BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolution is to long and will be posted in first Argument: Regarding Merit Pay.

==== Intro ==== He says the intro "acts as a guideline for my position" and also concedes that it essentially makes fun of black-boarding teachers. If that is his definition of an accurate guideline for his position, you ought to reject him right here! He is making fun of my science teacher, and he's never even met the guy! ======== Contention 1 ======== "as already stated, this debate is Public Forum and shall be judged according to evidence. " Extend the argument that he has dropped this round that all of his evidence is anecdotal. By all means, judge by evidence like he says you should, and reject him for using faulty evidence from which he can't draw a valid conclusion. ======== Contention 2 ======== "First of all, Merit-Pay can ONLY be based on student achievement. " 1. If that were true, then 'merit pay based on student achievement' would be redundant and unnecessary. However, we still use that term (the resolution even uses that term! ) because we know there are other merit based pays. 2. This is a new argument that he didn't present last speech. 3. His original speech states "72 percent of respondents say they favor merit pay in general for teachers, with ADVANCED DEGREES, student test scores, and ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATIONS. " He is now contradicting his original post. ======== Contention 3 ======== His original contention was that salary based pay is ineffective. (1) His latest rebuttal has absolutely nothing to do with that. (2)It's a completely new, unwarranted argument anyways, (3)not to mention it's an even worse problem in the system he advocates. Teachers can (and do) easily boost test scores to reflect better on their teaching skills, which is why the current grade average at my school was 88 last semester, whereas a C was average 30 years ago. We've made an 18 point/ 100 points jump in only 3 decades because of this merit pay based on student achievement. ======= Conclusion ======= In this last speech, my opponent has gone far off from his original contentions, made new arguments, and still didn't even win the points he presented. I've given multiple rebuttals to each contention; he's never disproven the efficacy of merit pay other than student achievement; and he has NEVER ONCE REBUTTED the argument that student achievement-based merit pay leads to teaching to the test.
Resolution is to long and will be posted in first Argument: Regarding Merit Pay.

Thank you again. Sorry for time frame again. First of all there is no dropping of the issue of it dismissing teachers who use blackboards (like my science teacher) as antiquated and archaic. My opponent refers to my intro of round one and as already explained is not as relevant and acts as a guideline for my position. =Con 1= My contention one shows that Merit -Pay is effective, it has worked and it can work if implemented. As already stated by my opponet, non-merit by is ineffective. My opponent also provides no evidence against my contention, and as already stated, this debate is Public Forum and shall be judged according to evidence. =Con 2= First of all, Merit-Pay can ONLY be based on student achievement. As posted in my definition earlier, student achievement "Is a term that when applied to merit pay, has various meanings. The two most commonly known are student scores based off of a state test, and the progression of student education in schools that house students that don't normally score high." It has various meanings. Merit-Pay is essentially extra money paid for outstanding advancements. How else would a teacher be given merit-pay? Other than how well they are doing their job, which concerns the achievements of the student they are teaching. Remembering that this resolution regards K-12 teaching, not colleges as I believe he mentioned in round 2, Merit-Pay essentially incorporates a form of student achievement. So when I provide the evidence that most Americans support Merit-Pay, it is completly relevant to the resolution stated. So we can safely assume that my opponents arguements have been rebutted sufficiently regarding my contention two. =Con 3= Contention 3. My opponent semmingly intertwines this with contention two. He says that he advocates Merit-Pay based on teacher degrees. This however is faulty. For one, this is already implemented. Second, there have been various accounts of teachers across the nation forging their degrees to earn more cash from Merit-Pay. (I understand you want a source, but because of my fault, time frame, I wont be able to get it.) Most professions offer bonuses and salary increases to exemplary employees. Why should teaching be the exception? The fact that a sloppy teacher and a dedicated teacher earn the same salary just doesn't sit right with most people. Conclusion. I believe ample evidence has been provided to debunk my opponents claims against merit-pay. I plead for a PRO vote. Thank you for your time.
Resolution is to long and will be posted in first Argument: Regarding Merit Pay.

I am also sorry for the 15 minute time frame. My opening quote does not need a citation for it is a generalization promoting the affirmation of the resolution. I agree that it is not extremely relevant, but does provide a glimpse of what the PRO is advocating for. I will refute my opponents case only, due to the shortage of time (my fault). =Con 1= My opponent states that Hoxby and Leigh provide statistical evidence. Several of their arguments may be found within this site . http://www.centerii.org.... My opponent also suggests that, "that this has little to do with the conclusion that PRO makes" regarding the statistical evidence that I have provided. He does not disagree with the evidence but concedes to it. This evidence does support the affirmation of the resolution by advocating the effectiveness of merit pay. Brad Jupp has taken part in a pay-by-performance plan for his school of 72,000. This plan is effective and gives even more reason to believe that merit pay is an improvement. =Con 2= My contention two soley regards the fact that a majority of the United States approves Merit-Pay related reforms in schools. I did not contend to define merit pay or give examples of different plans. So my opponents arguement "This is the one type of merit pay that I am deadset against, as I can already see its corruptive effects in my classes through exessive drills, reviews, and test prep in these last 2 weeks before End-of-Course-Testing (EOCTs. )" can be considered irrelevant when regarding the contention two (Merit pay gains support from most of America) because it does not sufficiently refute the tagline of this contention and what it's purpose was. =Con 3= My opponent states that he concedes "that non-merit based salaries are ineffective". On top of this statement he goes on to say "That's why I advocate the 2 types of merit pay above, college pay and evaluation". He essentially says that he does not agree with non-merit pay and advocates merit-pay. The resolution does not single out one or the other. His statements contradict. I please a PRO vote.
Resolution is to long and will be posted in first Argument: Regarding Merit Pay.

I'll simply be rebutting my opponent's case instead of presenting my own, since there is a 15 minute time limit on this debate, which is rather pressing. ==== Intro ==== His opening quote should be at best disregarded, if not turned against him: A) It is uncited and unsourced. There is no reliable evidence that anyone of merit said this. B) It arbitrarily stigmatizes blackboard users' techniques as outdated or antiquated. My science teacher has a blackboard! "(2) Provide more pay for additional degrees and professional development that are relevant to school and district goals." To clarify, this is not an example of merit pay based on student achievement. ======== Contention 1 ======== He first cites 'Hoxby and Leigh' (with no link to verify his claim) with statistical evidence. However, upon closer examination, you will find that this has little to do with the conclusion that PRO makes. It simply explains the current college demographics of teachers, then concludes "Offering teachers merit pay might lure smart people to the job, Hoxby suggests." with no reliable warrant as to why it is true. The second bit of evidence is no better. It is simply Brad Jupp (who, might I point out, has a funny name) saying that people who disagree with him on merit pay are wrong headed. I guarantee that, given more than 15 minutes, I could find a number of educators or people with scholarly credentials with quotes supporting my side also, but quotes won't cut it and that's all this contention is founded on. ======== Contention 2 ======== His source says that people favor merit pay 'in general.' 2 thirds of those parts, merit pay based on college degrees and administrative reviews, are things I agree with, but are completely outside of this resolution. This resolution is only about student achievement. This is the one type of merit pay that I am deadset against, as I can already see its corruptive effects in my classes through exessive drills, reviews, and test prep in these last 2 weeks before End-of-Course-Testing (EOCTs.) ======== Contention 3 ======== I'll concede that non-merit based salaries are ineffective. That's why I advocate the 2 types of merit pay above, college pay and evaluation. This solves the problems without incurring the harms of teaching to the test and falsely improving student achievement. With that, I negate the resolution. Good luck, PRO.
Soldiers get less recognition for dying for there country than celebrities that die due to drugs

Hello JakeW, 10.0 I think I see your point, and I do not dispute that the number of people who shows up are quite a fair bit. However, I would like to refer you back to point [2.0] where I argued that the percentage increase form that is lower than what soldier get. 10.1 Furthermore, when soldiers gives their lives for the country, not only the family but the community get together to pay homage to them. These could be the members from churches, clubs, squadron and online profile where friend of friends get to recognize them. 10.2 I hope that if I failed to convince you, I would have at least made you think deeper about this issue.
Soldiers get less recognition for dying for there country than celebrities that die due to drugs

The debate isn't straying it is just more points that have arisen and come to my attention. So to compare it to celebrities look at all the care and attention they receive when they get an illness. I am sure people would come in hoards to offer their 'get well soons' and also if a celebrity died everyone shows there respect and lay flowers outside the family home. What recognition for soldiers is there when they die apart from that from close family and they have provided much more to the country.
Soldiers get less recognition for dying for there country than celebrities that die due to drugs

Hello JakeW,I feel that the debate has strayed too far out of the pre-defined scope. perhaps, I was partly to blame as I tried to counter your arguments. so, I am just going to explain why it is out of point without any counter.9.0 "provides care after there military service"9.1 Our argument compare recognition for celebrities who dies due to drug abuse to solider who dies in their line of service.At no point was care a factor in the debate.9.2 no comparison of celebrities was found in your argument.btw, "there" refers to location. "their" refers to belonging
Soldiers get less recognition for dying for there country than celebrities that die due to drugs

Hello JakeW, That is a new and interesting point you brought out. 8.0 recognition the soldiers receive is not as much as they deserve. 8.1 First, our original premise is comparing soldiers to celebrities who die form drug abuse. This instead turns it around by comparing past to present. 8.2 How do we determine how much they should deserve? Let’s say if we would to print headlines of soldiers who lost their life, who is it to say we should not start building monuments with their names engraves there (because, why not? Human life is priceless after all) 8.3 You assess that there are more people now who look at the profession of being a solider with disdain. This might be a cultural thing as Korean still highly value their soldiers and are given better job prospects and wages after their military service. All in all, these are some very good points but perhaps not so relevant in this current debate.
Soldiers get less recognition for dying for there country than celebrities that die due to drugs

The point I am trying to get across though is the publicity soldiers get in comparison to celebrities. The recognition the soldiers receive is not as much as they deserve. Years ago soldiers were seen as courageous heroes that the country were proud of and the soldiers themselves held it a great honour to serve there country. Now however there has been many occasions on which soldiers have been called foolish for risking there lives. Also there are certain ridiculous events where the soldiers have been charged under the human rights act for misconduct in war and causing supposed harm when protecting themselves. Also they as soldiers are stereotyped to be idiots and unintelligent beings because they cant get into any other job and have resorted to the army as a last resort. Actually however some may of done it as a way to honour a brother/father that died and to follow in there footsteps as there family showed great respect to them for there will to fight.
Soldiers get less recognition for dying for there country than celebrities that die due to drugs

Hello JakeW, Thanks for conceding on my points (“Yes surely they become infamous and don't get more fans…”). Currently, I feel that the debate is drifting slightly tangential to the original proposition where recognition was the key focus. Nonetheless, I will still address your concerns. 4.0 “they still get all over the news for doing something bad with there lives” 4.1 So too do thieves and murderers. Indeed, I would argue that exposure celebrities receive should be more as they were once role models for the community thus having a deeper influence than common criminals 4.2 Again, I like to remind you that being infamous does not equal to being recognized [see point 1.0] 5.0 “With celebrities on the other hand the public gets told the exact details of it” 5.1 Likewise, do we wish to divulge confidential information about our military or the soldier personal life? In the first case, national security issues would be at risk and in the second, their family lives would be jeopardized. 6.0 “Another huge problem is the pay they receive” 6.1 This is another new issue by itself, but without going into too many details, simple economics are at work. In general, this means that the amount they receive is what we as a community are willing to pay them. Thus, we “voted” for their wages with our purchase of their records, movies...etc. 7.0 Moving back to the topic, I rest my case that soldiers get more recognition for dying than celebrities who die due to drugs abuses.
Soldiers get less recognition for dying for there country than celebrities that die due to drugs

Yes surely they become infamous and don't get more fans but they still get all over the news for doing something bad with there lives! Furthermore when you look at the news all that is said is ' Lieutenant such and such died doing this today our condolences are with his family. With celebrities on the other hand the public gets told the exact details of it all and the highlights of there life are shown every day. Another huge problem is the pay they receive. Celebrities receive millions of pounds a year for just standing up on stage and performing for our entertainment. Soldiers are abroad in other countries trying to prevent deaths of innocent people and keep peace between groups. They are also there trying to protect our country and stop violence from reaching us and still they receive minimal pay to support themselves and also there families at home. They have to leave there families for months and months on end and don't see them and for what reward. They get next to nothing for all there efforts to keep us and every other innocent person safe!!!
Soldiers get less recognition for dying for there country than celebrities that die due to drugs

Hello JakeW, I understand that this is a difficult position to take but I would like to see how far I could push the envelope. 1.0 Definitions – semantics 1.1 According to oxford dictionary online, recognition is “appreciation or acclaim for an achievement, service, or ability” 1.2 Given that celebrity do not receive officially recognition for their drug abuses, it could be argue that the gain is popularity rather recognition. 2.0 Quantity 2.1 In the case of fame, it is important to note not only the absolute amount, but the percentage increase. 2.2 Celebrities are already famous and I doubt that their death coverage would bring a substantial percentage increase in fans. Conversely, the recognition given to solders immediately brings increase awareness among the community even if they do not personally know him or her. 3.0 Quality 3.1 How many people do you think appreciate or look up to a celebrity who died from drug abuse? What they gain instead is becoming infamous. Sure a lot of people know about her death but still more took it as a lesson to avoid instead of emulating 3.2 A soldier, on the other hand, inspires people to look up to his deed and appreciate what they are doing. In terms of quantity therefore, soldiers are the ones receiving more recognition.
Soldiers get less recognition for dying for there country than celebrities that die due to drugs

There are soldiers out there everyday putting there lives on the line to save our country and help the world. Every time one of them day they get a little mention on the news but into no great detail. However with Whitney Houston and Amy Winehouse when they recently died from drug abuse they were all over the news all over the world. This isnt fair as they are getting recognition for doing a wrong and illegal thing. Surely the soldiers should get much more attention???? Any views are wanted
Young Earth Creationism

Young Earth creationism is by far the most convoluted, ridiculous nonsense I've ever researched. Young earth creationism is the literal interpretation of the creation account from genesis, where god created the earth in 6 days. This worldview claims the earth is tens of thousands of years old rather than the billions of years estimated by scientists. This encompasses the idea that man walked with dinosaurs and that Noah's great flood is true. It also alleges that evolution has no evidence to support it and is a lie. I challenge any young earther to provide evidence that shows that the earth is young or debunks the modern science that proves the contrary. I will provide countless examples that prove the earth millions to billions of years old. For those of you who think I'm referring to creationism as a whole, I am not. I am specifically talking about those who believe the earth and universe are NOT billions of years old.
Drug Legalization

//Cloppbeast , Just because drugs are bad , doesnt mean people are always smart enough to realize this// Basically what you are suggesting is that people are sometimes stupid enough to do drugs, therefore the government needs to provide extra incentive for them. To start with, this arrangement doesn't work for reasons I already explained in the second round.. Secondly, considering the drug laws don't actually deter drug use, they are inhumane. Consider a crack-head who put in prison and while in prison he decides to turn his life around and quits crack. After he gets out of prison he rethinks his life and tries to get a job, but no one will hire him because he used to do crack. Devestated and alone he gives up on his new life and turns to his addiction again. Why would a just government do that to a person? Drug criminalization prevents drug-addicts from getting past the problems. People on drugs don't deserve to be put in prison, they just need help. //Most people don't pick up drugs and say Im going to try this and then be an addict for life. Everyone thinks it won't happen to them. NOONE tries their first drug saying I will become an addict.// No one suggested people purposefully get addicted to drugs. They are usually manipulated by drug dealers who are seeking another client. Why would we put an innocent victim of manipulation into prison after they have already been prosecuted enough with their addiction? //To say oh well if people are ODing , they will do it anyway , so lets make it legal is crazy.// Drug laws ruin, rather than help lives. Drug laws waste taxpayers money. Drug laws create a black market which puts drug suppliers, users, and innocent bystanders in danger. Drug laws infringe upon our civil liberties. Drug laws overpopulate our prisons with non-violent criminals. Drug laws increase the cost of drugs, making it necessary for addicts to steal. Drug laws put inocent children at risk of being targetted by a drug dealer. Drug lords and terrorist proffit of the illegal drug market. Drugs would be much safer if legalized. Drug laws don't work anyway. So, considering all these repercussions of drug laws, why do even have them if the don't even work? //so they may avoid drugs , but if they are legal , then hey why not give it a try// Why would you give them a try? You have already expressed many reason not to try drugs. They cause death, brain damage, and are extremely addictive. Every one knows how bad drugs are. Why do you still seem think drug laws are the reason people aren't using drugs? //Do you know who produces and distribute most illegal narcotics? Drug lords , terrorists , etc . Do you really want to let them profit legally off of us and all the people that get hooked on their dangerous products.// Terrorists and drug lords do distribute most ILLEGAL narcatics. Terrorists and drug lords tend to radiate towards illegal activity. But, in the presence of a free market, terrorists will not profit. Companies profit in a free market, not terrorists. Thanks for the debate.
Drug Legalization

Cloppbeast , Just because drugs are bad , doesnt mean people are always smart enough to realize this ... ie .. Most people don't pick up drugs and say Im going to try this and then be an addict for life. Everyone thinks it won't happen to them. NOONE tries their first drug saying I will become an addict. To say oh well if people are ODing , they will do it anyway , so lets make it legal is crazy. Also to say more people wont turn to drugs if they are legal is absurd. Of course more people will. It will be easier for them to get , many people have a fear of breaking a law and going to jail ..so they may avoid drugs , but if they are legal , then hey why not give it a try. Making drugs legal would be a bad thing for our country , our youth and the victims of drug use. Also who do you think will profit off the sales?? Do you know who produces and distribute most illegal narcotics? Drug lords , terrorists , etc . Do you really want to let them profit legally off of us and all the people that get hooked on their dangerous products. WE need to increase punishment on drugs ... we need to fight harder on the drug war , not just say oh well. We are losing so lets just let them do it is not the right philosophy.