BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Students Should be Allowed to Have Their Cell Phones at School

I am currently in school and I do not have a cell phone. I am in over 7 school clubs, some of which meet after school and I still use the school phones. My point is students just do not want to use the school phones and make excuses to their parents about it. Students now, at the age of 6, have cell phones and it would be best to define this as spoiling a child. A more detailed definition can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org... But also, in your previous argument, you said that parents use cell phones as a way to teach children responsibility. Some children do not get the point of responsibility and in turn, lose the phone and get their parents to buy them a new one. This cycle repeats over and over again if the parents really spoil their child. Some parents will actually press charges on the school for their child's phone being stolen because it was somebody in the school and the school was not responsible enough to keep his/her child's phone safe. There are many other ways to press charges and you never know what could happen in a democratic government system. There are quite a bit of stupid rules put in place. Cyber bullying is another large topic when discussing the use of phones by students. Many students do not know the full impact of a text or IM or anything else. Here is a link with further information: http://www.bullyingstatistics.org... About 20 years ago (or less) students did not get phones until about 15 or 16 years old because it was not necessary and it still isn't today. As a student in elementary or middle school, there are not responsibilities that do not require a phone and rather has a negative social impact on our society. Teens are now spending more than 6 hours on their cell phones and may log into FaceBook over 10 times a day. These facts are shocking but it is true. And by the way, why would anyone need to call their parents in a school shooting? Should they not be more worried about the shooter in the school or calling the police?
Students Should be Allowed to Have Their Cell Phones at School

“Cell phones may be an ease for students but there are several alternatives such as school phones (in the office) or telling your parents beforehand.” School phones are simply not as efficient as cell phones. Many students need to use a cell phone to contact their guardian after school, and often times there can be a long line waiting for office phones. In addition, in the case of an emergency where there are no teachers around or a school shooting one cannot reach the office phones. Its also sometimes impossible to predict schedule things so you cannot tell your parents beforehand. “Parents do not need to use an expensive cell phone as a way to teach children about responsibility.” The point of giving someone a cell phone isn’t to teach them responsibility, but the fact remains that giving a child a cell phone will teach them responsibility, whether that was intended or not. “Some of the main reasons schools ban cell phones is because they get stolen/lost easily. If kids lose their cell phone at school, the school may also be put in charge of this when, actually they did not do anything.” To put it simply, this is not the fault of allowing students to use their cell phones at school, rather this is the fault of an inefficient and rather stupid “justice” system in place. This argument does not work against cell phone usage since what happens is not the direct fault of cell phone usage. The rest of my opponent’s argument was rather short and pretty irrelevant to the topic. My opponent drops several of my arguments. Over to you.
Students Should be Allowed to Have Their Cell Phones at School

Cell phones may be an ease for students but there are several alternatives such as school phones (in the office) or telling your parents beforehand. The school definitely has phones that you may use and they are there for you to use them. Many students think that bringing their cell phones means they can call their parents but the truth is that they just don't want to ask the office to use those phones. Parents do not need to use an expensive cell phone as a way to teach children about responsibility. Rather, doing chores to get time on the computer, watching TV or working harder in school to earn privileges. Many people think that they may use the computer or the television to their enjoyment but that is a privilege as well. Some of the main reasons schools ban cell phones is because they get stolen/lost easily. If kids lose their cell phone at school, the school may also be put in charge of this when, actually they did not do anything. But since the phone was lost on school property, charges may be pressed. That is why the school tries to avoid these situations. Sometimes, they may also get stolen and again, the school is in charge of this. Similar to the previous situation, the school would like to avoid these things.
Students Should be Allowed to Have Their Cell Phones at School

This is the argument from my former account xXCryptoXx. This argument was not plagiarized; for it is my own work being used on this account that I created. Cell Phones Are Great For the Ease of Students This is obviously going to be the biggest argument and it is quite simple. It is common knowledge that people are busy. Allowing students to have cell phones with them allows them to schedule things and make important contact with extreme ease. For example if your parents thought they needed to pick you up at 3:00 P.M, but didn’t know you had to stay after school to finish a test; that could have been a problem easily solved if the student had had the ability to contact his parents in order to tell them he would have to stay after school a while. Its also not limited to the student, if the parent is running late or cannot pick their child up from school for any reason, or even if there is a family emergency they should be able to contact their child. Cell phones allow a huge burden to be taken off parents and students, by allowing them to schedule things and contact others quickly and efficiently; something that could not be done without cell phones. In the case of an emergency, such as medical problems, a school shooting, ect. students will be able to quickly and efficiently be able to contact authorities which allows some order to the chaos around them and can save lives while increasing the chance that the perpetrator is caught. Gives Students Choice and Responsibility By allowing students to possess phones during school, this gives them the opportunity to mature and learn responsibility. With the ability to possess cell phones, punishment for using cell phones during inappropriate times will be active. This gives students the choice to either use or not use their phones during inappropriate times. If they are caught and reprimanded then it gives them a chance to grow in maturity. Allowing cell phones forces students to be responsible with their phones, and learn from mistakes they make. This allows students to mature and grow in responsibility. All The Benefits Without the Consequences If it is found that students cannot be trusted to use their cell phones appropriately then school rules can be placed in order to deter cell phone use during class. For example, students may be forced to turn off their phones and place it on their desk during class. This takes away the problem of students playing on their phones or being distracted by their phones during class, while still providing the benefits of students being able to use their phones after school or in the case of an emergency.
In general, violence in video games has not caused real-world violence.

Since my opponent has not defined one key word in this debate I shall.Violence is the use of physical force to harm someone or damage property. (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Contention 1: Studies show they cause violence. We can see by this chart above that people believe that these violent video games cause violence. (http://yougov.co.uk...)Now you may ask me why does video games cause violence? The answer is simple. It's the media's effectiveness to market products and slogans to a younger audience causing them to practically do what the company wants them to do. Craig Anderson, Professor at Iowa St University lead a research of over 3,000 children and found that children who play violent video games for a short period of time during the week lead to permanent changes in the brain, causing them to become more violent towards other. (http://time.com...) They also found in a study in Singapore that when they did the same study with children between the ages of 8-17 that violence increases over a three year period. They hit, kick, and push a whole lot more. (http://www.foxnews.com...) In a 2008 study of Grand Theft Childhood, they found that 60% of Middle Schoolers that beat up someone up played at least 1 M rated game compared to the 39% of kids who did not. (Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth about Violent Video Games and What Parents Can Do, Apr) According to an FBI study done in 2000, they found a link between violent video games and school shootings. (http://videogames.procon.org...) Con also says that if sales are linked then why are they going down, but let me show you this graph here. Coincidence? I think not. How can we dwarf an entire continent in both game sales and homicide rates?I will hand things off to Pro once more.
Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage are Good

The purpose of this debate is to have a conversation on this, as I want to understand the other side better. Now, the last two times I have done a similar debate, my opponent was not respectful. If you are someone who will discuss/debate this with me in a respectful way, then you may join the debate. Here is more exactly what I mean by respect (binding as rules): 1. Language that is acceptable for teachers and employees at their job (meaning no vulgar language). If this is repeatedly violated, I have the right to end the debate at that point, and a forfeiture of at least one point must be given to my side per vote. As a side note, the terms of use (on the bottom right of (any?) Debate.org webpage) already speak of this (and I will report it) right before the "Proprietary Rights"" section. 2. If you forfeit a round, at minimum, let me know what is going on. If two consecutive rounds are forfeited without any comment from you in the comments section or debate section, all 7 points are forfeited to my side. Other rules: 3. Rules may be changed if both sides agree, and on which rounds they apply to. The default for which rounds would exclude rules being applied retroactively. Debate discussion: An important clarification: When I mean homosexual, I mean outwardly, showingly, homosexual, not just an inclination towards it. Now, the questions I have regarding this topic are these: 1. What makes homosexuality good? How is this distinguished from a non-homosexual, meaning, can a non-homosexual do this good in the same way (for example, heterosexual brothers)? 2. What is your definition of love? Can you explain it in depth and give examples?
DDO Olympics: Nerd and Fandom Prelims

It was rather fun. Now, let's take a critical look at the topic, and I'll summarize the main points and how I feel they go in my favor. The do agree that the clash really comes down to whether the pragmatic methods of the Borg versus the individualistic methods of the Jedi are more effective. The Borg 1) The Borg are the most pragmatic. Now it would be nice for my opponent to be able to apply the real world to this debate, but the Borg must be analyzed for what they are. To this point, my opponent has not provided an example of where the Borg system has failed in its objective internally. Thus, with the complete assimilation of the universe, we have no precedent to assume flaws. In fact, the system can only improve, which is part of my next point. 2) As I stated in my original case, when all people in the universe are assimilated, we will have every piece of scientific data and every known method of innovation known to the universe. Every unique thought that's ever been developed, and every one of the smallest ways to develop or innovate will be known. This can only lead to maximum scientific development in every field. The Jedi 1) They retain a higher level of individualism than the Borg. I will concede that the Borg do not uphold individualism. However, the Jedi are not proven to be without flaw. While the case of Anikan can be disputed, we can at least agree that a Jedi became Sith. The Jedi methods are not be universally applicable, while the Borg methods are universally applicable. This is why the Jedi cannot be more pragmatic or more effective than the Borg. 2) The Jedi are not focused on innovation. Their only innovation is turned toward themselves. Since not every person can be Jedi, innovation will not be universal. Thus, while individualism is upheld, innovation is not. As I said, I did address progression in my first speech, and it was never specifically refuted. Thus, I am still able to argue in those grounds, and I believe that we can logically conclude the Borg definitely have the advantage when it comes to establishing peace.
DDO Olympics: Nerd and Fandom Prelims

It was inevitable that individuality would come up in this debate, and it is not something I have personally overlooked. Jedi methods may retain more individuality of the individual, but their methods aren't effective as a whole. There are examples where a Jedi will go rogue. They start doing their own thing, and they become Sith. I will personally define "Sith" as follows: The Sith are an order of Force-sensitive beings who use the dark side of the Force. [1] The Jedi and Sith are both force-sensitive beings who work on mastering their control of the force. While Jedi have good intentions, there is a very famous example of a Jedi master who became a Sith Lord: Anakin Skywalker. He started as a child devoted to good, and no matter how much the Jedi pounded their ideology into his head, he did eventually become a Sith Lord. He was responsible for the near extermination of the Jedi including a massacre of child padawans. The Jedi method of establishing peace didn't work in that scenario. All I need is one fault in the system to prove the Jedi are less effective than the Borg. The Borg already don't have rogue Borg without very extreme circumstances that can be overlooked by simple acceptance of the Borg methods of peace. Here's why practicality should be considered most important:When establishing peace, pragmatism should be valued above everything except for life. The Borg do not infringe on life unless they're attacked first. In fact, they generally don't even resort to violence unless attacked. Their goal is to assimilate, not kill. The Jedi also don't infringe upon life unless attacked in a serious manner. This means we need to move to the next step pragmatism. The Borg methods are the most pragmatic we have. Each and every species becomes part of their race, and their race is absolutely peaceful among itself. There are no civil wars. Addressing individuality itself:The Borg sound anti-individualistic, but it is not as bad as it would seem. In fact, the Borg find their link very comforting. In the episode "I, Borg" we learn something about the Borg collective when a Borg is taken away from the Borg Collective by the crew of the Enterprise. His link is broken, and he actually finds it very disturbing and unnerving. He asks why he can't hear other people dreaming, as the Borg do dream when asleep and can hear each other's dreams. To us that may sound like a lot to take in while taking a nap, but the mind of the Borg is accustomed to that and comforted by it. They hear each other's thoughts, and the way the reason they keep a small level of individuality is because they want the individual's knowledge to be added to the Collective. It's not a simple mind wipe. While they are still not entirely individualistic, they do retain a certain level of individuality. While it may be true that we would lose no small amount of individuality in the process of becoming Borg, as a whole for the universe, it is the best option in the name of science and peace. ------------------------------------------------ Source: [1] . http://scifi.about.com...
DDO Olympics: Nerd and Fandom Prelims

;) For a quick start I would like to follow in Jonbonbon’s structure and demonstrate just who the Jedi are: . http://static.comicvine.com... And where they live: . http://static3.wikia.nocookie.net... First of I would like to restate the resolution and offer a couple quick observations on this topic. Resolved: The Borg's methods of establishing peace are more desirable than the Jedi's methods. O1: First what must be seen is that we are debating which methods are more desirable, this means we must have something in order to assess desirability by as multiple characteristics can be seen as qualifying something as desirable - for example, if I were to discuss which was more desirable, a hamburger or a milkshake, an important first step would be determining if satisfying hunger or thirst were deemed as greater (if hunger is more pressing, than the burger would be more desirable, likewise thirst would favor the milkshake). O2: My opponent is essentially valuing the effectiveness of the methods in her case. This is seen in how here justification is that the borg's methods are more practical. My stance today is going to be one that looks beyond effectiveness, as these are simply the ends of an action. However, we must also look at the means required to achieve it. Therefore, my stance is going to be that the Jedi's methods are more desirable as they value individuality. But first a brief background. The Jedi are best described by the following: "Originally formed as a philosophical study group situated on the planet Tython, the Jedi became revered as guardians of peace and justice in the galaxy. As mystical wielders of the Force and of their signature lightsabers, their powers inspired all citizens in the galaxy. The calm, considered demeanor of the Jedi made them ideal brokers of peace in times of conflict or dispute. " [. http://starwars.wikia.com...] They serve as peace keepers of the galaxy, and believe in mastering their own emotions in order to remain neutral in any given situation. However, one important aspect that separates them from their Borg opponents (in the context of this debate), is that they do not brainwash people into following their way of life. Now to address the importance of individuality and discuss how the Jedi maintain it. The concept of individuality is an important one as it pertains to ideas such as cultural progression. A factor that enables societies to be innovative and improve is the combination of unique, individual ideas. While the Borgs’ method for creating peace is effective, by essentially brainwashing everyone they strip the people they encounter of the individuality. Once someone becomes a member of the Borg collective they are no longer in possession of their unique identity. Whereas the Jedi create a peaceful society that allows people to continue existing as unique individuals. Seeing as this enables society to continue to progress and evolve, it is clear that this method of peace is beneficial because it has better long-term implications.
DDO Olympics: Nerd and Fandom Prelims

The resolution we will be debating is as follows: "Resolved: The Borg's methods of establishing peace are more desirable than the Jedi's methods. For visual aid of anyone who has not seen Star Trek I will provide some pictures. Here is a Borg cube. Here are some Borg. My primary reason for supporting the Borg methods is as follows: the Borg have more practical methods of establishing peace. I'll summarize the Borg's methods of establishing peace:The Borg search the universe for civilizations to assimilate. Their assimilation integrates the minds of the people they assimilate into the Borg Collective, which is a collective consciousness of people. Each Borg has the purpose to serve the collective and assimilate all races. Their goal is to assimilate everyone, which will both create a universe where there is no war and where the people are most capable of achieving scientific advancement. Now, the Borg Cubes may not look like the classiest spaceships, and the way they rebuild cities wouldn't be much better, but it's a small price to pay for universal peace and the ultimate scientific advancement. The reason this is more desirable:The Borg can absolutely guarantee universal peace and scientific advancement beyond what we can imagine. There would literally be no war, and the universe would thrive as a scientific community. We would have every thought of everyone that becomes a Borg. Every epiphany, discovery and philosophy would be known to everyone. That much information to start with is unimaginable and incredible for scientific advancement. After all of that knowledge is possessed, it wouldn't take long before we could actually discover everything about the universe that can be known.
The Purpose of Life

Here's my argument: I think that our purpose in life depends on who we are as a person. How we decide "who we are" is based on what makes us up. Undoubtedly, We are made of a body, Mind, And soul. The body acts, The mind gathers information, And the soul makes the decisions. With that said, Depending on which part of yourself you favor more decides what purpose you could possibly have. If you think differently, I would like to know how.
The Purpose of Life

Indeed; you worked to get where you are. Still though, There are qualities that led you to be able to do that well: determination, Creativity, Enginuity. There"s always a chance designing video games could be your purpose, But if it"s not, You"ve still learned many skills that could cross over into your real purpose. That epiphany of when everything starts to make sense doesn"t necessarily have to happen all of a sudden. You will spend your whole life trying to find what your purpose is, And you"ll find it eventually if you keep looking. So yes, Your purpose may not necessarily be what you"re best at, But every bit of growth you make over your lifetime will contribute to finding that purpose. Time will decide when you finally find it.
The Purpose of Life

I do see how it seems like we all have a set purpose. It seems as if everyone was designed to do the thing that they do best, For instance, Someone could think that my purpose is to design video games because I am good at that, However, I have had many years of practice, Going from a simple novice, To at least intermediate. However, I did not just wake up one day and say, 'I think my purpose is to code video games, ' what I did do, Is say 'Ubisoft has made some good games, And Microsoft pays really well, I think this will be fun, ' so I started learning how to code. The point of this story was to say that even though I code video games, It is not my purpose.
The Purpose of Life

Even with what I said, You"re atill making a choice. Say there is a person who is more mind-centered than anything, It is very unlikely their purpose in life"s has something to do with athletics or something else physical. That I am sure you can agree on. However, We all do have a set purpose in life. We were brought into the world not simply to live because what is live without some goal? A story has a conflict that must be solve and so do our lives. We have something we must overcome or do so that we"re reach that denouement at the end of our journey where we can enjoy life and stop worrying about the world. With that said, Not everyone will reach their purpose. Some will never find out their purpose because they look in the wrong places, Meaning they have to understand more where they themselves lie more with (body, Mind, Or soul). Even then, It is still their choice to seek our their purpose. At minimum, Though, We as people affect others with our actions and thoughts, And through that, We or they could grow more as a person to find our purpose or lose interest in finding your purpose. It all depends on the scenario, But it"s still a choice on if you find your goal or not.