They are likely to be divided into three sections. Design, multiple choice and an essay. Which is considering other factors that standerized testing doesn't have. However, as for the ones that are only multiple choice, I believe some allow team courses? That said, as I have said, standerized tests are discriminating. This is also a huge difference.
These stem competitions are not the entirety of the future on college applications. Advanced classes and electives as well play a part and other possible factors. Some schools allow entry only on standerized testing scores. The problem are these tests are unfair. If stem competitions are the reason for some entries in colleges, at least they don't discriminate. Though I doubt the schools like that. Unless stem competitions discriminate? I wouldn't know.
You somewhat repeat what you've already said. I believe that it isn't a good measure on how well a teacher may teach. Of course I probably couldn't prove zero impact at all. However as for the entirety of their capability, it doesn't prove it all. If I say a area that teachers get 60 scoring, that just backtracks. That let's pro know that con does think standerized testing scores prove a teachers capabilities. That goes against my previous statment and leaves room for the contention that pro mentioned in the beginning. Pro spent their entire time rebuttaling against me rather than supporting his contention. I wouldn't want to bring his points back up, giving him leverage when it was already, for the most part, moved on.
As for not defining standerized testing, that's my bad. I assumed the description gave a valid simple definition of standerized testing. Though I will clear up any confusion on the definition in future debates.
"... Eventually they move from those areas into predominantly white schools, leaving black schools with all shitty teachers.
This wasn't argued in the debate but it's the general reasoning for opposing standardized tests."
That is a good point, but that would also contridict myself. I personally state that the standerized test doesn't prove a teacher's capability to teach. If I included teachers would be chasing the better sallery, it would/could also affect my argument. What makes a good teacher? And how is that proven? There are simply many factors, and it might not even be the teacher. Hence the addition to students messing around in class. In the long run it might've affected more than what I brought to the table, plus part of pro's contention could've been recovered with the mentioning of teachers.
"This wasn't explained in the debate which is why I am personally reluctant to vote, but standardized tests in this context usually refer to tests required at the state or federal level and usually tests scores are used to determine funding, teacher bonuses etc."
Further, it is, to an extent, covered that test scores were to determine funding. Round two and three cover this briefly. And the description states what a standardized test is alone.. Might be putting myself at more risk stating the following, but it's whatever.
The following:
Pro's statement: "All standardized tests do is point out that it exists and force administration to take accountability for addressing it directly. Usually, through state funding which goes directly into personalized assistance & coaching. Extend."
Con's response to the statement: "If it's forcing them to take accountability, then why hasn't it happened already? Why are there still learning gaps?
Hence, this funding obviously isn't helping.
This funding doesn't always go to personalized assistance or coaching, either."
Apples to oranges, stem competitions are a choice. And are they biased and discriminatory? Stem competitions are something that access creativity and those other factors unlike the testing.
There are other ways to spot what students know about those things with different objectives.
Consider my quotes in the final round:
"I have a son who has been able to pass the written portion of the state driving exam since he was eight, but still can’t drive well enough to get the license. The reverse is also true in many cases: students who can perform well, but can’t pass certain types of tests. I find out whether my students know how to write a researched paper, by having them write one (or several). More important, I check their progress along the way (formative assessments) and provide additional instruction or support as the results indicate."
Maybe, i'll add to this response a bit later/next comment.
You can say that "we will fix it", whatever you want to say. "You" is not targeted towards you, personally. But are you really? The US has been reminded several times and what has happened? Absolutely nothing. We can't trust something that obviously isn't getting taken care of responsibly. You say you will, you have our trust but what happens when you don't do something you say you will? You become untrustworthy, and I believe that is exactly how I view the US responsibly. in handling this matter.
By those who are benefiting, who are those who are being hurt by it?
My main reason, and I keep bringing it up, for my contention Impacts.
If there are negative and discriminatory effects, they are allowing it? So, as the USA are they allowing racism though disprove of it at the same time? You can't have both sides. If you are a feminist, which is believing in equal rights, you can't ask for equal rights but also hold men to their biased standards such as opening the door for a woman, walking on the right side, etc. You can't be two sided.
Your denying the right of equality, of everyone being on the same level. Sure some obviously will be smarter, or less smarter than others but when you have effects that are biased that is different. You are denying that right, as said, of having equal terms as others.
I state there are other ways to get attention to that person, that could benefit. I state that creativity and things as of such should be factored in. Taking a test that only benefit the privileged and certain folks is unfair towards the rest who really have a slim chance of being benefited.
If only there was more room for characters it would've been a bit more expressive but it is what it is now.
"pro brings with this is that homework and other things are easy to cheat on (they are brought home in most cases) and grades cannot fairly function without standardized testing."
When was this said? I must have completely passed this..
"The issue is that con doesn't explain how each of these methods can fairly assess student learning in a way that is competitive."
Was it supposed to be competitive in the first place? You can try to beat someones score all you want, but in the end, it's really about having your own score and placing somewhere high. I have heard of students who just click through answers, so honestly, what really is competitive?
Is this the impression you were left with or something unaddressed that pro stated?
"If con made the argument that universities and other institutions of higher learning shouldn't be competitive, I would've had them won the debate as it justifies the low-stakes methods of testing, but right now there is no justification."
I'm a bit confused, competitive in what way? Competitive as limiting students with lower scores to get higher education? Or in what way?
As for the rest, nothing to really say. Alternatives were not my priority as you don't need alternatives for something to get removed. Though I can get that side of the vote. No hate towards the vote, just once again, reference for future debates. Overall, thanks.
I have thought about comparing though with the side effects it might tarnish the idea. My main goal was the impacts. Which is also the reason for my last quoting in the final argument.
I've only checked out one of Whiteflame's vote out of cirousity, but never completely regarded it. Might check it out, we'll see. Appreciated.
"I dont take that into consideration because its false. Abortion takes lives away."
Incorrect. It does take away lives.
"Still less important than saving lives."
Lives that had only begun. The other lives have been there for quite awhile. There life is not less important than a life that has barely (if) begun. If anything it would be the life that has been around longer.
"No. That is still less important than saving lives."
Already responded.
"Encouraging suicides is less important than saving lives."
Encouraging? I wasn't encouraging, my point was if they did and the baby was inside, it doesn't matter. It's there body therefore whatever happens inside their body is dependent on them.
"Not an argument, since abortion damages lives."
More so removes them, it removes them from the already active life that has been here for awhile. What life have they really had? They are a clump of things that have got no sort of intelligence.
"He didnt need to justify life. The argument of life beats all other arguments."
Great. Then, the already existing life that has been here for awhile trumps over because the new only (if) begined life is reckoning with their life.
We can go on and on about this but one thing is for sure, a woman is a life as well. And if you consider life an important factor than you have to consider hers as well.
Hm? Actually, you never take into consideration the 'life' depending on how you word it, is being taken away from the parent(s).
Also, as of which would be accounted to as the woman being treated as a slave which is also a violation of human rights. If the fetus is apart or inside the woman's body, she is able to treat her body however she pleases. It is her body, simply if she was to commit suicide, it was her body, her choice. Are we saving lives or are we damaging the ones that already exist?
All that said, his argument was talking about percentage, that didn't matter and lives. But he didn't justify life, all was done was practically restating.
Some of those actually require extra funding, usually you can’t breastfeed forever. When they continue to grow up even older and older, such as, let’s just throw out 5 years old. They then need more proper nutrition. How are they able to get such when they are struggling to feed themselves?
Further, hand me downs can become to small.
I believe I could still, argue this topic without the need for those things as well.
That usually happens when you have a ten thousand cap, at least with 'somewhat strong/strong' opinions I have in debates I tend to always cut down three or five thousand characters every time.
Actually, you can make something out of this. I could argue this without needing to go into high detail especially since its only ten thousand characters.
I'll do this if you verify one thing, what is the definition of "dignity" and "woman"?
I got a bit of background knowledge on Star War, at least on Ankin Skywalker.
I'll do a little bit more but are you willing to increase the character limit? It seems that every time I debate someone with ten thousand characters I end up running out of them.
It's funny because bibical god created the world with just a few days and could've done it with a snap of his fingers. Anything Zeus can do, god can as well because he is all powerful. Anyone who accepts in auto win.
What will banning do? After/before they forfeit all rounds there is a high chance, in experience, they won't log back on. At least this goes for new users.
If it's an active debater they might have a reason, might've just been out for a few days.
Also take into account it may be a two hour argument time limit and they may have forgot or it didn't squeeze into their schedule as planned.
Are you willing to do this with me, however with a more fixed resolution? Unless you want the same resolution, though I think it would be better changed.
Actually, that can be considered a good point. It depends on how Mall views "outside of the box". The first part of the discussion will be the easiest. I had other ideas, but that works as well.
Other than that, you just have to prove the second topic. "Is it really a fact that you're guaranteed to die?"
Usually I don't host debates and wait for someone to participate. I tend to only accept debates and agree to participate rather than being blind-folded to whom my opponent is.
I was contemplating on responding, but i'm willing to throw out my deck. Even if the other side has an advantage on my response, I am somewhat confident i'll win this.. that is if someone accepts.
Yeah, that's why I included 'forced'. If someone wants to try liking another gender or becoming hetrosexual through therapy, sure. However, it's not even proven that this therapy helps.
And the most likely reason that someone wants to change their sexual orientation is because of stigma regarding being homosexual.
--
Not only would it be forced but also harmful to the individual. Personally, I don't care if they reproduce or not, can they? Yeah. However I don't believe they have to reproduce.
--
So yes, you are correct. They are definitely harmful, it can even include electric shocks. Though that is one of the most harmful and isn't/wasn't used all the time, obviously. But it isn't just a possibility of physical and mental harm that is done while they are there.
There are higher possibilities of attempted suicide, illegal drugs, HIVS and STDS and depression.
Just because it's okay to be a virgin doesn't mean every woman has to date a man with the same or higher body count.
It's fine to have a higher body count than a man and be in a steady relationship.
--
As far as my argument goes, I don't expect much from a two round debate. Maybe if it was 5 rounds, but it's not. So as of right now I won't be throwing out all my cards on this debate.
I don't know where people keep getting these ideas about women dating/marrying men who have the same body count or, in this case, even higher body count.
And why does this not apply for men?
This is one of the stupidest things I won't ever understand.
"You guys", "Ungrateful Americans"
Hopefully this is directed towards the DART community mostly, but not entirely. I never once have stated i'm from the United States - I haven't disclosed anything.
All true, yes. I still believe standardized testing should be removed and I would debate this with other countries involved or not. Just because one is more involved in the controversial issue doesn't mean once again, it shouldn't change.
Sex before marriage has nothing to do with wether or not you'll have a successful marriage. If anything, one of the most key successions is probably communication or something along those lines.
Unless... you implement the possibility of pregnancy, then maybe.
I'll read the vote later for reference, thanks.
All good. It's submitted.
--
Vote: *Winner: Con*
I don't know the all the US standerized tests, so i'm not completely sure but isn't that the only test in the US with those exact measures?
They are likely to be divided into three sections. Design, multiple choice and an essay. Which is considering other factors that standerized testing doesn't have. However, as for the ones that are only multiple choice, I believe some allow team courses? That said, as I have said, standerized tests are discriminating. This is also a huge difference.
These stem competitions are not the entirety of the future on college applications. Advanced classes and electives as well play a part and other possible factors. Some schools allow entry only on standerized testing scores. The problem are these tests are unfair. If stem competitions are the reason for some entries in colleges, at least they don't discriminate. Though I doubt the schools like that. Unless stem competitions discriminate? I wouldn't know.
You somewhat repeat what you've already said. I believe that it isn't a good measure on how well a teacher may teach. Of course I probably couldn't prove zero impact at all. However as for the entirety of their capability, it doesn't prove it all. If I say a area that teachers get 60 scoring, that just backtracks. That let's pro know that con does think standerized testing scores prove a teachers capabilities. That goes against my previous statment and leaves room for the contention that pro mentioned in the beginning. Pro spent their entire time rebuttaling against me rather than supporting his contention. I wouldn't want to bring his points back up, giving him leverage when it was already, for the most part, moved on.
As for not defining standerized testing, that's my bad. I assumed the description gave a valid simple definition of standerized testing. Though I will clear up any confusion on the definition in future debates.
"... Eventually they move from those areas into predominantly white schools, leaving black schools with all shitty teachers.
This wasn't argued in the debate but it's the general reasoning for opposing standardized tests."
That is a good point, but that would also contridict myself. I personally state that the standerized test doesn't prove a teacher's capability to teach. If I included teachers would be chasing the better sallery, it would/could also affect my argument. What makes a good teacher? And how is that proven? There are simply many factors, and it might not even be the teacher. Hence the addition to students messing around in class. In the long run it might've affected more than what I brought to the table, plus part of pro's contention could've been recovered with the mentioning of teachers.
"This wasn't explained in the debate which is why I am personally reluctant to vote, but standardized tests in this context usually refer to tests required at the state or federal level and usually tests scores are used to determine funding, teacher bonuses etc."
Further, it is, to an extent, covered that test scores were to determine funding. Round two and three cover this briefly. And the description states what a standardized test is alone.. Might be putting myself at more risk stating the following, but it's whatever.
The following:
Pro's statement: "All standardized tests do is point out that it exists and force administration to take accountability for addressing it directly. Usually, through state funding which goes directly into personalized assistance & coaching. Extend."
Con's response to the statement: "If it's forcing them to take accountability, then why hasn't it happened already? Why are there still learning gaps?
Hence, this funding obviously isn't helping.
This funding doesn't always go to personalized assistance or coaching, either."
Apples to oranges, stem competitions are a choice. And are they biased and discriminatory? Stem competitions are something that access creativity and those other factors unlike the testing.
There are other ways to spot what students know about those things with different objectives.
Consider my quotes in the final round:
"I have a son who has been able to pass the written portion of the state driving exam since he was eight, but still can’t drive well enough to get the license. The reverse is also true in many cases: students who can perform well, but can’t pass certain types of tests. I find out whether my students know how to write a researched paper, by having them write one (or several). More important, I check their progress along the way (formative assessments) and provide additional instruction or support as the results indicate."
Maybe, i'll add to this response a bit later/next comment.
You can say that "we will fix it", whatever you want to say. "You" is not targeted towards you, personally. But are you really? The US has been reminded several times and what has happened? Absolutely nothing. We can't trust something that obviously isn't getting taken care of responsibly. You say you will, you have our trust but what happens when you don't do something you say you will? You become untrustworthy, and I believe that is exactly how I view the US responsibly. in handling this matter.
By those who are benefiting, who are those who are being hurt by it?
My main reason, and I keep bringing it up, for my contention Impacts.
If there are negative and discriminatory effects, they are allowing it? So, as the USA are they allowing racism though disprove of it at the same time? You can't have both sides. If you are a feminist, which is believing in equal rights, you can't ask for equal rights but also hold men to their biased standards such as opening the door for a woman, walking on the right side, etc. You can't be two sided.
Your denying the right of equality, of everyone being on the same level. Sure some obviously will be smarter, or less smarter than others but when you have effects that are biased that is different. You are denying that right, as said, of having equal terms as others.
I state there are other ways to get attention to that person, that could benefit. I state that creativity and things as of such should be factored in. Taking a test that only benefit the privileged and certain folks is unfair towards the rest who really have a slim chance of being benefited.
If only there was more room for characters it would've been a bit more expressive but it is what it is now.
Thanks. I'm mostly in for the votes for feedback, I know my arguments lacked and honestly its good to hear some advice to improve.
Bump, I guess. ^^^
Either one works for me, I have my response for the most part written out.
Whatever works for you.
I might run out of character due to your request(s), am I able to submit a link in the arguments via google documents?
Small questions, just for future reference..
"pro brings with this is that homework and other things are easy to cheat on (they are brought home in most cases) and grades cannot fairly function without standardized testing."
When was this said? I must have completely passed this..
"The issue is that con doesn't explain how each of these methods can fairly assess student learning in a way that is competitive."
Was it supposed to be competitive in the first place? You can try to beat someones score all you want, but in the end, it's really about having your own score and placing somewhere high. I have heard of students who just click through answers, so honestly, what really is competitive?
Is this the impression you were left with or something unaddressed that pro stated?
"If con made the argument that universities and other institutions of higher learning shouldn't be competitive, I would've had them won the debate as it justifies the low-stakes methods of testing, but right now there is no justification."
I'm a bit confused, competitive in what way? Competitive as limiting students with lower scores to get higher education? Or in what way?
As for the rest, nothing to really say. Alternatives were not my priority as you don't need alternatives for something to get removed. Though I can get that side of the vote. No hate towards the vote, just once again, reference for future debates. Overall, thanks.
I have thought about comparing though with the side effects it might tarnish the idea. My main goal was the impacts. Which is also the reason for my last quoting in the final argument.
I've only checked out one of Whiteflame's vote out of cirousity, but never completely regarded it. Might check it out, we'll see. Appreciated.
Cool, thanks. Elaborate and as of which I could work on.
Oh, it was a three day limit..
Sex versus gender are two different things.
"I dont take that into consideration because its false. Abortion takes lives away."
Incorrect. It does take away lives.
"Still less important than saving lives."
Lives that had only begun. The other lives have been there for quite awhile. There life is not less important than a life that has barely (if) begun. If anything it would be the life that has been around longer.
"No. That is still less important than saving lives."
Already responded.
"Encouraging suicides is less important than saving lives."
Encouraging? I wasn't encouraging, my point was if they did and the baby was inside, it doesn't matter. It's there body therefore whatever happens inside their body is dependent on them.
"Not an argument, since abortion damages lives."
More so removes them, it removes them from the already active life that has been here for awhile. What life have they really had? They are a clump of things that have got no sort of intelligence.
"He didnt need to justify life. The argument of life beats all other arguments."
Great. Then, the already existing life that has been here for awhile trumps over because the new only (if) begined life is reckoning with their life.
We can go on and on about this but one thing is for sure, a woman is a life as well. And if you consider life an important factor than you have to consider hers as well.
Hm? Actually, you never take into consideration the 'life' depending on how you word it, is being taken away from the parent(s).
Also, as of which would be accounted to as the woman being treated as a slave which is also a violation of human rights. If the fetus is apart or inside the woman's body, she is able to treat her body however she pleases. It is her body, simply if she was to commit suicide, it was her body, her choice. Are we saving lives or are we damaging the ones that already exist?
All that said, his argument was talking about percentage, that didn't matter and lives. But he didn't justify life, all was done was practically restating.
General question on your vote, how was it superior? In which ways was it good?
Yeah.
^^^^
Some of those actually require extra funding, usually you can’t breastfeed forever. When they continue to grow up even older and older, such as, let’s just throw out 5 years old. They then need more proper nutrition. How are they able to get such when they are struggling to feed themselves?
Further, hand me downs can become to small.
I believe I could still, argue this topic without the need for those things as well.
Yeah, thanks. I've been working on it for around half an hour.
My bad for the two week wait.
That usually happens when you have a ten thousand cap, at least with 'somewhat strong/strong' opinions I have in debates I tend to always cut down three or five thousand characters every time.
Alright. The dignity definition isn't quite what I was looking for, but, based on your definitions I might need to nitpick.
Actually, you can make something out of this. I could argue this without needing to go into high detail especially since its only ten thousand characters.
I'll do this if you verify one thing, what is the definition of "dignity" and "woman"?
I got a bit of background knowledge on Star War, at least on Ankin Skywalker.
I'll do a little bit more but are you willing to increase the character limit? It seems that every time I debate someone with ten thousand characters I end up running out of them.
It's funny because bibical god created the world with just a few days and could've done it with a snap of his fingers. Anything Zeus can do, god can as well because he is all powerful. Anyone who accepts in auto win.
At least from the little i've read.
What will banning do? After/before they forfeit all rounds there is a high chance, in experience, they won't log back on. At least this goes for new users.
If it's an active debater they might have a reason, might've just been out for a few days.
Also take into account it may be a two hour argument time limit and they may have forgot or it didn't squeeze into their schedule as planned.
Are you willing to do this with me, however with a more fixed resolution? Unless you want the same resolution, though I think it would be better changed.
Are you willing to have the same discussion, with slight changes to the time for the argument? Everything else will/can stay the same?
Actually, that can be considered a good point. It depends on how Mall views "outside of the box". The first part of the discussion will be the easiest. I had other ideas, but that works as well.
Other than that, you just have to prove the second topic. "Is it really a fact that you're guaranteed to die?"
My bad for the mention. Someone took this while I was writing my quesiton.
I sure hope not the number of kills..
Should I bother on voting since RationalMadMan has left?
Yeah, thanks. I was confused when more than half of pros arguments were supporting my arguments rather than against them.
Usually I don't host debates and wait for someone to participate. I tend to only accept debates and agree to participate rather than being blind-folded to whom my opponent is.
I was contemplating on responding, but i'm willing to throw out my deck. Even if the other side has an advantage on my response, I am somewhat confident i'll win this.. that is if someone accepts.
Yeah, that's why I included 'forced'. If someone wants to try liking another gender or becoming hetrosexual through therapy, sure. However, it's not even proven that this therapy helps.
And the most likely reason that someone wants to change their sexual orientation is because of stigma regarding being homosexual.
--
Not only would it be forced but also harmful to the individual. Personally, I don't care if they reproduce or not, can they? Yeah. However I don't believe they have to reproduce.
--
So yes, you are correct. They are definitely harmful, it can even include electric shocks. Though that is one of the most harmful and isn't/wasn't used all the time, obviously. But it isn't just a possibility of physical and mental harm that is done while they are there.
There are higher possibilities of attempted suicide, illegal drugs, HIVS and STDS and depression.
Bump.
Just because it's okay to be a virgin doesn't mean every woman has to date a man with the same or higher body count.
It's fine to have a higher body count than a man and be in a steady relationship.
--
As far as my argument goes, I don't expect much from a two round debate. Maybe if it was 5 rounds, but it's not. So as of right now I won't be throwing out all my cards on this debate.
Thanks. My bad to ask, but are you also able to increase the character limit by around 5k more? Just realized my rebuttals might exceed.
Other than that, i'll be able to accept.
--
Yeah, its alright. I'm testing a few things out and it might develop into a strong opinion but its not quite there yet.
Now that I think about it, would you be willing to do this with me?
Same parameters, description and resolution. Unless you want changes.
I don't know where people keep getting these ideas about women dating/marrying men who have the same body count or, in this case, even higher body count.
And why does this not apply for men?
This is one of the stupidest things I won't ever understand.
All good. I can understand why.
"You guys", "Ungrateful Americans"
Hopefully this is directed towards the DART community mostly, but not entirely. I never once have stated i'm from the United States - I haven't disclosed anything.
All true, yes. I still believe standardized testing should be removed and I would debate this with other countries involved or not. Just because one is more involved in the controversial issue doesn't mean once again, it shouldn't change.
This is my point when I implemented my contention "Impacts", yes, they are better than in Asia however that doesn't mean it shouldn't change.
I would've mentioned other countries if it weren't for the "United States" part of the resolution.
Sex before marriage has nothing to do with wether or not you'll have a successful marriage. If anything, one of the most key successions is probably communication or something along those lines.
Unless... you implement the possibility of pregnancy, then maybe.
How many debates did you scroll through to find this?...