Here is another reason I didn't want to judge this.
There were some implicit arguments made.
1. Funding from standardized tests should go to underperforming schools where the most funding is needed.
2. Funding goes to over performing schools.
Some citations or facts on how federal funding ties in with test scores currently would be nice, as well as pointing out to pro that if you give more funding to underperforming schools, it incentivized teachers to do a shitty job teaching.
"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"
Were you arguing that they have zero impact on test results or just that it isn't a good measure of their ability to teach.
Let's assume a few things.
1. Average test score is 75
2. Avg score in bad neighborhoods is 50
3. Avg score in public charter school is 90
The following scenarios can be true, given those hypothetical data points
1. Schools are rewarded with funding to pay teachers more in the schools with higher average scores.
2. The people hiring teachers for those schools are more competent than the state so when they see a teacher getting scores of 60 in bad neighborhood schools averaging 50, they know she is a better than average teacher and will give her a salary bump to come there.
So we have the following two seemingly contradictory things that can simultaneously be true.
1. standardized tests are bad at determining the ability of teachers when compared to nation wide averages.
2. The funding that rewards better performing schools starts a snow ball where all competent teachers will move to where they are least needed so they can better support their family.
"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"
My issue is that somebody reading the debate who doesn't know what a standardized test is, may assume you guys are debating all testing period. There should have been some effort made to define standardized testing in a way that let voters know that other forms of testing exist to test knowledge.
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.
A lot of the criticism of them is that good teachers will leave the places that need them most to chase salary and bonuses. Basically we already know predominantly black schools will get low scores on tests and teachers will be judged by something out of their control which is the low IQ of students in those areas. 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.
Every school tests children to determine whether they learned the material. This in the American standard would be your standard test, but don't confuse your standard test for standardized tests, because they are opposite things.
Standard means typical. Like this is a standard day. Standardized means basically the opposite of standard in this regard. Usually standardized means something like "to make all,the same".
Like "we standardized how to make burgers at McDonald's" while a standard Hamburger would come from a back yard grill and widely vary from person to person.
Dude isn't logical. Earlier he concluded that their are only 4 ethical frameworks just because you can divide ethical frameworks into four general categories.
If I debated him for example and mentioned ethical egoism as an ethical position, he would legit be confused
I wrote a book yesterday though where I claimed the book was from God and there were no contradictions. Not only does it not prove anything, literally no non Muslims even claim there are contradictions.
Think about it, as a rapist if you allow your pregnant daughter to give birth, that child has your DNA and can get you locked up, therefore it is inherently better for abortion to be legal.
This is actually a tough topic for pro. This debate is more than fair though it is more difficult to research than most . Anyone interested in immigration regardless of their personal beliefs should be willing to accept this
don't judge this one guys it has an extremely clear winner and my vote will be here as soon as my video finishes uploading. This other debate is more urgent if you have time and the winner is less clear. https://www.debateart.com/debates/4329-standardized-testing-should-not-be-abolished-in-the-united-states?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=37
I just read this. I think con made a lot of mistakes, but I am not convinced they won until I do my impact analysis later, but it intuitively feels like con won for now.
I know one thing con should have done is point out there is a difference between standardized tests and just any test a little better, but con seems like they did really well
having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason;
I agreed with the first portion, but it also adds the second part of the definition as well, which follows.
more preferable than not doing said action."
And I am not interested in debating you on this. I was pointing out that you didn't vote in a tabula rasa fashion and therefore you voted incorrectly. Feel free to disagree with me.
You are trying to attack my arguments, which is pointless. I don't even agree with my arguments, meanwhile I am talking about your decisions on how to judge a debate. I will likely be reviewing your other votes to see if you just in general vote incorrectly or if you merely decided to make up some bullshit justification to vote against me, that way I can for my own benefit know which of the two following possibilities exist with you.
Possibility 1- you consistently are just a terrible voter
Possibility 2- you just voted terrible because of a bad motive
You know I didn't like RM, but instead of voting like shit on his debates, I awarded him the win like 75% of the time.
"There are five generally recognized ethical frameworks in philosophy: utilitarian, human rights, common good, fairness, and virtue. Self-determination is not an ethical framework and you don't seem to know much about ethical framework"
Can you copy and paste where con made this argument?
Also let me copy and paste the relevant portion of the definition for you
"more preferable than not doing said action."
Also please copy and paste where con objects to this interpretation of the definition in round 2.
Justified: having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason; more preferable than not doing said action."
The above was in the description and stated action preferable to inaction (aka not doing action)
Tabula rasa means blank slate. You should be essentially acting like a naive alien from outer space when judging debates. I will do a walk through of my next few debate judgements to show you
"Was your re-interpretation of the concept of JUSTIFICATION, strategy or just lack of interest in dictionary defintions?"
It's in the definition of the debate provided in the description and restated in round 1. Even if my interpretation is ridiculous, it is up to con to point that out, not you.
As far as ethical framework is concerned we have the right to self determination as defined by me and expanded on every round because it went unchallenged, among many other things
I was reading the vote straight through until I realized it wasn't tabula rasa and then I started skipping around. I believe that con's use of quora was criticized and if this was a 7 point debate, he would have awarded me sources but there is literally no mention that one of my sources was "some guy on storm front I think"
I think in a 7 point debate he may have tied it, if we take his words seriously. I would have received grammar and sources while con won on arguments, LOL
Oromagi's vote is not tabula rasa . The fact he brings up cons use of quora is proof of that.
This is a choose winner debate, but if it wasn't you would never ever award source points unless a side makes an argument for why they deserve source points and you would even judge their argument in a tabula rasa style.
I know of him well enough to know he isn't a Nazi, so it really shows how disingenuous the left is and how they are creating actual Nazis because people are becoming more immune to that accusation after hearing it so much and thrown at everybody
I know enough about sneako to know he is a bitch. He is into watching men fuck his girl and he fronts like some sort of hard ass. It's a grift he is doing after he saw the success of Andrew Tate
Just read your question about Nick Fuentes. He seems like a bit of an edge lord from the maybe 2 interviews I have seen with him. He certainly didn't come across as a white nationalist or any of the other things he is accused of being.
Don't worry about the loss.
"A refined absurdity, is still an absurdity"
Ayn Rand
I don't have an opinion but probably lean pro if forced to take a stance.
"A standardized test is a test that is administered and scored in a consistent, or "standard", manner."
The above is the definition given. It seems like the definition could literally apply to any test at all
I might judge it anyway, but it won't be easy and even after reading it twice, I don't know who won unless I get out a pen and a paper
Here is another reason I didn't want to judge this.
There were some implicit arguments made.
1. Funding from standardized tests should go to underperforming schools where the most funding is needed.
2. Funding goes to over performing schools.
Some citations or facts on how federal funding ties in with test scores currently would be nice, as well as pointing out to pro that if you give more funding to underperforming schools, it incentivized teachers to do a shitty job teaching.
"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"
Were you arguing that they have zero impact on test results or just that it isn't a good measure of their ability to teach.
Let's assume a few things.
1. Average test score is 75
2. Avg score in bad neighborhoods is 50
3. Avg score in public charter school is 90
The following scenarios can be true, given those hypothetical data points
1. Schools are rewarded with funding to pay teachers more in the schools with higher average scores.
2. The people hiring teachers for those schools are more competent than the state so when they see a teacher getting scores of 60 in bad neighborhood schools averaging 50, they know she is a better than average teacher and will give her a salary bump to come there.
So we have the following two seemingly contradictory things that can simultaneously be true.
1. standardized tests are bad at determining the ability of teachers when compared to nation wide averages.
2. The funding that rewards better performing schools starts a snow ball where all competent teachers will move to where they are least needed so they can better support their family.
"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"
My issue is that somebody reading the debate who doesn't know what a standardized test is, may assume you guys are debating all testing period. There should have been some effort made to define standardized testing in a way that let voters know that other forms of testing exist to test knowledge.
Standardized testing is not "standard testing"
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.
A lot of the criticism of them is that good teachers will leave the places that need them most to chase salary and bonuses. Basically we already know predominantly black schools will get low scores on tests and teachers will be judged by something out of their control which is the low IQ of students in those areas. 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.
Every school tests children to determine whether they learned the material. This in the American standard would be your standard test, but don't confuse your standard test for standardized tests, because they are opposite things.
Standard means typical. Like this is a standard day. Standardized means basically the opposite of standard in this regard. Usually standardized means something like "to make all,the same".
Like "we standardized how to make burgers at McDonald's" while a standard Hamburger would come from a back yard grill and widely vary from person to person.
Dude isn't logical. Earlier he concluded that their are only 4 ethical frameworks just because you can divide ethical frameworks into four general categories.
If I debated him for example and mentioned ethical egoism as an ethical position, he would legit be confused
Okay, good luck
I wrote a book yesterday though where I claimed the book was from God and there were no contradictions. Not only does it not prove anything, literally no non Muslims even claim there are contradictions.
I mean, I am convinced no contradictions exist.
you already conclusively proved the Quran has no contradictions. Why don't you debate something else?
Actually maybe you could call it egoism
It would help cover up the crime. If we are taking the POV of the rapist and applying utilitarianism, Ii think it makes sense
Think about it, as a rapist if you allow your pregnant daughter to give birth, that child has your DNA and can get you locked up, therefore it is inherently better for abortion to be legal.
Not if Con is a rapist. If con is a rapist, it is an argument for con.
My argument as con would have been that it's easier to hide evidence of rape if you allowed women to be coerced into abortions by rapists.
Could I have secured you guy's votes with that you think?
I will see what I can do.
This is actually a tough topic for pro. This debate is more than fair though it is more difficult to research than most . Anyone interested in immigration regardless of their personal beliefs should be willing to accept this
don't judge this one guys it has an extremely clear winner and my vote will be here as soon as my video finishes uploading. This other debate is more urgent if you have time and the winner is less clear. https://www.debateart.com/debates/4329-standardized-testing-should-not-be-abolished-in-the-united-states?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=37
I just read this. I think con made a lot of mistakes, but I am not convinced they won until I do my impact analysis later, but it intuitively feels like con won for now.
I know one thing con should have done is point out there is a difference between standardized tests and just any test a little better, but con seems like they did really well
Okay waiting for video to publish and will place vote
I literally got it bros. doing it now
yeah I have today off and I posted that comment to remind myself to do so
There are two parts to the definition
This part
having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason;
I agreed with the first portion, but it also adds the second part of the definition as well, which follows.
more preferable than not doing said action."
And I am not interested in debating you on this. I was pointing out that you didn't vote in a tabula rasa fashion and therefore you voted incorrectly. Feel free to disagree with me.
You are trying to attack my arguments, which is pointless. I don't even agree with my arguments, meanwhile I am talking about your decisions on how to judge a debate. I will likely be reviewing your other votes to see if you just in general vote incorrectly or if you merely decided to make up some bullshit justification to vote against me, that way I can for my own benefit know which of the two following possibilities exist with you.
Possibility 1- you consistently are just a terrible voter
Possibility 2- you just voted terrible because of a bad motive
You know I didn't like RM, but instead of voting like shit on his debates, I awarded him the win like 75% of the time.
"There are five generally recognized ethical frameworks in philosophy: utilitarian, human rights, common good, fairness, and virtue. Self-determination is not an ethical framework and you don't seem to know much about ethical framework"
Can you copy and paste where con made this argument?
Also let me copy and paste the relevant portion of the definition for you
"more preferable than not doing said action."
Also please copy and paste where con objects to this interpretation of the definition in round 2.
Three
Two
One
Justified: having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason; more preferable than not doing said action."
The above was in the description and stated action preferable to inaction (aka not doing action)
Tabula rasa means blank slate. You should be essentially acting like a naive alien from outer space when judging debates. I will do a walk through of my next few debate judgements to show you
"Was your re-interpretation of the concept of JUSTIFICATION, strategy or just lack of interest in dictionary defintions?"
It's in the definition of the debate provided in the description and restated in round 1. Even if my interpretation is ridiculous, it is up to con to point that out, not you.
As far as ethical framework is concerned we have the right to self determination as defined by me and expanded on every round because it went unchallenged, among many other things
I am maybe going to make a few votes and give a tutorial on how to properly judge later.
Just don't vote on any of my debates until you properly learn how to use tabula rasa. Look at literally any vote by Barney or whiteflame.
I was reading the vote straight through until I realized it wasn't tabula rasa and then I started skipping around. I believe that con's use of quora was criticized and if this was a 7 point debate, he would have awarded me sources but there is literally no mention that one of my sources was "some guy on storm front I think"
I think in a 7 point debate he may have tied it, if we take his words seriously. I would have received grammar and sources while con won on arguments, LOL
Oromagi's vote is not tabula rasa . The fact he brings up cons use of quora is proof of that.
This is a choose winner debate, but if it wasn't you would never ever award source points unless a side makes an argument for why they deserve source points and you would even judge their argument in a tabula rasa style.
your speculation of my strategy at the end. Is mostly correct. Thanks for your vote
I know of him well enough to know he isn't a Nazi, so it really shows how disingenuous the left is and how they are creating actual Nazis because people are becoming more immune to that accusation after hearing it so much and thrown at everybody
I know enough about sneako to know he is a bitch. He is into watching men fuck his girl and he fronts like some sort of hard ass. It's a grift he is doing after he saw the success of Andrew Tate
Just read your question about Nick Fuentes. He seems like a bit of an edge lord from the maybe 2 interviews I have seen with him. He certainly didn't come across as a white nationalist or any of the other things he is accused of being.
I appreciate your rap skills
thabk you, I will be listening to the video for feedback when I get. To work
I get what you are saying now, but I think it should be interpreted as factually correct. He probably called the west degenerate or something
Correct means accurate, true etc.
Test passed.
Just a test to see if the website can render Arabic.
ا یَذۡكُرُ ٱلۡإِنسَـٰنُ أَنَّا خَلَقۡنَـٰهُ مِن قَبۡلُ
I am at peak Wylted right now. Every top debater on this site should be trying to duck me right now.
I appreciate you trying even if you do come in after the bell.
Can you just give me 5 bullet points of his criticisms of western culture and the laws he passed so I can be on the same page as you?
This debate has 72 hours left in voting, and I'm sure you don't want any of thee debates ending in a tie
"Clothing"
Hand me downs
"Nutrient & Feeding Supplies"
WIC and breast feed
"Diapers"
Go cloth
"Bedding"
Co sleep