, anger can morally motivate us in either direction. 9)If we place ourselves in the middle of deficient and excessive in regards to anger, we can then be morally motivated to commit acts of moral goodness.
Green is a "better" color than purple (Pro gives opening argument)

Better: More useful, suitable, or desirable[1] 1. Health The color green has a calming effect. For this reason, hospitals paint their walls light green to calm patients.[2] Additionally, greenery in hospitals also has a calming effect.[3] This is important as the hospital is full of many stressors and stressful people.[4] Stress in the hospital environment has empirically been shown to lead to job dissatisfaction among nurses and, as a result, absenteeism.[5] Nurse absenteeism creates a vicious cycle: an increase in nurse absences increases the nurses' work load further increasing absenteeism which further increases the workload and so on. The result is reduced patient care.[6] Also, simply the presence of greenery has been shown to directly contribute to increased health by reducing cough and fatigue among other things.[3] 2. Productivity People are empirically more productive when they work in the presence of green plants.[3] We're only barely recovering from a recession, and as a result a lack of worker productivity increases cost-cutting to make ends meet and halts economic recovery.[7] 3. Environment Photosynthesis in most plants requires that plants absorb red and blue light, meaning they will reflect green light.[8] A purple plant thus wouldn't be able to survive since it would reflect the essential red and blue light. The majority of the world's oxygen is produced by green, photosynthesizing algae.[9] Therefore, the world as we know it wouldn't even be sustainable without green. [1] The Free Dictionary. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [2] Precision Intermedia. http://www.precisionintermedia.com... [3] Green over Grey. http://www.greenovergrey.com... [4] Today's Hospitalist Magazine. http://www.todayshospitalist.com... [5] Health Services Research. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [6] National Institutes of Health. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [7] Bloomberg News. http://www.bloomberg.com... [8] National Science Teachers Association. http://biology.clc.uc.edu... [9] See the Sea. http://see-the-sea.org... Finally, CON hasn't provided any sort of context to the topic. There aren't any arguments to indicate what he intends to debate or any definitions or explanation of any kind. With that in mind, I'll assume all of my arguments are a valid and "reasonable" defense of the topic.
Hitler was right

1. Hitler is evil The statistics of how many Jews died is estimated to be around 6 million the problem is that so many bodies where burned and buried that it is hard to get an exact number (1). The Nazis used gas chambers and also hell vans and firing squads (2). 2. Nazis were evil 1. No country attacked Germany to start World War II Hitler was able to obtain some land by the Munich Conference and than invaded other countries that went against the Munich Conference (3). 2. Most were scared of Hitler and many countries rallied for the Allies to defeat Hitler 3. Holocaust was Evil There were more than one death camp different ones killed different amounts of people. Vote Con if you feel that Hitler was evil and that the Holocaust was real and horrific. Sources (1) http://www.statisticbrain.com... (2) http://www.pbs.org... (3) http://www.toytowngermany.com...
Hitler was right

1. Hitler is evilSo you say 6 million jews died because 6 million jews died. Circular logic!! 6 mill didn't die as I said. You say gas chamers! No. Due to the Allied bombing raids using Phosphorus (and Churchill was wanting to use gas) the German's had anti-gas bomb shelters. These morphed into 'gas chambers' (e.g. Majdanek 'gas chamber' and Auschwitz Krema I is a converted morgue, the doors can be opened from the inside, and open inwards!). Disinfection chambers for delousing clothes also morphed into 'gas chambers', a good example being Dachau.]James Roth, director of a laboratory in Massachusetts, then testified on the analysis of the 32 samples, the origin of which he was unaware of: all the samples taken in the homicidal "gas chambers" contained a quantity of cyanide which was either unmeasurable or infinitesimal, while the sample from the disinfection gas chamber, taken for comparison's sake, contained an enormous amount of cyanide (the infinitesimal quantity detected in the former case can be explained by the fact that the supposed homicidal gas chambers were in fact morgues for preserving bodies; such morgues could have been occasionally disinfected with Zyklon B) (1) The judge asked the prosecutor if he would call any "survivors" to the witness stand. The prosecutor answered no. The experience of 1985 had been too embarrassing. The cross examination had been devastating. It is regrettable that at the trial of Klaus Barbie in France in 1987 and at the trial of John Demjanjuk in Israel in 1987-1988, no defense lawyer has followed Douglas Christie's example in the first Zündel trial (1985): Christie had shown that by carefully questioning witnesses about the gassing process itself, one could destroy the very foundation of the "extermination camp" myth."I don't accept that the gas chambers existed, and this is well known. I've seen no evidence at all that gas chambers existed.- [1992] The Suppressed Eichmann and Goebbels Papers By David Irving In 1946 Burg attended the Nuremberg trials at times when matters involving Jews were being raised. During one of these attendances he met Ilya Ehrenburg and a Jewish publisher who had been in Auschwitz for several years. Burg asked the publisher whether he had seen any gassing institutions for human beings and he said no. Ehrenburg, who had been the head of propaganda for the Red Army during the war, told Burg he had been to Auschwitz but he too had not seen anything of gassings. Burg had discussed this information with Zündel in general. (25-6857, 6858) Burg could not understand the emphasis on gassings. GASSINGS NEVER HAPPEND!2. Nazis were evil1. France, Norway, Itally, Czech and more striked first! They were all out for hitler2. None were scared. Most loved hitler3. Holocaust was EvilWith all the camps the germans couldn't of killed them 6 million! How do you kill more than others? If your dead you dead! Con has no evidence(1) The Zündel Trials (1985 and 1988) by ROBERT FAURISSON
Hitler was right

1. Hitler is evil I have not been able to interview the 6 million Jews because they are dead thanks to Hitler. Not all the Jews were killed in the consecration camps, many were killed by gassing or being shot upon arrival. Hitler was not Jewish he was born of a Catholic mother and never converted over to Judaism (1). Hitler ordered the Final Solution which was a plan to mass exterminate the Jews (2). If Hitler didn't hate the Jews than why would he say this "I could have annihilated all the Jews, but I left some of them to let you know why I was Annihilating them." Doesn't sound like a man who loves the Jews 2. Nazis were evil 1. No nation attacked first when Hitler invaded them. 2.While some came to Nazism willingly, most were scared and threatened to obey or be invaded. 3. Holocaust was Evil There were more than one concentration camps in Europe. Some killed more than others and even if it is 4 million that is still 4 million people killed by the order by Hitler. Sources (1) http://hnn.us... (2) http://www.ppu.org.uk...
Hitler was right

1. Hitler was evil Have you interviewed all 6 million of those people? Nope? Didn't think so! 6 million weren't killed. You have not given evidence for that! Most pictures of dead childern and people were on the axis's side! Hitler probably had 400,000 at most killed and these were the radical jews who striked first! These were radical jews who wanted to overthrow the governemnt! The nazis were acting in defense! Hitler had no problem with Jews, he was one! [1]2.Nazis were evilThose nations either 1. Attacked first2. Came to nazism willinglyMost of those nations came willingly when Hitler asked. Hitler ignored many nations around him! Why? Because He won people over with facts and his ideas3. Holocaust was evilNo he didn't kill 6 mill. It was a lie! He only killed the ones that striked first. [1] http://www.whale.to...
Hitler was right

1. Hitler was evil While my opponent shows one person who says she is not against Hitler, compare her to the 50-70 million who died during WWII thanks to Hitler starting World War II (1) I have a feeling she is a little out numbered . What about the 6 million European Jews who died thanks to the Nazis, or the 84 German Generals Hitler had executed (2) My opponent claims that children know who's good and who's evil, if so lets see what these children think. I wonder if any of these kids want to give a hug to Hitler. I am completely horrified that anyone can defend this man who ordered the death of these children and the 6 million Jews.2.Nazis where evilThey took the rights of the citizens and then invaded Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, Belgium, Holland, France, Monaco, Greece, Czechoslovakia, Netherlands, Yugoslavia, and many more (3) while also taking their rights. Not to mention the mass killing of Jews, Homosexuals, Minorities, and the disabled. That means a total of 11 million people died not fighting the war just being who they are. 3. Holocaust was evilHow in the HELL can anyone defend the holocaust, I don't care if I get conduct taken away for this, but this is pure insanity. The death of 6 million Jews and countless others that were mistreated. Just for medical knowledge are you kidding me this is completely horrible. How is this a debate, defending Hitler is like defending complete evil and after this round I will have to go and wash my hands of this filth.Sources(1) http://worldwar2.org.uk... (2) http://www.statisticbrain.com... (3) http://www.theholocaustexplained.org...