BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: An ideal from of NCLB would be beneficial to welfare in the U.S.A

===CON:=== >>Even in its ideal form, the very premise of the law is skewed. To test schools and increase funding to the schools who score well, is a horrible premise. The schools who score well aren't the schools who need the money to help themselves. Saying that this is the basis of the law, it doesn't matter if it's in its ideal form, this idea will stay the same. << ===REBUTTAL:=== In the world of jobs, as you progress, you get paid more. If you have a profession that requires intelligence, you will be paid more. The system works in that it rewards schools eager to push their students to their capacity and granting them more money because of this. Schools that do not attempt to push their students have thir funds cut because obviously they are not working for the betterment of their students. ===CON:=== >>This is not true if the tests are innacurate. They are racist << ===REBUTTAL:=== 1) I quote this article that: " It is important to note that neither IQ, future academic performance, nor life success can be predicted from an individual's race or ethnicity. " [Source: . http://social.jrank.org...] This means that results of IQ tests do not determine the total outcome of a persons success in life. Furthermore, SAT's are not IQ tests. 2) The form of NCLB is an ideal form. My source says that: "Researchers have suggested several possible explanations to account for racial and ethnic differences in intellectual performance. The first explanation is that standardized IQ tests and testing procedures are culturally biased toward European-American middle class knowledge and experiences. " Taking this into account, it is obvious under an ideal form of NCLB, the tests would be balanced to include fair questions towards Hispanics, native American, European-American, African Americans and all other ethnicities of society. ===CON:=== >>Standardized tests damages education, becuse students learn to the test, and fail to learn essential skills for life. << ===REBUTTAL:=== Standardized testing does not mean students learn to the test. There are ways to combat this, namely, rotating the questions randomly each year. This way, students learn to the course. I would like to ask my opponent what he sees as essential skills for life. Subjects thought in school are essential to future jobs (E. G. Maths, Science) and therefore are beneficial to further life. Furthermore, standardized testing allows for the better recording of test results. Teachers quickly spot where students are lacking, and therefore have the ability to teach was used to be a weak point. Education is quickly bettered. However, this system is already ideal.
Resolved: An ideal from of NCLB would be beneficial to welfare in the U.S.A

Thank you, I-am-a-panda and everyone involved in this tournament "1-A) Obviously, NCLB is an educational act. If it is ideal, it must surely benefit education" Even in its ideal form, the very premise of the law is skewed. To test schools and increase funding to the schools who score well, is a horrible premise. The schools who score well aren't the schools who need the money to help themselves. Saying that this is the basis of the law, it doesn't matter if it's in its ideal form, this idea will stay the same. "1-B) The system is based on standardized testing. If students scores are on the same test, then institutions can see the strengths and weaknesses of the current system, making it even more ideal." This is not true if the tests are innacurate. They are racist (http://www.raceandhistory.com...) (http://www.gale.cengage.com...) Standardized tests damages education, becuse students learn to the test, and fail to learn essential skills for life. (http://www.fairtest.org...) (http://www.highbeam.com...) Thank you.
Resolved: An ideal from of NCLB would be beneficial to welfare in the U.S.A

==DEFINITIONS:== NCLB: NCLB is an abbreviation for the No Child Left Behind act signed into law on January 8, 2002. It is : "The law reauthorized a number of federal programs aiming to improve the performance of U.S. primary and secondary schools by increasing the standards of accountability for states, school districts, and schools, as well as providing parents more flexibility in choosing which schools their children will attend." Ideal: 1. a conception of something in its perfection. 2. a standard of perfection or excellence. 3. a person or thing conceived as embodying such a conception or conforming to such a standard, and taken as a model for imitation Welfare: 1. the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization; well-being (http://dictionary.reference.com...) ==NOTES:== This debate concerns a version of NCLB that is ideal, i.e. it is perfect. It is like arguing for an ideal form of democracy, you cannot argue the flaws of democracy. =====CON ARGUMENT:====== ==ARGUMENT #1: IT BENEFITS THE WELFARE OF EDUCATION== 1-A) Obviously, NCLB is an educational act. If it is ideal, it must surely benefit education 1-B) The system is based on standardized testing. If students scores are on the same test, then institutions can see the strengths and weaknesses of the current system, making it even more ideal. I await my opponents response, and thank the readers and judges for reading this debate.
Capitalism is a failed ideology that makes human life worthless, healthcare proves

It is a shame that my opponent was unable to provide a final argument. Unexpected circumstances can often occur in life, and I cannot condemn him for being unable to post the argument within the allotted time. Due to the lack of anything to truly rebut, this final argument will be short. When it comes to communism (or socialism) it is easy to see why this was a good idea to Karl Marx. A brief look back at history can show that Marx actually became a parasite feeding on the funds provided by Friedrich Engels. This is actually the sole reason why Engels' name appears as co-author of The Communist Manifesto. Marx added it on to thank him for his generosity. The nature of people being as it is, this is something that is always bound to happen somehow in a communist system. When a person's work product means nothing and everyone is provided for equally, there are going to be all too many people that will simply sponge off of the others. In fact, we can even see a situation similar to this in the U.S. Civil service is an area in which the pay is not rewarded by work product and the chances of unemployment are very slim. As a result of this, there is a constant complaint about the inefficiency of civil servants. I see this first hand. I am not saying that civil service is communist, but I am saying that it is about as close as you can get to it in the U.S. Capitalism in its truest sense is a far better ideal than communism. People that have true talent and greatness should not be reduced to the same level as everyone else. This would be unfair. In the capitalist philosophy, everyone has, at the very least, the chance to move up the social ranks. It is extremely tough to do, and you have to work like crazy to get there, but it is possible.
Capitalism is a failed ideology that makes human life worthless, healthcare proves

On your first paragraph: - You say corporations do not adhere to the rules of a truly free market. This doesn't make sense because in a truly free market there are no rules. A truly free market economy is a breeding ground for the theories of social darwinism that leads to the exploitation of the working class. - If you truly read the philosophy of Adam Smith, the father of economics, he argues that there should be absolutely no state interference with the free market. This is the perfect breeding ground for the corporations to abuse the working class. He does not argue that capitalism is for people to move up in society, but rather it supports competition to get the cheapest product, and the only true way to get the cheapest product is for the exploitation of the working class. On your third paragraph: -- Your main argument against a communist/socialist sort of economic philosophy is that people would not have incentive to be productive. That is simply not true. First, there are other incentives other than capital. Second, in a world without capital people would not produce for monetary gain but for the betterment of the human race. It is in peoples nature to, once the corruption of capital is gone, to help out themselves and others. Also, many new ideas and inventions are abandoned because of them being "too risky" and not a guarantee of capital gain. In a world without capital there would be those types of incentives. On your fourth paragraph: Your interpretation of human nature is so flawed! People do not get sick of helping other people because they not only would be helping the disenfranchised but also helping themselves. Think about this: We could cure the common cold but there is way to much money in medications that only help, not cure. In a world without capital people would be helping themselves by solving for other people's ills. On your fifth paragraph: Exploitation is what capitalism does, in both a pragmatic and philosophical sense. In order for countries economies to grow there is a call for the exploitation of the working class and the rape of the earth's natural resources. This is exactly what Adam Smith calls for. This type of Social Darwinism is the main reason why those problems are so prevalent. On your sixth paragraph: Capitalism absolutely cheapens human life. It does not allow growth because people are taken out of their nature and forced to be cogs in the economic wheel. You also don't say why communism cheapens human life. People working for other people and bettering themselves and the human race could only help human life, not hurt it. Again, people would still have the incentive to invent new solutions to the world's problems because they do not have this sort of mindset. In conclusion: Your arguments are severely flawed. The only way to solve for the major problems facing humanity (climate change, disease, resource wars) would be to get away from the capitalist system.
Capitalism is a failed ideology that makes human life worthless, healthcare proves

There are many problems with a totally free market economy, and i will admit that "communism" as a political ideology has failed. But many countries, such as the U.S.S.R. and China, the "communist" party was communist in name only. A true communist country would not fail in the way that capitalism has failed. The main problem of capitalism is that there is no incentive to honor the inherent value of human life. This is because there is no distribution of wealth among the vast majority of workers. The majority of wealth (capital) lies in the hands of a view who become wealthy off of the work of the proletariat. Such an exploitative system should not be advocated by the majority of people. The rich bourgeois are the only ones whom the system benefits, while the middle class and proletariat are taken advantage of. This basic thesis is bolstered by the example of health care. In places like Sub-Saharan Africa, industrialized China, and other countries driven by capital many people are exploited by capitalists, that contention has been well documented. Sub-Saharan Africa's problems can all be traced to the forces of capitalism. It started during the colonial period where the European powers stole Africa's resources. When the massive amounts of health-related problems began to surface the capitalist powers had no incentive to help out, so not much was done. The only incentive that capitalist powers have to help out the sick and poor is to make sure that they are just well enough to work for them. Thus, health care is used as a tool of the capitalist powers to enslave the people of Africa. This one example can be seen throughout the world in all places where economies are driven by capitalism. Such a cheapening of human life is what we have to deal with in a capitalist system. So what the alternative? A more regulated economy that respects the environment, human life, and the advancement of civilization through the abandonment of capitalist structures.
'The Interview' is a disgusting film and should be banned

You have messages disabled so here is my formal invitation.I saw your recent debate on this topic and feel I could do a slightly better job of defending the film than your opponent who had time constraints. You may either begin in round 1, or use it for acceptance and I will begin in round 2. You will contend that 'The Interview' ought to be banned, I will vehemently defend the production.Four rounds, 72 hours, 8k characters, 10-day voting period.I hope you agree to the terms of the debate and accept the challenge.Phem.
This house believes that environmental cases should be tried in International Criminal Court

Let me define first the terms and set the parameters of this debate. Terms: The International Criminal Court (commonly referred to as the ICC or ICCt) is a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression(Wikipedia) Environmental cases are lawsuit where the well-being of an environmental asset or the well-being of a set of environmental assets is in dispute(Wikipedia) Parameters:1. So far The International Criminal Court does not handle environmental cases as provided by Part 2, Article 5 of the Rome Statute( only the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes are considered) So with this, I propose that it should consider environmental cases. But take note, it will only be a supplementary court or an optional court; it will not take forcibly environmental cases from sovereign states- so there is no infringement of their sovereignty. States will decide if it will allow ICC to handle environmental cases. 2. The ICC is intended as a court of last resort, investigating and prosecuting only where national courts have failed. Article 17 of the Statute provides that a case is inadmissible if: "(a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution; (b) The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute; (c) The person concerned has already been tried for conduct which is the subject of the complaint, and a trial by the Court is not permitted under article 20, paragraph 3; (d) The case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court. Short and Clear Arguments (later will be expanded if refuted)1. Environmental crimes are the concerned of the world, not only by a particular country, because the damage is extended to other sovereign states. For example, illegal toxic wastes disposal not only affecting the territorial sea of a certain country but also that of other part of the sea which belongs to other states.2. Sometimes, the government is the perpetrator of an environmental crime so it cannot punish itself by its own courts, so ICC must intervene.3. Environmental crimes are grave like genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.
Men should have a say in his child's abortion.

Men, you do not require a woman's approval if you get a vasectomy. You do not need a woman's approval to get multiple women pregnant at the same time so (which affects the finatial issues). So why should a women get ur approval to remove a fertilized egg from her womb? You do not have to go through physical pain before the baby has conscious thought and is alive with out the direct, everything, from their mom. So no you should not get a say whether I get a fetus removed from my body that could cause potential dangerous and life threating complications while you can still go out and party. I will not be stuck at home feeling so sick during pregnancy when you do not have to and will not stay and help all of the time. And most certainly not 90%! It's my body!
Men should have a say in his child's abortion.

"Nope. This from the time of conception to birth it is not the mans child, he is doing nothing so why should he have any say to whether or not I will have a living body is side me? what does he do to take on help nurturing and raising the fetus? Nothing, Not a single thing. The woman (if in school or work) would have to drop out because the stress of a job and school is really unhealthy for a mother nearing her third trimester." 90% of the time, if man gets a woman pregnant, he stays with her and protects her as much as he can, so he does help raising the "fetus". Unlike you said he doesn't do a single thing.
Men should have a say in his child's abortion.

1. Its half the fathers child, due to the fact that half of the child cells came from him. Yes. it is half of the fathers cells but it is not in the fathers care and for the next 9 months the father will take no part in raising The Fetus. the father will not have to eat healthy, the father will not have to exercise on a daily basis. The father will not cut out all of his partying and his regular lifestyle to prepare for the baby have to get ready for the baby 2. it should always be both the man and the woman making the decisions together, especially whenever it comes to children. Yes I agree 100% with you on this. But honestly you should get your head out of the clouds. Yes it should be both the man and the woman agreeing on this but in reality it rarely ever is. When it comes to legal obligations if the man says you can't get the abortion and the women agrees on the conditions that the father will take on all obligations that have anything to do with the children and after the born the father can change his mind whereas the mother has no option other than adoption and that is very had on anyone especially a woman with motherly instincts. 3. I know its the womans body, but its the man's child just as much as it is the womans. Nope. This from the time of conception to birth it is not the mans child, he is doing nothing so why should he have any say to whether or not I will have a living body is side me? what does he do to take on help nurturing and raising the fetus? Nothing, Not a single thing. The woman (if in school or work) would have to drop out because the stress of a job and school is really unhealthy for a mother nearing her third trimester. In your rebutle you stated that
Men should have a say in his child's abortion.

"It would be unfair to the mother to "force" her to carry her unborn fetus to full term pregnancy . Therefore, it should be her decision alone to decide whether her unborn child is to be aborted." Well, its unfair to kill a fathers son or daughter. "It would be terrible to require the mother to carry her baby to term because it would require her to quit school, abandon her career, suffer for the rest of her life never knowing where her child was if she placed the child for adoption." Well, she wouldnt have to quit school, or abandon her career, it was her fault (unless raped) to have unprotected sexual interaction, so she should take responsibility for her actions. " Also, Yes it takes a women and a man to make a baby but the man is not held under the constraints of the temporary condition of a nine month pregnancy and they do not have to sign a legal document that states that if the woman does not go through with the pregnancy that they (men) will be in custody of the kid." But the man would have to live the rest of his life knowing that his child was killed. "If men do have a say in the abortion then they could make the women go through the pregnancy and have the child then if they change their mind they could just sign away legal obligations Her entire life could be ruined and The man wouldn't have to do anything and they could go on living there life with hardly a bump in the road." Her entire life would not be ruined. Also, the man would have to do something, live his life without the son he made. Depending on the age of the mother, it was her fault, (again, unless raped) to have the child, so the should have to either keep the baby, or put him/her up for adoption insted of just saying, "no, the father of the child cant have a say in his murder or not."
Men should have a say in his child's abortion.

It would be unfair to the mother to "force" her to carry her unborn fetus to full term pregnancy . Therefore, it should be her decision alone to decide whether her unborn child is to be aborted. It would be terrible to require the mother to carry her baby to term because it would require her to quit school, abandon her career, suffer for the rest of her life never knowing where her child was if she placed the child for adoption, or face the stigma of "unwed" motherhood, or an endless number of other scenarios. I am not saying that every child that does not get aborted will be less loved. Also, Yes it takes a women and a man to make a baby but the man is not held under the constraints of the temporary condition of a nine month pregnancy and they do not have to sign a legal document that states that if the woman does not go through with the pregnancy that they (men) will be in custody of the kid. If men do have a say in the abortion then they could make the women go through the pregnancy and have the child then if they change their mind they could just sign away legal obligations Her entire life could be ruined and The man wouldn't have to do anything and they could go on living there life with hardly a bump in the road. Women are the ones that would have to bear the physical condition of Pregnancy, women have to bear with the Pain of pregnancy.One of the most common reasons why some women want to have an abortion is because they have the desire to delay childbearing because they themselves are young women want to prevent the physical pain or emotional abuse of having a baby as a teen.
Men should have a say in his child's abortion.

Ok, thank you for your acceptance. Here are my arguments 1. Its half the fathers child, due to the fact that half of the childs cells came from him. 2. it should always be both the man and the woman making the decisions together, especially whenever it comes to children. 3. I know its the womans body, but its the man's child just as much as it is the womans. I await my opponenets arguments :D
Humans Are Animals

What also really makes humans so different is also the fact that we care about the entire world and all the 1-2 million species of animals present in it. Most animals only care about their particular social group or herd let alone their species. We humans on the other hand have started taking an active role in preserving certain species. The two bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 killed around 200,000 Japanese people. No other species has ever wielded such power, and no species could. The technology behind the atomic bomb only exists because of a cooperative hive mind: hundreds of scientists and engineers working together. The same unique intelligence and cooperation also underlies more positive advances, such as modern medicine. Most of our reactions are also based on a logical perspective of the world we have. For example, when there is a fire we turn off all the electronic appliances or when there is a thunderstorm we tend to avoid trees whereas an animal is not capable of doing the aforementioned.