BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Public HighSchool Students of the U.S. ought not be required to take a standardized exit exam to g

I will do what my opponent asks and wish to say good job and good luck in the voting rounds. __________________________________________________________________________________________________ Voting issues: Voters I would like to provide some issues. Well 1 I have none. and 2 I would like to say to all the voters that if you choose me thank you and if you choose him I can't say anything about it to change your decision. Thank you all for your time, especially my opponent and thank you to the comment board. If you want to vote either of us, go ahead we both are worthy of any input that you have on this argument. If anyone would like to send me tips on an argument that could've gone better send me a messenge.
Public HighSchool Students of the U.S. ought not be required to take a standardized exit exam to g

ters I'm only I would like to remind my opponent and voters that I'm only trying to become a better debater. SO thank you! +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ V:My value achieves more then his can achieve because my case is backed up by "The No Child Left Behind" Act of 2001. My value achieves more then his value of justice because my value uses the democracy of the United States to make ultalitarianism work as a value. His value achieves equality, which as you know is impossible because we all learn differently, comprehend differently, and therefore use the test and value of the test differently. If his value of Justice can beat my value of ultalitarianism, which is the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. So I want to remind the voters that no one is equal. VC: His argument towards my value criterion of the test, well you can't achieve ultalitarianism without the test, which my contention C states that so far 90% of teens pass the exam. I'm sorry for mistaking his subpoints for contentions. Sub A: Point 1) Funding of this test uses the money that in which goes to the students as of the constitution " 75% of taxpayers money goes toward schools. " It is not unconstitutional Point 2) My opponent says that these exit exams don't warrant the outcomes in education. Well it does match the standards of the state and of the nation. Point 3) My opponent says that the exit exam doesn't give us any preparation for the workforce. So he's saying the test is a waste of time and we should get rid of it. I disagree because if no one is prepared for life and the workforce we have a bunch of simpletons in office and if this test is enforced it's not bad because the kids have to only know the bare minimum of 8th grade math and 10th grade English, which is the bare minimum and can be more difficult. Sub B:Well 1 I didn't say that it points out only the "poor peoples'" weaknesses I said everyone's weaknesses. So if he can find anything that states this test doesn't I win the argument. Point 1) The brighter world is a better workforce. Point 2) In this point he states that kids will be derived of progressing societal welfare and economical progression. If he can't give the evidence I win this argument because this test only progresses those important social prospects. Point 3) Well the test is suppose to prevent that from happening because of the private scores and teachers help. My case: His attack on my value is that of bias and discrimination, which as you all know it is graded by a machine. I win that argument alone. The equal rights of the United States state that everyone is enabled the right of a public school education, which is the reason this test is taken. My criterion is a criterion because this test is part of my value. His only attack is about the scores which is true of the 90% passing. My defense of C1 and C2 is still silence is consent. Vote Neg in this argument.
Public HighSchool Students of the U.S. ought not be required to take a standardized exit exam to g

First, I am going to state my Opponents flaws then defend my case. V: Justice. Justice is not a sufficient value because the purpose of the exit exam is to get ready for life and be prepared to go into the workforce. With his value of Justice he agrees with my Value of Ultalitarinism. Why? He state the good things for the citizens. The good things for the citizens is for them to be prepared to enter the workforce and ready for life. C: He states that a legitimate system of education " requires equal distribution." I, as well as the other people that stand by me, say that a legitimate system of education can't work with out something that measures how well one is doing. This is the purpose of this exit exam. So if my opponent can't triumph is value and his value criterion over mine, I win. C1:He states that "receiving less qualified educational instructors and less overall resources than districts with more available funds." That is the point of the exit exam to get them prepared for the workforce and ready for life. The funds of this test don't matter because for our students to be prepared for the workforce the sacrifices equal more job opportunities and we have a bunch of smart people running this country as well as the world. C2:He states in Contention B that "simply entrenching already disadvantaged students further by labeling them falsely as failures." With this exit exam we can help them by pointing out there weak points. The poorer people have an advantage of this test because this test opens the door to a brighter future for the test taker, the family, and benefits those around him/her. My case:I will now defend my case. V: My value is ultalitarinism. Which indicates the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Those people are the test takers. If there is a superior of people passing this test then ultalitarinism is a better value over Justice. Tyranny is banned by the " NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND" Act of 2001. If I am not mistaking this test enforces this act. C: The criterion of the test is a sufficient value criterion because through Ultalitarinism the test enforces the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Since he didn't state anything on my Contentions 1-3, Silence is Conence, I win that argument. Vote Neg and my value will be achieved.
Public HighSchool Students of the U.S. ought not be required to take a standardized exit exam to g

This arguement is in the form of LD format please if you don't know the format here's the format Aff, Cross-X, Neg, Cross-X, AFF rebuttal, NEG rebutal, then Aff rebuttal. Negative: High School Exit Exams In this round I negate the resolution: Public high school of the United States should be required to take the High School Exit Exams. Definitions: United States – A democracy in which 50 states are entitled the right of a public education. Public High School – An area of which students to learn in grades 9-12 grades to be prepared for this exam. Utilitarianism - the ethical doctrine that virtue is based on utility, and that conduct should be directed toward promoting the greatest happiness of the greatest number of persons. My value for this round is: utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. This goes with the test because the greatest amounts of people pass the exam. My criterion for this round is: the test itself. The test itself passes 9 out of 10 people per year and increasing. Contention A: Scores. The scores are very important in this argument because these scores are essential evidence. Sub point I: The Scores are 9 out of 10 passing rate and the other 10 percent passes either in 12th grade or as an adult. These scores make this test seem having a greatest good for the greatest amount of people. These scores make sense that every race black, white, Hispanic, or Mexican are smart enough for these states so far to have a 90% passing rate. Contention B: Passing scores. The greatest good for the greatest amount of people states that if the person who has the most bias should have that vote. Basically if the person with the most passing scores should have it. So my idea is that with utilitarianism if there are passing scores and a bunch of people passing the greatest good to the greatest amount of people should be the people who pass and take the test. For these reasons I stand firm of the negative and state again my value is utilitarianism and my criterion is the test. I'm now open for cross-examinatation and points of clarification. Thank you.
Texting

Texting, when performed in moderation, is an adequate and useful method of communication. Texting provides the opportunity for easy communication on-the-go, for situations when a phone would be overkill or when face-to-face contact is impossible. Although face-to-face interaction is a meaningful and important aspect of any person's life, it simply isn't possible to always communicate that way, especially when separated by distance. Texting allows people to stay in touch when they can't meet in person, and there is nothing wrong than that.
Taxation is theft

You seem driven more by outrage than reasoning with this debate.I understand your points, though I do feel they're a wee bit overly exaggerated, but you have to take it into context: most of these programs that our taxes are being invested in such as education, healthcare and the environment, are used to help Americans such as yourself. Without taxes, our society would not be able to sustain itself properly. Our education systems would barely be able to function without state funding. Healthcare plans such as Obamacare would cease to exist. The military would be nothing more than a band of undisciplined adults running on a battlefield waving Lego guns in the air and shouting "Bang! Bang!" The national debt would go through the roof.Whether we like it or not, we need taxes to provide for the necessary services from our government.
Taxation is theft

If I come to your house and steal money and/or valuable property and give it to starving children in Africa, does that make It any less of a theft? Just because the government alledges to use the money for your benefit doesn't make it any more moral to take your private property against your will. The government provides nothing for the citizens directly, they steal money from some people and give it to others. Take for example roads, the government steals money and calls it taxation and then in turn hires a private contractor to actually construct the roads. This can be done in a voluntary free market exchange just like any other good or service. If you want a road you're fine with having money stolen from you to build the road, but you wouldn't freely give up some of your money for the convenience of having the use of a road? You give up money for the convenience of having a smart phone or computer, so how is it any different? The government doesn't have to steal money from you in order for you to get all the other goods and services you recieve, so it is not automatically necessary for them to "tax" you in order for you to obtain any other good or service they purport to provide. The fact that the government takes money against a citizens will, by definition, makes it theft. Just because a thief uses money for good purposes doesn't negate the fact that it is theft. If theft is wrong for any individual or group then it is morally wrong for governments as well. The government punishes individuals or groups for taking money or private property against the owners will, so they instead give it a magical name called tax and it somehow makes the very same action right and moral and just? For example a while back a hacker hacked an FBI agents bank account and drained all the money out and donated it to the Red Cross and a handful of other charities. So since the hacker thief didn't keep the money and instead gave it to charity you're saying his actions are not by definition theft? I'll end the round with this..... Mafia Joe shows up at your home or business and offers to provide protection and other services to you for 30 percent of your yearly earnings. You don't get to choose how or when he decides to protect you or what services he will provide for you. He finishes by telling you that you have no choice in accepting or rejecting his services, because if you do refuse and resist he will send some of his colleagues over to your home to forcibly extract you and relocate you to a cage, and if you resist his efforts he will authorize his colleagues to shoot and or kill you if necessary. Now that sounds obviously immoral and wrong for mafia joe to do. Now replace the phrase mafia joe and replace it with the term government official. This very same action now becomes legitimate and moral and not theft and extortion just because the name of the perpetrator changed? The name/title is just a word. So you're telling me that if I call myself a government official and I come steal your private property, it isn't theft so long as I only keep a little bit of the money and give the rest away to other people?
Taxation is theft

This is a pretty interesting topic. I'm glad to be debating this.Well, without further ado, I shall introduce some basic terms from Dictionary.com:Theft: the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny. Tax: a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc. Taxes are a heavy burder for every American, and I will not deny that. But to call it outright theft is exaggeration to say the least. These taxdollars are not used to give greedy politicians money to pay for their third pet shark. These taxes are being invested on services used for the benefit of the majority of Americans. Below is a chart from the website, "The Society Pages," (https://thesocietypages.org...) s://thesocietypages.org...; alt="" />I understand that our yearly taxes are a very heavy burden, but every American must do his or her own part so that necessary government services and areas in society such as education and the military are well funded so that this society can work properly and thrive.
Taxation is theft

Taxation is theft. Dictionary definitions : Taxation: 1. a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc. 2. a burdensome charge, obligation, duty, or demand. Theft: 1. the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it Stealing: 1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force Right: 1. in accordance with what is good, proper, or just: right conduct. 2. in conformity with fact, reason, truth, or some standard or principle; correct: Moral: 1. of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: According to these definitions taxation is theft because it is a sum of money demanded by a government and it removes private property from its rightful owner through the act of stealing. No person can delegate a right to other people that they themselves don't have. If the citizen is not allowed to do an action then the government or its officials have no right to do the same action. If an action is considered morally wrong then it is universally wrong, regardless of what a person or group calls themselves. A moral principle can only exist if it applies universally across the board. One of the alleged functions of government is to protect the private property rights of its citizens, taxation violates private property and thus the government acts in a manner that it deems immoral for any citizen to act, which is by definition hypocrital. Debate format: Round 1 - state your arguement(s) Round 2 - rebuttal of opponents arguments Round 3 - summation/closing statements
this is for no reason

http://www.youtube.com...What my opponent argued can be rebutted quite simply. The reason for him making a debate fro no reason was to either improve his arguing skills on a unique topic, or because he didn't know anything better to debate about.Extend my original argument.On top of that, to fulfill my opponent's original intent for the debate, my random things were more entertaining, as he didn't post any.Pro- 0Con - 3
this is for no reason

. http://www.youtube.com...Well then fine. Here's a video:BUT THAT WON'T BE A VERY FUN FIVE-ROUND DEBATE, WILL IT? All Debates Serve to Improve One's Arguing SkillsThe purpose of debate. org is to provide a place where users can excercise their skills in creating a rational argument. This debate is no exception to that purpose. I feel that's the only contention I need, seeing that Pro did not provide an argument.
Rap Battle: Nietzsche vs. Marx

Guten tag Marx so you think that you can play hard I'm the Ubermensch motherfvcker and I'm about to bombard you and yer little working class; defeat you will amass Don't fvck with the immoralist if you can't take his fvcking brass Amor fati bltch, gonna relive your defeat eternally Don't hide behind Engels he can't save you from this guarantee I'll rip yer spine out; that is if I could fine one I'm yer Aristocratic nightmare, yer end has only just begun We could go down the line from labor to class consciousness But does it really matter is anyone still watching this sad excuse for a philosophy yer purporting to be the final end; That's laughable, you straight up failed and yer defeat is only thinly veiled I'm here to make it clear to everyone that yer ship has sailed Give it up and go home there's nothing here left to be said Quit now before yer flag isn't the only thing that's bleeding red.
Rap Battle: Nietzsche vs. Marx

I created the most powerful nations in the world, Soviet Union, China, now I am getting p*ssy from all the Asian and Russian girls. I'm about to lyrically bitch slap that paradoxical smile off face, make no haste I won't let you go to waste. You said God was dead and thought you were so clever, I invented a world where men can live equally forever. You pathetic excuse for a philosopher, is Ubermensch all you got to mutter? Going insane from your own thoughts how lame, the own people who made you thought you were a shame. Make no mistake Friedrich, I heard you got syphilis from sucking a Genoan's d***. Boom, buzz kill Communist Manifesto Motherf****, Now I am finished putting you in a lyrical diaper.
Random Poetry Battle

The internet, you say? Well it does happen to suck today... Which do you prefer? Google or bing? Or a different pecuiliar thing? The meme trap you in with a giggle-fit lure. I don't always rhyme in memes, But when I do it's the topic, it seems. Ermagerd, I must stop, This is simply to much and makes my head want to pop. Brace yourself, This battle goes up on the shelf.
Random Poetry Battle

I must say I'm puzzled By the poems at hand. What are we arguing- this seems rather bland! I think we should discuss a matter of pro or con Or we risk blathering on and on and on Is there a topic, or is there simply no theme? Since this is debate.org Then it would seem A conversational basis could be a good aim Or are we merely playing a juvenile game? (either is fine, I have not a thought but we should decide yes, that we ought.)
Random Poetry Battle

Oh, surely they don't stink And that's the point, I'm here to make you think And for the one who just farted That smell reeks, I think it was my brother It's not for the faint-hearted Your rhyme, I assure you it's fine It's weird and unique Not even to bleak Oh no, what's that? Crap, it's crap I have to clean the floor from a present left by my cat... Looks like this kitty won't get a snack Avast, I'll be right back...
Random Poetry Battle

You don't have to be good at this, as you will see by me; I suck. Just write what is on your mind and have fun. _______ Give me your best To start off this test Write what you will Even if it's to shrill I only bade a religous space Oh, please, it doesn't belong in this place This is a place for the brighest of ways Or to write down your hardest of dismays This battle is not to bash That is a terrible behavior and belongs in the trash This battle is to help you improve To learn strageties that fit the way you move So...have fun Because the battle has just begun.
Random Poetry Battle

Very well then, my friend. Sorry to see this come to an end. You fought hard and with might. Something I won't forget this night. A true knight with words you are, Atleast we got to come this far. I'm glad that you chose this debate, It's a characteristic to like and not hate. I may continue this another day, Another opponent would enjoy if they may. Sorry this was such a bore, It was a fun thing to experience and I might do it more.
There is undeniable evidence for the Theory of Evolution Take 2

Many people doubt god for the same simple reason. Where did he come from? since know one is able to to truly answer this question other than with the answer of 'faith' alot of people turn on the idea and and accept evolution. But very few ask they question, ' well since we all started out a micro-organisms, where did the first micro-organism come from?' Acknowledging this question i see no 'undeniable' evidence. the theory of evolution is that we all evolved from apes, which evolved from some thing else all the way back to the first bacteria. it also says that the earth was formed from balls of gas. I fail to see, this as fact. all the land and sea just magically multiplied from billions of micro-organisms? i cannot acknowledge this as fact. Seeing something as remarkable as the human brain... it is hard to imagine that this was simply build by nature. The only undeniable force at work i can see here is that of another being or a 'god'. Look at the complexity of the earth, and the human body. This simply cannot have evolved from nothing, such as the theory of evolution suggests. no, this has to be the work of a greater being. I would like my opponent to show some examples of how the theory of evolution is so 'undeniable' thankyou -foshizzle
"is god real?"

Okay ......... Anyway, since ur last post bordered on absolute incoherence, I'm not sure if I even have to post a closing statement. But hey, its 2:19 in the morning, maybe I could aim to be just as incoherent. ---------------------- Why do I believe there is a God? Because our world is so screwed up that there HAS to be a god. Let's take everyone's favorite example. Adolph Hitler. If I was a German and this guy in a funny mustache told me the solution to our ailing economy is to build up a huge army, go to war with every country around us (a war which we already lost) and then wipe out all the Jews, I'd go: "Yooo man, that's some powerful sh*t your smoking. Where can I get hooked up on some of that sh*t?" Clearly World War II and the Holocaust were products of divine intervention. They were trials created by God to test human souls, putting us through almost insurmountable obstacles or just in the vicinity of abuses of human rights to see which of us are humane and which of us are apathetic. ------------------------------------------ Now it's possible that humans are by essence vile and belligerent creatures who enjoy the infliction of pain and torment upon others. If that's what you believe, then I understand why you question the existence of God(s). But I hold the point of view that if left alone, humans would be able to cooperate and live in peaceful coexistence. After all, we're biologically geared towards cooperative survival. The tendency to socialized and coordinate is hardwired into our genetic make up. It's how our ancestors survived and prospered from the stone age to the modern age. And if it is in our genetic make up to cooperate, then only Divine Intervention can explain the scale of man-made disaster that continuously sweeps our world. Because Only then can it be a good testing ground of the human spirit. Thank you.