BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Students Should Be Allowed to Talk During Class

Please forgive me for not posting my argument. Now then, as you all know, I personally believe that children should only talk when allowed by a teacher. 1. Now, if we gave students the ability to talk completely freely, do you think they are going to talk about school work? It's very unlikely. 2. Talking freely in class can be very disruptive during studying and working within the classroom. Let's say little Jimmy is working real hard on his work, trying to bring his grade, but then 2 guys are talking loudly about so and so (In school, you can find some, ahem, "interesting" conversations". ) Little Jimmy just can't get his work down, due to the huge distraction caused by the two boys. Poor, poor little Jimmy. 3. The ability to talk during class should only be at the consent of the teacher. During free time, by all means, talk away, but if you're in the middle of teaching someone, you wouldn't want them talking while you teach. As for asking questions, it's a simple lift of your hand, which, unless you are unable to, is quite easy. It is not very disruptive and the teacher will be able to get to the student's question. 4. When it comes to socializing, you are EASILY able to do that during passing period, free time, and lunch. Being in class is a time for learning, not socializing! 5. Being inspired CAN happen when one is silent. I am often inspired by just listening to a teacher or speaking. In conclusion, the ability to freely talk during class is one that could easily be taken advantage of.
Students Should Be Allowed to Talk During Class

1. Why should children not be able to speak in a classroom. One of the sole reasons for learning is to be skeptical; ask questions. Well, certainly not obvious questions, but ones that are interesting you. You can't be afraid to ask questions or talk or you will not be taught anything. 2. Teachers are teachers, and it wasn't hard to get them job. 2B. They're not anyone like Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, Bill Nye, Richard Dawkins, or anybody famous like that. Even if those people were your teachers, they would still make slight mistakes in the teachings; everybody does! 3. If students can't talk during class time how in the h*ll with they make friends? Are you only giving them lunch time and in-between classes to be social? 3B. Along with that, students won't work to learn with each other and be cooperate. Although you do need to be independent when you can, there are times when you'll need a group. 4. How will people pursue in their career goals? If your dream is to become a scientist or anything academic, there is no chance that you will know how to work together, create a hypothesis, and peer revise. 5. The con had mentioned that children will be more inspired if they're silent and don't speak. That statement is quite the contrary. If children can't say anything about the subject they are learning, how COULD they be inspired? 5B. I love asking questions, even my science teacher said we should be skeptical; she's right. Because of her, I have become open-minded and thoughtful about everything about the wonders of the world. Look, I have many more points but I think I could demolish you with just two of the ones I have listed. Good luck.
Teachers and Students Should Be Friends With Each Other on Social Media

First of all, what is stopping them from sharing that stuff over email, is that you wouldn't contact the teachers' personal email. You would contact their school one. There is absolutely no reason to have anything personal of the teachers. So the school would be stopping that gossip because, knowing that the principal checks in on all the emails when something doesn't seem right, would make the teacher not do that kind of stuff. You shouldn't have to go on Facebook to see a homework assignment. Again, the school's email that they set up for the teacher is for that, not Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snap Chat, and whatever else is out there. My argument holds very valid reasons. How long have you been in school? Or out of school? Because obviously you missed that the teachers have emails in which to contact the student. This creates a safe place for the teachers and the students to talk to one another because it is monitored......unlike so many Facebook messages. Therefore, your 'platform' is actually the more dangerous one. The principals are not allowed to get into another persons Facebook even if they think that something wrong is going on. It is against the law. However, they can go onto the email that is set up for the teachers. The safer environment and contacting policy, is obviously the one where it is legal to check up to make sure that the teachers and students are not over stepping their boundaries.
Teachers and Students Should Be Friends With Each Other on Social Media

Again, simply friending someone does not mean that they are the best of friends by default. All it means is that they have a means of contact. What's stopping them from sharing that kind of information and gossiping over email? Saying one thing is okay but the other isn't when they're the same thing is absurd. Let's say something like this was implemented, what happens if a teacher messages a student on facebook about a homework assignment? They aren't allowed to have even that kind of contact under your policy. So why not? Why, if it's fine in any other setting, can they not on what is simply another means of interaction. Honestly your arguments hold no logical basis when you consider that you turn around and say that it's alright on anything else that holds the same capabilities. I could make the argument that email is even more dangerous considering that places such as facebook have regulations that email doesn't, so you're saying it's okay for them to use the more dangerous platform but not the safer one.
Teachers and Students Should Be Friends With Each Other on Social Media

Teachers and students do have a lot of ways to keep in touch. There is no reason why they can't be in contact with each other after the school day is done. However, may I point out that I am not talking about simply teachers contacting students. I am talking about them being friends on the social media. There is no reason why the teachers need to see what the kids are up to at every moment in their lives (Twitter/Facebook). There is no reason for a teacher to see pictures of what the students are doing, where they are, and who they are with (Instagram/Facebook). If they need to get in contact with each other, by all means use an email. However, they don't need to be texting each other, sharing jokes, showing pictures, and gossiping with each other, at any time of the day! While the students are still in school, teachers need to keep things professional. After the students have graduated, well that's something completely different and is up to the teachers and kids to decide if they want to become friends and share that kind of stuff with each other.
Teachers and Students Should Be Friends With Each Other on Social Media

Social media, more and more, is becoming a prominent part of daily life. It, to a large degree, outweighs Email or phone. Saying that a teacher and student should not have contact through means such as social media that acts as a hyper-email system is entirely unreasonable in the same way that saying a student and a teacher should not have any kind of contact outside the classroom in unreasonable. Simply having contact with the person does not mean that, by default, that person is boning you and if you really want to get rid of anything that could lead to that, get rid of schools altogether.
"Lamb Of God" is the best representation of "Pure American Metal" music in all of the United States.

I was anxious for the refutation or an attempt to set a trap of something. I'm not proclaiming I hate LoG just by accepting this debate, there music is alright, one of my friends is a metal fan, and I've read their bio before this debate. I just find it amusing to debate against a band my friend likes. Voting issues for Con: 1. My opponent clearly states he forfeits. 2. My worthy opponent agreed that Megadeth is the better representation of heavy metal music in the U.S rather than Lamb of God, thus Con has proven its burden of the debate. 3. According to Pro, he describes Megadeth as U.S heavy metal music founder. Since Megadeth is the creator of the music then it's purely American Heavy Metal; this response agrees with my contention 1. 4. Just as a link for reason 3, I just wanted to point out that if Megadeth didn't exist or didn't rise up to be the best then Lamb of God wouldn't had followed their example. Therefore without Megadeth being the best representation, Lamb of God wouldn't had followed it's lead and produced great songs. 5. My opponent hasn't responded to my challenge in contention 5. 6. Con has provided a counter-plan/band and directly attacked Pro and the resolution. 7. Con's case remains untouched, therefore all my arguments stand. 8. Con has proven his burden of the resolution. For the reasons above in round 1,2,3, please vote Con. And thanks Nismo69 for starting my first debate. Thank you for reading this.
"Lamb Of God" is the best representation of "Pure American Metal" music in all of the United States.

Thank you for your response, I was hoping for a hardcore refutal. Voting issues for Con: 1. My opponent clearly states he forfeits. 2. My worthy opponent agreed that Megadeth is the better representation of heavy metal music in the U.S rather than Lamb of God, thus Con has proven its burden of the debate. 3. According to Pro, he describes Megadeth as U.S heavy metal music founder. Since Megadeth is the creator of the music then it's purely American Heavy Metal; this response agrees with my contention 1. 4. Just as a link for reason 3, I just wanted to point out that if Megadeth didn't exist or didn't rise up to be the best then Lamb of God wouldn't had followed their example. Therefore without Megadeth being the best representation, Lamb of God wouldn't had followed it's lead and produced great songs. 5. My opponent hasn't responded to my challenge in contention 5. 6. Con has provided a counter-plan/band and directly attacked Pro and the resolution. For the reasons listed above including round one please vote con. Thank you.
"Lamb Of God" is the best representation of "Pure American Metal" music in all of the United States.

I forfeit, I give up, your facts and information seems very well researched and deeply well thought-out. I cannot come up with any kind of defense that would even remotely be worthy of standing up to your brutal attack on my statement and my claims. Therefore you win but may I point out one final thought that may make you see things a little differently. The truth is that I agree with you about how you point out that "Megadeth" is definitely better than "Lamb Of God" but here's something you may not have taken into account..."Megadeth" has set the stage and laid the foundation for all metal bands that came after them including "Lamb Of God" so without "Megadeth" you would not even be able to experience the extreme awesomeness of "Lamb Of God" and we wouldn't even be having this debate. That's my closing statement.
"Lamb Of God" is the best representation of "Pure American Metal" music in all of the United States.

I believe that "Lamb Of God" is the best representation of American Metal in all the United States, and I'm not just making this statement based on the concert I went to recently where the played an amazing show in Myrtle Beach. My statement is based on their music and lyrics...each song has a very deep and meaningful meaning but at the same time their sound is so insane and metal and whats even better is that you can understand every word not like some Metal bands that also have great lyrics but you can't even pick out a word the vocalist sings (or rather screams). Not only that but they have so much energy on stage and they really know how to get everybody pumped to the point where the entire standing room floor winds up becoming a huge Circle Pit, which is always fun. My point of this debate is I'm pretty sure the is no other band that is a better example of an American Metal Band they band says so themselves "Pure American Metal" is one of their albums. In short and also to reiterate my point if you are a Metal Fan then you know who "Lamb Of God" is and you listen to them a lot!
Security cameras are not an invasion of our privacy.

"All of these declarations are related to what is considered an invasion of privacy, however they don't address why security cameras ARE an invasion of our privacy." The why of the matter is irrelevant. This debate is over the what, which, as you've said, is clearly established by these documents. These laws are also clearly being breached, and said breach is a violation of the rights that are laid out in the aforementioned documents. Therefore, your entire argument this round, which is based on why, not what, is rendered moot. However, because I'm feeling sporting, I'll pick at some of the pieces of your rebuttal. "If we don't want to be seen going about our daily life by cameras, then why don't we have a problem with humans?" For one thing, avoiding humans entirely isn't really practical for the vast majority of people. For another, human eyes don't store in perfect condition data on your whereabouts, activities, appearance, etc. for the uses of a potentially malevolent and definitely corrupt and power-hungry government without your consent and against the law. "If the only reason why people don't like security cameras is that they remember fine details down to the second, I think that those people are very aware and private about their actions, leading the average person to suspect something is up with them, and that it would be a good idea to indeed have that person taped." I'd like to film you 24/7. Sleeping, eating, on the toilet, everything. If you refuse, according to your logic, something is up with you, and it would be a good idea to have you taped. Also, it is irrelevant what the "average person suspect[s]." Democratically-based governments exist to see the wishes of the majority realized as long as they do not infringe on human rights, even if the humans in question are the minority. If the average person thinks that I need to be taped, then the average person can go anally fornicate with a cactus. People being "very aware and private" about their decisions is not a bad thing at all, yet you say it like it is one. I apologize for the lukewarm arguments, but I really didn't have to put any effort into them because, as I said, your entire point is invalid.
Security cameras are not an invasion of our privacy.

All of these declarations are related to what is considered an invasion of privacy, however they don't address why security cameras ARE an invasion of our privacy. Continuing on from my last argument, if people thought that being videotaped was intruding into their personal life, going out in public would be considered an intrusion as well. Security cameras are placed in public areas like human eyes are. We look at people, people look at us. If we don't want to be seen going about our daily life by cameras, then why don't we have a problem with humans? The one thing that is different about cameras is that they don't lie and they always remember what people look like and what time it was. Cameras are much more reliable in a police investigation than witnesses, because their memories of the events aren't forgotten or altered. If the only reason why people don't like security cameras is that they remember fine details down to the second, I think that those people are very aware and private about their actions, leading the average person to suspect something is up with them, and that it would be a good idea to indeed have that person taped.
Security cameras are not an invasion of our privacy.

Everything that you just said is irrelevant as to whether public security cameras are an invasion of privacy. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 8: "Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure." Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, Article 10: "The privacy of correspondence, posts and telecommunications shall be inviolable." I could go on.
Security cameras are not an invasion of our privacy.

Security cameras are not an invasion of our privacy because they keep us safer. They survey public areas for illegal behaviour and often can be reviewed to identify criminals and other security threats. A lot of times, security footage is what incriminates suspects. Many people say that it is an invasion of our privacy to be spied on like this, but I think that if we don't do anything wrong we shouldn't have to worry about being seen by law enforcement. What do you think?
911 was an inside job

Yes I too dont have the time to spend weeks researching scientific papers and proving to you the scientific impossibility of 911.The strongest evidence that the official version of events is wrong is found in the chemistry of the 911 dust and not Structural Engineering. You are right Steven Jones is not a structural engineer and he doesnt claim to either.There are however Structural engineers who have written peer reviewed scientific articles on the questions surrounding the collapse of the towers in regards to how it collapsed etc. Steven Jones character was asssasinated by the pressure forced on that university.His science remains unanswered noone has proven him wrong merely saying hes a nut wont convince me otherwsie. ttp://www.youtube.com...The Irony of 911 denialism is that the Con side of the argument gradually started using more and more pseudosciencific arguments. There is a reason why NIST doesnt use pseudoscientific websites like 911debunking.com as the saviour to all of questions about the scientific impossibilities of 911 because its written by some overly patriotic nerd in a basement somewhere. Its unknown if RKOWENS or these debunking websites even have a degree in chemistry or engineering.It seems the answer is no . Meanwhile the truth movement has raised serious scientific questions to NIST that they have failed to answer properly.These are in the form of peer reviewed scientific papers and noone has proved those papers wrong or been able to explain the anonomlys .If you can find a paper discrediting the Bentham nanothermite paper or any other of their papers please share it with me. The official rebuttal from NIST is that there were no explosives found there because they didn't find and evidence of explosives. When asked how or where did they test NIST replied they did not look for evidence of explosives so they didnt find any.. lolThats not good enough for me thankyou, I dont go on just the blind faith of what a goverment organization tells me. YOUR TURN When we realise the scientific impossiblity of 911 it raises very serious questions.The shocking and undeniable truth is that we 'general public' have been decieved for a very long time . We dont know what is really going on behind the scenes in the world. Any further discussion on the topic becomes conspiracy theory. What I was discussing before was the fact, from this point on we are only theorising .
Artificial Intelligence will kill us all

According to Yale University Press-, More than 99 percent of all species, Amounting to over five billion species, That ever lived on Earth are estimated to have died out. Again, Theres no denying that there is potential. Even thought there are more variables, That doesn't excuse the potential here. Yes, Programs do what there programmed to do and they become obsessed with their goal, You claim that" the AI does not get a broad function like "delete all spam"". Your missing what AI WILL BE. Ai is self-learning. For example, A game called Mar. Io, The AI is programmed to use the buttons and complete Mario, ON ITS OWN. It gets good, Then really good, Then inhumanly good. That was made by one guy. Imagine 30 years down the line and full computer teams. Artificial Intelligence is insanely smart and will become obsess, They want to self-learn and finds out they can kill humans. AI self learns. The goal isn't to change the goal. Getting rid of spam is getting rid of humans. Any task given to AI is a risk, And since AI is learning it will find this out. The purpose of AI is to imitate humans and become super. So when we achieve that, AI will have threats to its survival. When will you learn that AI SELF LEARNS. Ok, VPNs and firewalls can't stop an insanely smart super computer, Here this how smart AI will be. AI in around 20-40 years will be like this- currently humans and chimps have a difference in IQ of around 2 steps on a intelligence staircase. Wheres AI? 50 STEPS ABOVE HUMANS. This is way beyond comprehension. AI that smart should have no problem killing off the human race, Owning all infrastructure and hey, Some claim that they could own every atom in the world. In our world, Smart means a 130 IQ and stupid means an 85 IQ"we don"t have a word for an IQ of 12, 952. What we do know is that humans" utter dominance on this Earth suggests a clear rule: with intelligence comes power. Which means an ASI, When we create it, Will be the most powerful being in the history of life on Earth, And all living things, Including humans, Will be entirely at its whim. Sorry but my opponents have been 2 forfeits all the time, One idiot who referred to a sci-fi book and a troll. Not great opponents.
Artificial Intelligence will kill us all

Now before we start any of this, I need to say that "every species dies sometime" is about as consistent as "Every human dies sometimes". So right off the bat, Theres huge potential. Any task given to AI is a risk. Lets say that AI was assigned to getting rid of spam email. AI starts to think and uses the delete button. Then a tripwire of intelligence happens and realizes that to get rid of spam is to get rid of humans. The AI hacks into infrastructure and creates an small micro army of robots. The AI who is imaginable smarter than us easily kills off humans for good. AI will kill humans through their goal and to start they will become obsess with their goal. its motivation is whatever we programmed its motivation to be. AI systems are given goals by their creators"your GPS"s goal is to give you the most efficient driving directions; Watson"s goal is to answer questions accurately. And fulfilling those goals as well as possible is their motivation. One way we anthropomorphize is by assuming that as AI gets super smart, It will inherently develop the wisdom to change its original goal"but Nick Bostrom believes that intelligence-level and final goals are orthogonal, Meaning any level of intelligence can be combined with any final goal. So AI can come from a simple Ant brain who really wanted to be good at deleting spam to a super-intelligent ASI who still really wanted to be good at deleting spam. Any assumption that once superintelligent, A system would be over it with their original goal and onto more interesting or meaningful things is anthropomorphizing. Humans get "over" things, Not computers. A lot of people can say oh well there can be restrictions. Restrictions however contradict their original goal and the AI sees it as a threat to their survival. AI can totally kill humans. It can hack into ANY infrastructure it wants undetected. It can pretty much control all computers, Systems and everything. USA is already trying to make AI tanks, So the war potential is there too.