BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Reform of the Common Core

Before we can argue about the reform of the Common Core system, we must first understand what it is. The Common Core, introduced in 2010 after being developed in 2009, set nation-wide standards for reading and mathematics levels. The standards consist of a system of standardized tests, and how well students do on these standardized tests determine how much funding the schools that the students are in get. While I understand the benefits of a universal testing system for students, the Common Core system is riddled with problems, and needs serious reform, if not abolition. First of all, a student"s knowledge, talent, and creativity cannot be summed up into a series of standardized tests. The CCSSI tests base a school"s ability to teach students solely on math and reading skills, completely disregarding the classes teaching arts and music. It doesn"t even test all subjects that most schools teach. In this system, a school specializing in the arts would be marked as a low-ranked school, even though it would have clear benefits over other schools. It would receive less funding than other schools. Worse, the tests are often horribly designed and subject to mechanical problems. For instance, one of the Common Core exams that schools often take, the PARCC test, has been the cause of protest in several states. In New Mexico, hundreds of students protested by "walking out of school." In New Jersey, thousands of students protested by refusing to take the test. Florida could not even allow students to take the test because of computer problems. https://www.washingtonpost.com... As stated previously, the design of CCSSI tests are often absolutely horrible, and incorporate useless questions into them. Linked below are some insanely stupid and unnecessarily complicated common core test questions. In some, the answer is literally given in the question. In others, language so complex is used that calculus students had trouble deciphering it. http://www.techinsider.io... https://www.washingtonpost.com... The test that the letter in the article above cites is linked below https://roundtheinkwell.files.wordpress.com... What may be the biggest problem with the common core is the extent to which it restricts teachers and forces them to teach classes that involve focusing more on test-taking skills than on actual, meaningful content. Realistically, any school with a standardized test-determined budget will spend massively increased amounts of time teaching material related to taking the tests, rather than on meaningful subjects. http://www.businessinsider.com... I would say more on the subject, but I am somewhat pressed for time. Ultimately, the SSCCI system needs significant reform, for the reasons above.
Reform of the Common Core

I accept, upon the condition that Pro defines his terms next round, or accepts my suggested ones. Suggested Definitions:Reform: the improvement or amendment of what is wrong, corrupt, unsatisfactory, etc.Common Core: slang for The Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI).CCSSI: an educational initiative in the United States that details what K–12 students should know in English language arts and mathematics at the end of each grade.Awaiting Pro.References:http://www.corestandards.org...https://en.wikipedia.org...
diabetes and cancer researchers should invest more in saving people

Well, it appears as though my opponent is shy with his/her strong opinions, much to my dismay. I would suggest that the debate is over on the grounds of Pro's forfeit, but I will state one quick argument in case my opponent should return swinging: From a benevolent, altruistic perspective, everything should be funded more. I certainly wish that less money was funneled into the military and more into education and health research, but that is an aside. The focus here is on efficiency, and spending what we have in the right places. There are many ways I can interpret Pro's initial statements about the debate: there is certainly no tenable position to be found in the arguments that researchers should self-fund out-of-pocket, or each person in the world has a moral obligation to go up to a scientist and hand him a $10 bill, so I will interpret 'people' to mean the government. From there, we need to look at the distribution of money as it is, into health research. According to sources 1 and 2, respectively, spending on diabetes in the US alone in 2010 was estimated at $1.9 billion, and cancer research in the US averages $4.9 billion per year. In my third source (for anyone unfamiliar with NCBI, they're great- very reputable and an excellent resource if you ever need one for a paper, etc) Dr. Carlos Morel makes the claim that the most underfunded area of research and treatment is in fact that of infectious and/or parasitic diseases. With that in mind, I would submit that many health ailments (obesity comes to mind) have a larger ratio of impact on society to funding, relative to both cancer and diabetes. I look forward to Pro's response, should they provide one, and thank voters in advance for their time.
In MW2 the ACR is much better than the Tar 21, and the Ac130 is better than the Chopper Gunner

None of it is arguable for the chief reason that it is your opinion. Biased examples are what they are, biased. You can't used biased information as your chief support. For example I could say that it is my opinion that dog turds are good My supporting information could be my first hand knowledge of dog turds, how I like the smell, and how I like eating them. There would be nothing to debate. Dog turds are obviously disgusting, but what are you going to say? "No dog turds are disgusting I have smelled them and they are awful" Then I could simply rebut, no my opinion is, that I like them. And you lose the debate. Discussing opinions using firsthand experience with someone is called an argument Arguing a resolution with well defined terms and guidelines, using factual information from reliable sources is a debate. With an opinionated resolution, there is no argument and thus is no debate.
In MW2 the ACR is much better than the Tar 21, and the Ac130 is better than the Chopper Gunner

To be honest, I am a new debater to this site. And I probably did screw up my contentions a bit for that reason. But i did throw many things out there that could be debated. I provided examples of how it feels when piloting both vehicles, and what is wrong with the chopper gunnner. Now just because it is my opinion that does not make the subject undebatable. The reason you debate in the first place is mostly because of mixed opinions. So i urge my opponent to re-read my Contentions, and argue whatever you feel is arguable. Thank you
In MW2 the ACR is much better than the Tar 21, and the Ac130 is better than the Chopper Gunner

My opponent has presented me with a resolution that can't be debated by adding "in my opinion". Opinions are not resolutions and thus are not debatable. How could someone possibly refute anything that is your opinion. My opponent has also failed to define better, much, and has furthermore failed to give any distinguishable guideline in order to distinguish better from worse and much better from just plain better. Furthermore, my opponent's entire supporting information is derived from himself and comes from no valid sources. Since my opponent is the one debating, all of his information that comes from himself is opinionated and is thus considered to be biased towards my opponents views. Since the information is biased it is invalid. Unfortunately had this been a 4 (or higher) round debate, we could have continued arguing. However at Round 2 in the debate with no real affirmation, definitions, guidelines, or valid supporting information, I'm afraid the only option for my opponent is to forfeit the last round. Even if my opponent does come up with a clear resolution that contains no "in my opinion" (such resolution I suggested in R1), definitions, guidelines and valid supporting information it will only be rebutted without any chance of my opponent having any say or argument against. It is my recommendation to my opponent to create another debate challenging me with a clear resolution(such resolution I suggested in R1), definitions, guidelines and valid supporting information. I will gladly accept the debate and participate in it. However with an opinionated resolution, there is no argument and thus is no debate.
In MW2 the ACR is much better than the Tar 21, and the Ac130 is better than the Chopper Gunner

I await my opponent's affirmation, definitions, and supporting information for her affirmation. Affirmation - an affirmation is a statement you are trying to debate for. Usually done in the "I affirm that _Topic___of___debate" format. In this case your affirmation would be I affirm that in Modern Warfare 2 the Adaptive Combat Rifle is much better than the Tarvor Assault Rifle for the 21st Century. Furthermore I affirm that the Lockheed AC-130 gunship (aircraft) is better than the Chopper Gunner. Definitions and Explanation: Here is where you should define the words: much, better, give pictures of the weapons/vehicles, set up a strict standard for the words much and better. Making it clear where to draw the line between a little better and much better, and also setting up a standard between better and worse. These lines should be clearly distinguishable. For example if I was to bring up another 2 weapons or vehicles to compare to, I could easily see fit them into a category of worse, better, little better, and much better. Supporting Information - This is where you would include reasons why the Adaptive Combat and the Chopper Gunner are better than Tarvor Assault Rifle for the 21st Century and the Chopper Gunner respectively. The supporting information should utilize your definitions and explanations. You should clearly show why they are better. As the person who created the resolution, you have the burden of proof and thus must prove, (using your definitions and explanations) along with examples factual/logical information why the guns/vehicles are considered better. Thanks and good luck on the debate!
In MW2 the ACR is much better than the Tar 21, and the Ac130 is better than the Chopper Gunner

I want to debate 2 of the guns in Mw2, and 2 of the kill streaks. If this debate is accepted then i hope to find an opponent who not only has the game, but has used all 4 things i have described. PLease be sure to answer the topic i brought up, and once that is done you may feel free to ask another question, or bring up a different point about the subject, i obviously feel that the ACR is superior to the Tar-21.. and that the Ac130 is superior to the chopper gunner
backwardsedan is an immature c*cksucking b*tch.

What good does insulting him back do? Even if everyone on this site started insulting him, I really doubt it would change anything. I think he is more likely to change if we was nice to him. For the most part human nature has this stubbornness, And pride issue. When someone insults someone it only causes more insults, And sometimes violence, Or it could cause suicide.
backwardsedan is an immature c*cksucking b*tch.

Even if he didn't respond. Even if he literally called me every name in the book. I would still respond with loving words, Kindness, And encouragement. You never know, It could cause some effect in the future, Where it makes him realize he did wrong. Also like I said, We don't know him, Or what he has been through. He may be acting this way because he has been through things in life that caused him to be this way. I know that is not always a good excuse, But he may not understand how to express himself any differently, Or maybe has emotional problems. I know he insulted you. He insulted me too, But I don't feel like it's right that we insult him, Just because he insulted us. Anger and insults only produce more anger and insults, And when it's all said and done, What do we accomplish? It's only throwing fuel on the fire.
backwardsedan is an immature c*cksucking b*tch.

I agree that he does act immature, And he needs to really think through what he is even arguing. Look at my debate I had with him. http://www. Debate. Org/debates/How-moral-do-you-think-you-are-gingerly-fitted-in-between-you-and-your-god/1/ The part I disagree with is calling him names. Even if he is acting this way, He is a fellow human being and we shouldn't be calling him such harsh names. We should be encouraging him to think through what he is saying, And help him better himself. I'm not saying that in my debate with him I said all the right things. I probably messed up, And maybe said something I shouldn't of said, But I know that I am no better than him. I am a horrible person. I know this debate isn't about God, But what God has taught me is to not put someone down. We need to use encouraging words of love. Sometimes we need to use a little bit of tough love, Not in a sense of condemning people or calling names, But in a sense of telling truth, And helping them better themselves. Use words that bring him up, Instead of bring him down. We are all humans, And we struggle with our own problems. He might have things going on, Or problems we don't know about. Please don't take this as I am attacking you or anything, Because if someone was calling you a name, I would stick up for you as well.
backwardsedan is an immature c*cksucking b*tch.

backwardsedan is an immature idiot. When you disagree with him he screams at you and calls you an idiot, While blindly believing whatever proof you refute. Granted he does it when people support questionable parts of religion, That doesn't mean his response is appropriate, Nor does it cover his flaws. This is all based on one debate I had with him, So I could be wrong. Con may start.
Written Exams Should Be Open Book For Science Subjects.

In education, written exams have existed for a long time. However, as time goes by, civilization has advanced so far that we now live in an age where information is of abundance and easily accessible. The point is, as our technology advances, shouldn't our education evolve along with it?I as Pro believes that written exams should all be open booked. FormatRound 1 Acceptance + Arguments by ConRound 2 Refutal + Arguments by Pro, Refutal + Arguments by ConRound 3 Refutal +Conclusion by Pro, Conclusion by Con. DefinitionWritten examinations/test are tests that are administered on paper or on a computer. A test taker who takes a written test could respond to specific items by writing or typing within a given space of the test or on a separate form or document. These do NOT include laboratory test, oral test and other such test where additional steps are required (such as painting, dancing, performing, etc)Open book involves allowing external material for reference into the examination INCLUDING text books, notes, notebooks, smart phones and etc. This does NOT mean plagiarism is allowed with or without consent from original author.Science subjects include mathematics, biology, chemistry, physics.BOP is shared by both Pro and Con.
Waffles are better than pancakes

1. Portion control Waffles are always the same portion whereas pancakes are not. This is helpful for anyone counting calories and watching portion size. 2. Geometric shape The gridded and pocketed shape of a waffle allows syrup and butter to be absorbed and kept within the pockets of the waffle. Pancakes have a smooth surface where syrup naturally flows down. If you had other food on your plate (like eggs) this can ruin the flavor by having it get syrupy. 3. Effort It requires less effort to make a waffle. For eggos, just take the waffle out of the toaster and pop it down. For pancakes you need to be scraping the pan with a spatula and flipping the pancake to make sure both sides are cooked. 4. Consistency Waffles can be timed by a toaster and pop out toasted the same way everytime. Pancakes have different consistency each time you cook them. If you don't cook a pancake well enough there could be chunky batter when you take a bite... Yuck. 5. Time Waffles take less time to cook than pancakes do. Waffles take about 3 minutes to cook in a toaster and pancakes take about 10 minutes to cook in the pan.
is starwars better than brave heart

I agree and cannot say otherwise Star Wars. I do like Braveheart however it has too many historical inaccuracies. For example when William Wallace kissis the princess and she looks about 20, she was actually 2. Also, it portraits the English as brutal, ruthless, unfair tyrants. # Star Wars has 7 episodes (9 main ones in the future and the prequels were bad) most of which are fantastic plot twisting master pieces. Further more, Star Wars does not have to be historically or science accurate as it is set in a 'Galaxy far far away'. It is hard to compare the two as they are so different but when it comes to it the Star Wars saga is the dominant one.
There is no rational path from deism to theism

1) Perhaps the debate was not so clear, but I argued on the argument you had, not the one you wanted to have. As pro, your stance is based off the topic, meaning you affirm that there is no rational path from deism to theism, or from believing in a god to a specific faith. You then state that we can't know which religion is correct, and that we need evidence, concluding there is no way anyone could choose a religion without it. I showed exactly how and why someone could in several different scenarios, without resorting to leaps of faith. My examples all showed how they were willing to believe in a religion by way of teaching, a form of evidence. They did not just up and say "Well, looks I believe in god!" They all had to be persuaded, and believed the evidence that was provided by their converters. Each example followed your path that you gave in the conclusion of R1. If you wanted to argue that there was no way to chose the right religion, you should have said so in the topic and resolution, something along the lines of "There is no rational way that one could choose the correct religion". Instead, you argued that there was no rational path, in which I showed you there were, even if they did not fall under your standards. In conclusion, I may have missed your idea on what this debate was about, but I argued based off the subject you provided to the best of my ability. I wish you the best of luck on making your debates more clear, and hold to my end of the resolution that there is a ration path from deism to theism. 2) Apparently you missed all the parts were it said "religious persecution". Meaning if you did not follow the majority religion of the region, you got picked on, most often in violent ways.
There is no rational path from deism to theism

I am sorry, but it seems you completely misunderstood my argument, perhaps I didn't clarify myself well enough. I never said that an atheist could not become a theist, that would be a stupid argument because there are many atheists that became theists. However this does not prove that there is a rational path to theism at all. Your job is to show the evidence and rational arguments one could use to prefer one religion over another. Not the methods by which it is possible to appeal to one's feelings to convince him to make a leap of faith to a specific religion. I am talking about showing that something is actually "true" by methods of evidence based rational not just making a leap of faith to something that may be "worth believing". What I was expecting was that someone would try to provide some physical or historical evidence that would support his specific religious claims. Explaining the methods by which churches or synagogues attract people to their preachings is totally irrelevant. You really missed the entire point of the debate. P.S Thanks for those interesting links but they do not support your claim that in the middle east "your basically 'this religion' or dead". Does Israel, for example, operate in this manner ? FYI, the percentage of atheists living in Israel is higher than that of the U.S. but this has nothing to do with our debate anyway. see: http://baconeatingatheistjew.blogspot.com...
There is no rational path from deism to theism

You asked if there was a rational path, and I gave t to you. It happens just like in the order you contended it could not. You said there is not, meaning there is not a way one could turn into a theist from being an atheist in that order. I described several methods on how it could. We, therefore, do not agree. You do not think someone could do that and I did. Now, with your final round, since you just wasted this one, is to prove that my use of your ration path is not actually rational. My side as Con has been fulfilled and now it is your turn. 1)http://www.religioustolerance.org... http://www.globalissues.org... http://geography.howstuffworks.com... Educate yourself. Now, I understand there is always an acceptation to the rule, but I am talking about generalities. Many parts of the Middle East are governed according to a specific church, where basic freedoms we take for granted are suppressed, like freedom of religion. 2) My mistake, I meant Israel. So back to the real debate, you must now prove, in one round, that my examples are not ones of a rational path to theism. My main point was that the right religion will never be known, and that people chose their religion of choice based on personal preference, if that option is open to them. While you may not agree that that is right, it is still a rationale. If you are arguing about the 'right' religion then that is a different topic for a different time. But right now we are discussing how one can logically chose their path to any type of religion, be it Christian or otherwise. I await your final response.
There is no rational path from deism to theism

Thanks for your response. This is a bit funny you describe verbosely your concept of how people reach a specific religion and sum up with the following: "This 'rational convergence' into a specific religion is not based off of either right or wrong, but which suits the person at the time" Well, if that is what you think you really shouldn't have chosen this debate since we are both in full agreement. You are basically also taking a pro stand with regard to the topic title so why did you choose this debate ??? BTW: two notes for you: 1. "The extreme examples would be those of the Middle East, where your basically 'this religion' or dead" Well I assure you this is not true for the entire middle east. What is true is that within some fundamentalist Islamic countries like Iran you can not leave Islam, or you are killed. Note that there are Jewish and Christian minorities living, even in Iran, and they are not forced to become Muslims. 2. "Islam is a Jewish nation" I don't even know what you are talking about ??? Can you explain what this means ?