BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Standardized testing is a good thing

When you come home from school your parent asks how was your day you say I sat in a desk writing the hole day. No parent wants to see their children upset,exhausted,and has pains from typing. Kids who are struggling in school the worst thing you can do is put a 50 page test on their lap. Doing work in the class would be better because the teacher can't help them during the test if they don't understand something. In normal work in school the teacher can spend more time with the students who are having struggles to help them understand their work and achieve higher grades in that subject and this can keep happening when you are a senior. Vote for me JAMES
Standardized testing is a good thing

ROUND 2 - COUNTERARGUMENTS: (Rebuttal 1): You cannot bring you personal life into a debate - it is unproffesional and unreliable. Not all kids enjoy school - you need a survey to back up your claim. There are going to be some things in life that you will not like and will have to do and/or get through for your benefit. And the tests are nessisay to see if students are learning, if they understand what they are learning, and if the teachers are doing their jobs.(Rebuttal 2): Homework is not an accurate estimate of a child's academic level. Their hands will hurt doing homework and regular school work as well! We might as well just ban school if you are going to be upset that your hand is hurting. Please use evidence and facts from sites and use statistics to support your claims.I rest my case for now ~ Sara
Standardized testing is a good thing

1. Kids in school enjoy school its not their favorite thing in the world but they enjoy school. Then when kids are sitting for half the school day in a desk writing they lose their spark for school some people I know try to avoid the school because of testing. 2. Can't you just gather their over all grades in work in the class instead of putting them through a 3 hour test for two weeks. It makes no sense that their doing this just use their grades from work in class and their homework. No more standardized tests. Kids will get tired and their hands will hurt from typing so much also when will you ever use that in life it is a complete waste of time please no more testing!
Story battle

your profile says you were online 12 hours ago, the least you could do is act like you know this debate exist and appologize for the forfiets or something. seriously your a disgrace to these debates when you dont say something when you forfiet, espisally repeatedly.Its one thing when you just quit using the site for a while and forgot you still have a debate going, but you having left, you keep loggin in and you keep ignoring the big yellow (1) next to the 'Home' on the top of your screen. you ought to know you have an actual debate going on.
Story battle

Strangly my opponent did not even acknowledge That I asked some questions. oh well I guess I will have to wing this, but I will give a case round 5 as to why my stories are better to make this a 'debate'So lets get on and do this now...... Prelude: in a church denomination leaders kind of themed mafia game, socialpinko was a character named George Fox (Quakers founder) who was part of the mafia in that particular game. When push came to shove for a character claim from him, spinko boldly claimed to be Glen Beck, a death miller traitor role that revives upon death as a converted unlynchable mafia goon (like I said, bold). Shockingly, the town took forever to lynch him for that claim (they were scared), but in the end they got it done. Also the mafia once again targeted AndroZ causing her to die for the 3rd time in the game after coming back as a replacement again and again. The following is the opening story for the last day-phase of that game The Final Dayphase: There was much chaos yesterday that surrounded the churches decision on weather or not to lynch Glen Beck. They whispered to each other 'but what if when we kill lynch him he morph’s into a God and kills us all!?' but then Velma shaggy and Scooby showed and said 'jenkies don’t you know this is not Glen Beck its....' pulls fake face of head (gasp) 'George Fox!' 'that’s right I did it, and I would have gotten away with it two if it weren’t for you meddling townies, but this is not over yet, my conspirators knows where my stash of the toxic Kool-Aid is in Pennsylvanian and will have it ready for use before you know it' he said staring at AndroZ for her third reincarnated time. the town starts the day out probably with one question on there mind "how will we or the mafia know who to lynch/kill now that AndroZ has not replaced anybody?" Meanwhile in mafia game heaven.....Andro approaches the doors to the Lord thy Mod’s home. Marauder greets her at the door. "I just cant win can I? Could you bring me back a PGO that would show them!" but the Mod had to briefly let her down saying 'not this time'. Marauder walks her inside. She asks 'what is this place?' 'Well mafia games are like a holodeck Mod’s like me control inside your own imagination so long as you keep reading. for the in game players what’s on the holodeck is whatever I set it too be but here in the waiting room you can set it to whatever you want." "So if I want a Jacuzzi...." the Mod finished for her "you can have a Jacuzzi placed in here to chill in." Andro immediately set her waiting room to have a large stash her favorite snacks, un-poisoned Kool-Aid, and of course the Jacuzzi. The Mod was leaving to attend to the mafia game room again but then Andro asked curiously "what’s Spinko and Unstupenousman doing in there rooms?" "Unstupendous has a comic book library in his and I don’t know about Spinko's. From the noises I can hear inside it I've not wanted to go peek to see." To source that I indeed was the one to come up with that story..... http://www.debate.org...
Story battle

Okay 3 storys.MafiaIn the light of the Michiagnian village, the Cop drives to the only coffee shoppe in town and gets a cup of coffee and a view outside. Enjoying a fresh cup of coffee The Cop spys a man leaving a store carring a large duffel. he walked across the Cops line of sight and leaves. In a mood the Cop follows the man. Away from the townsfolk eyes, he gets in his car and drives off. The Cop then hops on his motorcycle and chases after the man. After a short drive the strange man gets out of his car. The Cop parked behind some trees and watches the man enter the house with the duffel. A shot rang out!Steve Chuck, the Nilla was killed!The Cop fleeing back to the police station to report the killing and then goes to bed. The day breaks and the Cop reports to the center of town with the other townies. The town debates who to lynch before the Cop steps foward and stated what he had seen the night. In murmurs of agreement, the town lynch the the man.Guy Bellington, the mafia was lynched!Proud with this small victory the town goes to sleep. The Doc follows the Cop. In an assassination ,the Cop was saved due to the actions of the Doc. In the center of town the townies are ready for the report.
Resolved: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory

Hello Again. I keep forgetting to check this debate. My bad. My opponent brings up the point that people don't have to put someone's name on the paper and then turn in the ballot. But my opponent contradicts himself. If compulsory voting is what he is pushing for, but also says that it shouldn't matter what they put on the ballot, then we would be throwing away a very large sum of money, and for what? A ballot with a drawing of Pac-Man on it? Why make them vote if they aren't going to express they're opinion? My opponent also asks how and why the political parties will target those with no opinion, and the answer is this: free votes. If we mandate voting, political parties will go after these people with no opinion. They get free votes out of it, so why not? If these people with no opinion are forced to vote, we will create this political bias I have shown here. My opponent brings up the point of who are these "people", and talks about minorities, and people with disabilities. The answer to that question is: these "people" are those with no opinion, as I have stated numerous times. My opponent did not refute my value, criterion, or RA, therefore my framework is followed.
Resolved: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory

Hi again. So my opponent agreed that it is our duty to vote. Liijphart viewed voting as a duty as well. "uniformity in turnout and the ability to overcome the under-representation of lower socio-economic groups at the polls to be worth the restrictions on freedoms" was his belief. (from THE EFFECT OF COMPULSORY VOTING LAWS ON GOVERNMENT SPENDING , Jakee) So that piece of evidence clashes with " this doesn't mean that we should be forced against our will to go and vote", because in order to overcome this under-representation, the restrictions was worth it. Then my opponent began to talk about how under compulsory voting, people with no opinion would be forced to vote. However, the opponent is assuming that people would check off a box on the ballot. This is in fact untrue. People, once they receive the ballot, can do whatever on the ballot. No one is allowed to see what you write on the ballot. You could in fact not write anything on the ballot at all. Or you could draw on it. The point is, you're not being forced to pick between one running candidate and the other. If you really have no opinion whatsoever on who leads your country, you don't have to check the box. This also refutes my opponent's first contention where he says " Why do we send people with no opinion to the polls? ". Then my opponent proceeded to talk about how "The political parties will target those with no opinion". How? The political parties will target the ones who have an opinion, and the political parties will bring up those contemporary issues people are concerned about. If they target the ones who don't care, what are they going to say? Because since those people don't care, they are going to not care anyway! This is in comparison to political parties targeting what lots of people think about say, foreign policy, on healthcare, and hold their standpoints on those various issues. Then people with the same view would vote on that. Now. to my contentions. On my first contention, I mentioned voter obligation, and along with that, social contract. My opponent did not refute the social contract theory directly. And as my opponent agreed, the duty to vote compels us to vote. On my second contention, my opponent said that when voting is compulsory people would care less about who would become their leader. Is this really true though? Who is the "people" in that statement? Is it acknowledging minorities or people with disabilities where voting has finally been made a possibility through it being compulsory? Is the government really legitimate, or only a representation of those who are able to vote?
Resolved: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory

OK, forgot about this debate and wasn't able to post my argument. My bad. On to my opponent's case to begin. Now, my opponent brings up the point of it being our duty to vote. Which is entirely true. But what they fail to realize is that, despite the fact that it is our duty, this doesn't mean that we should be forced against our will to go and vote, hence my value of autonomy and my criterion of ethical egoism. If we send all this dead weight to the voting tables, and they could care less who ends up as their leader, we're forcing people with no opinion to choose our next leader, which greatly affects the outcome of the vote, and leaving a political bias, hence my second contention. Therefore both of my opponent's contentions fall. Now onto my own case. My opponent attacked my first contention saying that I did not explain how a bigger turnout is worse for democracy, when in fact, I did. My second contention explains how, and it shows a political bias because of this dead weight showing up to the polls, despite the fact they don't care. This political bias is what is bad for democracy. Why do we send people with no opinion to the polls? By doing this, we are creating that political bias. My opponent attacked my second contention by saying that there is political bias within America itself, despite there being no compulsory voting. They also brought up representation among people, which means political parties will go where the people are. And while that is completely true, compulsory voting will only make this problem worse. The political parties will target those with no opinion, leading the person with no opinion to decide he will vote for that party, only because they reached out to him. As for evidence, here is a link to the evidence I have: http://etd.lib.clemson.edu...
Resolved: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory

Hi again! So my opponent asked the question "Why should votes matter if people draw Pac Man on it? " Well, every single vote matters. Every single vote that has a Pac Man drawn on it or any drawing, for that matter, is a warning to the government that people really are apathetic about voting. And then they can fix the situation from there. The problem is right now there are assumptions. Because we cannot pinpoint the problem directly, or even say for sure that compulsory voting is for sure bad, we are left contemplating possibilities, but not acting. By seeing how many people exactly really do vote versus the ones who just really don't care, we can adjust from there. Also, my opponent still does not refute social contract. And people under that social contract have the duty to care, which my opponent agreed, that yes, we have a duty. My opponent also mentioned that political parties will target ones with no opinion so that they can get free votes. However, the logic does not flow. Won't you want to target ones that will care the most so, precisely for that reason, they will vote for you? Think about it. Let's say I sell candies. I see that 10 people are interested in Snickers, and 1 doesn't care. Will I sell lollipops (something totally irrelevant from Snickers) or will I sell Snickers? Well, if I want the most of my money (and time) I will want to sell Snickers! My opponent also mentions that people who are minorities or have disabilities are the ones with no opinion. This is not true. Why should people who are minorities or have disabilities have no opinion? The logic does not flow. My opponent also did not refute my value or criterion also. :D
Should vampires exist

First of all your whole argument seems to be loosley based on the abhorrent book that is Twilight. That in itself should make this argument null and void. But let's break down your argument piece by piece. If you're going to hypothesize fiction to reality let me ask how many of those immortals live without getting corrupt or mad with the fact that they are nigh indestructible. Hollywood makes them out to be what they want vampires to be, because and I'll say this slowly vampires, don't, exist. So killing humans is ok because they need to function? Last time I checked you were Human too and for them you are food and not a romantic partner. You keep saying "you humans" it's as if you seem to have transcended us so you're not just delusional but you have delusions of grandeur. If mythology is anything to go by nowhere in any text does it say that vampires or chdail or any other blood sucking creatures live off animal blood. Cause if that was true then there would never have been the myth of Nosferatu. I don't know why but I have to say this again. You're delusional and hopeless so please have your head checked. Cause you're off your door hinge.
Should vampires exist

Because of my previous debate here: http://www.debate.org... not having anyone to vote due to Debate Round Forfeited problem, I have to start the new round. Let's start. Yes, they should exist in real life. Vampires are immortal and therefore wouldn't die from aging, other natural causes, or even from diseases or viruses. Imagine living forever for billions of years. After becoming a vampire, you'll no longer have to worry about death nor getting injured from most weaponry and such. You'll no longer have to go to hospitals due to regeneration abilities you'd have as a vampire. I really want vampires, their society, culture, tech, etc, like in Seraph of the End/Owari no Seraph franchise http://owarinoseraph.wikia.com...... . So yes, vampires should exist in real life. >:) Hollywood makes them out to be things like sparkly beings who suck on blood. Or maybe ancient creatures that have committed heinous crimes against humanity by killing people. But, humanity kills its own kind as well. They wage wars, steal from each other, create lies and deception for power. Humans hurt each other more than any supernatural being could ever achieve. "The vampires suck blood. They're gonna kill and/or turn us all into monsters and overpopulate the Earth!" you say. Well, that's false. For one, they only drink blood because they need it to function. If they didn't they'd shrivel up and die. Stop thinking you humans are the only things that have blood. Plenty of other creatures have blood. What's to say a vampire can't just drink animal blood? Also, vampires are low-key creatures. They ain't gonna bite people willy-nilly. Because once you bite a human, and they turn, then you're basically it's undead parent. Do you know, have any idea, how much work and responsibility it takes to raise a child? And what if the vampire bites multiple humans? Yes, that's right. A heck of a lot more package comes. You gotta teach it what to do, what not to do, how to control their new powers, etc. It's super stressful to say the least. So, yes, I think they should. Because if they exist, how many other supernatural myths are actually out there. It would explain a lot of weird things.
Playstation is better than Xbox

Pro still failed to rebut my arguments in the opening round. Swinging a remote and swinging around are different. Xbox has a lot of immersive gameplay. The graphics are decent, and sound quality is good. Why do you need a remote controller or a headset when you have everything in kinect? It is extra baggage and result of obsolete design. As for graphics, it really depends more upon the game you are playing than the console. (cough. ,minecraft. .cough) As for the money argument, it is because playstation has a wider range of products, has a different price ranging and product availability in more areas.
Playstation is better than Xbox

Actually you can decide which one is better. The company that makes more money is better, i mean you wouldn't wanna pay for something you don't so like if Marvel was to make more money than DC, then that means more people would pay to see a Marvel movie. Con then goes on to state that i didn't give a substantial argument about why playstation is better than xbox neglecting my evidence of how playstation has outsold xbox and how playstation has better graphics than xbox. Con didn't give a reason why xbox was better than playstation apart from him playing his favorite games on xbox making great memories. Con states i failed to rebut his opening arguments about laziness which is false, you don't play playstation move sitting down, you have stand up and dance around or act like as if you were in the game. Playstation has its own VR Headset taking gameplay to the next level. The VR is designed to make the gamer feel like he's actually in the game, also giving the user a more realistic experience while playing the game.
Playstation is better than Xbox

It's like comparing marvel and DC you can't just decide which is better through the money. You can't do boxing with a remote, can you? It will give more of a dagger feeling. And even with the sword it is good to use your hands. I like it when I cut through my the enemies with my hands. It's like the blade is attached onto my hands' side, which is cooler. Forgive me for a transformers reference, but arcee in transformers prime had that kind of blades, which was cool. And a remote doesn't seem to be the apt thing for a shield. One of my favorite games on kinect was the avengers action game. It was most of marvel superheroes vs skrulls, which was fun. Just imagine throwing a repulsor beam with the hand, or jumping and bringing down the thor's hammer on a skrull. It is much more fun than the remote or the controller. Playstation has some good games such as mortal kombat and injustice, but if they had a kinect version for that it would be better. Thus, pro failed to give a substantial argument as to why playstation is better than most of xbox. Furthermore, pro failed to rebut my opening arguments about laziness and immersive gameplay.
Playstation is better than Xbox

I apologize for the plagiarism i guess i didn't really try in the opening statement, however, The controller is better when playing games where you hold a shield or sword kinda giving a more realistic experience. The reason why playstation is better than Xbox is because of how many units, last year, Sony managed to sell 5.7 during the holiday season, bringing lifetime sales of the console to 35.9 million. Playstation is outselling Xbox, selling 40.43 million systems sold worldwide, while microsoft only sold 20.99 million systems. Even with graphics, Playstation 4 games achieve a 1080p resolution at 30-60 FPS whereas Xbox one games run at 720p or 900p at 30-60 FPS. Playstation even has better exclusives than Xbox, I know Xbox it's own set of games like Gears of War, Halo and Tomb raider but Playstation has games to rival them such as Uncharted 4, Street Fighter V, and Ratchet and Clank, now i know these games aren't as good as the xbox exclusives but they're awesome classics still racking in a ton of cash [SOURCES] http://www.techradar.com... http://www.gamespot.com...
Playstation is better than Xbox

No Kinect also has a little controller along with it I use it to run the cd when the camera is just starting up. It is not a remote, but its a controller and some games such as risk are played through controller in kinect. The Eye Toy is no where near Xbox kinect, why would you need a controller anyways? It is more fun with the camera. Pro has argued that eyetoy can do the same things as kinect, but doesn't show why the controller makes it better. Pro concedes Kinect is more technically advanced. Plus, I have to call pro for direct plagiarism from the source. While I have no problem with it, I would like your arguments to be more original and based on experience. I won't be debating with a website, but with a person.
Playstation is better than Xbox

Before Kinect existed, Sony released the Eye Toy for the Playstation 2. Similar to the Xbox 360 camera accessory, the Eye Toy makes your body into a controller. For the Playstation 3, Sony released a more advanced camera in the Playstation Eye. Although Kinect is technically more advanced, the Playstation Move, which requires the Playstation Eye, can theoretically feature the same body-sensing control scheme in addition to proving a more traditional motion controller to boot. On the other end of the spectrum, Kinect only has a camera. You won"t have a motion-sensing stick with buttons to provide any tactile feedback. Therefore, you are only limited to using your body as a controller when playing Kinect games. SOURCES http://gameidealist.com...