BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
cell phones should be allowed in school

Also, I never meant that students shouldn't be able to have them in school, I meant that students shouldn't be able to use them during the class. Well first of all, my opponent admitted that cell phones do have a tendency to distract and annoy other students in the classroom. And yes, they can be used for safety; after class. I'm pretty sure students are nice and safe in the classroom. Now, this is under certain circumstances. I don't think that a student is going to get in trouble for using their phone if they got mugged. Now I know there are some of us who will follow the rules, but lets face it, most students will abuse the power of being able to use their phone in class, whether it be for orginazation, internet access, or just recording lectures. They will look at videos, text, take videos or pictures, but most of all not learn or pay attention. As to the matter of phones saving the environment, one tree makes about 80,500 sheets of paper, so that one 90 sheet notebook that you would use to take notes doesn't really make an impact on the "environmental deficit ". Furthermore, my opponent said that cellphones can help students take notes. My opponent stated that "every penny counts in these tough economic times. " Well lets see, an average "smartphone", as my opponent said, costs anywhere from $200-$500, plus the plan and contract, another $100, which overall is about $400 as compared to a notebook and mechanical pencil for ohh, about $3.99 altogether. Okay, my opponent said that using the internet during class can help them not miss parts of the lecture. Now to me this doesn't make sense. How can you be looking up a "big word" and still be attently listening to your proffessor? Now, some phones do provide internet access. I do not know if this subject in the debate is a good thing or bad thing because it has the potential to be a bad thing, so my opponent can't use this as an argument because this can be a good or a bad thing depending on the student using the Internet. Okay now to the calculator. The thing with the calculator is that not everybody will need a calculator for their class(es). If your teacher gives you a problem, I'm pretty sure that they want to see if you know the material, not your calculator. So I dont know about you, but to me it seems like common sense that con is the victor. I have disproved all of his statements and believe that you will make the right choice when it comes to the victor of this debate.
Evolution is better supported by evidence than creationism.

1st round is for introduction, last round for closing arguments. This debate is over the assertion that the theory of evolution (TOE) is supported by evidence greater than creationism. I will be accepting the position of pro, and debating that all available evidence does support TOE over creationism. I will also have the burden of proof. For this debate, con must accept that creationism is defined as the belief that all life was created in its present form and did not evolve. Also a quick note: This is my first time creating a debate, so if I make any mistakes I apologize in advance. :P
Chuck Norris/Your Mom Jokes are stupid and overused

Ok yes, people use them a lot. That doesn't mean it is overused." Yes it dose. With me not saying they are stupid. "A kid in our school uses your mom as an answer to a question he doesn't know like this. What's 2+2 Idiot:your mom"This is an example of them being stupid. Your argument with a typical teenager. What would they do really sit in a room and think of dumb jokes or go drive around with friends. Also you go to the same school as me and you are in the same grade. So you know how we are talking about.
Chuck Norris/Your Mom Jokes are stupid and overused

Ok yes, people use them a lot. That doesn't mean it is overused. People make these jokes just for fun. I would like to know that kid, because honestly, he must have major problems more then just using these jokes. My opponent thinks they are overused, I really disagree with that. What do you think a typical teenager is going to do in his/her free time? Make some jokes, or try to help the world in some way. I personally think a typical teenager is going to make some jokes. My opponent has said nothing about how these jokes are stupid, so I have nothing to say.
Chuck Norris/Your Mom Jokes are stupid and overused

How many times have you said something or asked someone something and then they responded your mom? How many times have you heard the jokes Chuck Norris uses a night light not because he is afrid of the dark but because the dark is afrid of Chuck Norris or Chuck Norris dosen't pay his taxes he just sends a picture of himself to the IRS. If you haven't heard these how about any of these?http://www.cafepress.com... Yes at first they were funny but how about now? After hearing them 500 times? These are now getting so over used. A kid in our school uses your mom as an answer to a question he dosn't know like this. Whats 2+2 Idiot:your mom This is why I think your mom and Chuck Norris jokes are stupid and overused.
Mandatory vaccinations (for government services)

Well the fact that there's a law doesn't mean that it ought to be that way. Slavery used to be legal as well. While I agree with vaccines. We can't start forcing medical treatment on people morally speaking. It violates autonomy and people are allowed to decide for themselves and for their kids. It's the same argument I would make for abortion. While I think it should be a certain way, Changing the law won't help. If you want less antivaxxers, Then you have to educate people. Brining the hammer down will just make things worse. Also, You didn't refute my point about the fact that the government enforcement of mandatory vaccines could actually force people to get harmful vaccines if one is ever made. Allowing informed consent allows parents to wave a particular vaccine if it is made with harmful materials. Your floor
Mandatory vaccinations (for government services)

Just so you know, That has already passed in California. If you have no medical reasons, You must be vaccinated to go to school. It works perfectly. It is a very good reason to not allow kids to go to school. If parents will put a risk on their kids and other kids, Why do we have to give them the same treatment as other kids? They are anti-vaxxers. They spread lies and don't want to listen to evidence. It isn't millions of kids. Lots of states are making a push to have mandatory vaccination.
Mandatory vaccinations (for government services)

sure, All that stuff about herd immunity is true. However, That still doesn't tell me why it should be mandatory. where's the imperative justification? Sure I can say "you ought to do this or that". But what's the basis for the ought. We certainly can't just go denying kids school for no good reason. The problem here is that once we open this flood gate of mandatory vaccines, Then the government can just tell us what vaccines to get. What if a harmful vaccine comes out? Just because they're all good now doesn't mean they always will be right? So while we can say that people should get vaccines. We can't say they should be mandatory because it violates our civil rights and those are held to a high standard. All you've shown me so far is that vaccines are a good idea. You haven't shown me a good enough reason to deny millions of kids education. That's a tall order to fill.
Mandatory vaccinations (for government services)

Okay lets get to the mandatory side. First, Let's talk herd immunity. Then he basically opened a new hole in the system. He spread the disease even farther. Measles side effects only show up about 2 weeks after being exposed to it. He could be going to public places and infecting many people. If that person was vaccinated, He had a 99. 8% chance of not catching the measles and spreading it to other people that are not vaccinated or immuno compromized. Once one person is not vaccinated and catches it, A whole big chain spreads. But in school, That is even worse. You go to the same place as 500 people, Eat food near them, Cough near them, Sit near them and spread your germs. If people want to go to school, They must be vaccinated or have a medical (serious) record that prevents them from being vaccined.
Mandatory vaccinations (for government services)

Well yeah, I couldn't rebuttal you without you making a point first. Duh. 1: Yes they do 2: As proven as humanly possible Yes. 3. I would be inclined to agree. 4. Never knew that was a thing, But sure, Why not. 5. They have side effects, What you mean is serious side effects, But I get the point. 6. Well I wouldn't care if they did per se, But sure. So these are all great arguments that people should use vaccines. Where's the evidence that they should be mandatory?
Mandatory vaccinations (for government services)

Wow. You really just did that. 1: Vaccines save millions of lives every year, Over 26 million in the US alone. 2: They are proven safe. 3:Autism is not caused by vaccines. Proven by 35 World Health Organization papers. Only one RETRACTED paper said vaccines cause autism. 4: Vaccines do not cause allergies. 5: Vaccines have almost no side effects. They are 1 to 1, 000. 6: They are cheap and super effective. Pharma does not make money from vaccines
This gay bathhouse would state: The Kalam Cosmological argument is sound

Inability to frame an argument? Bro, I framed it better than a f*cking photographer.In defense of the first premise of the KAram.I have given a justification of the first premise based on ex nihlo nilhlo fits. The principle of causality is not only physical, its metaphysical. I got metaphysical all up in this b1tch, not just physical.The Karam Thats the asain kalam Cosmloigcla kca argument premise 2 and my defense of it.If time stated, then youre condeding the second premise. Also I justify this via the impoosiblilt of an infinite. Enstien's relatvity may imply a block theory of the times, but God could create the block. No problemo senior.Premise three of the american Kalam cosmological argument that the universe had a cause and that cause is God and my defense of this premiseThe other two premises are awesome. Also quantum vaccum is something, you cannt say its nothing otherwise youll say tigers and root bear are nothing. Which would be silly billy. LOL. Premise 12You fail to see meaning because you failed basic math. You base your criteq on your critic of the second premise which by definition is true. You failed upD: Holds and doesn't suck.
Pokemon

First of all a five pointed star is not the same thing as a pentagram and what kadabra has in it's forehead is a five point star. After extensive research on google images I have never stumbled into kadabra doing the "rock sign" or "hail satan sign" and even if I did I don't know why it would be seen as evidence of satanism. Finally the 3 Ss. I've tried looking up for meaning in these but nothing came up. The best I could find in various pokemon wiki's is a description of the feature which is described across the board as "three red wavy lines". I think it's far fetched to interpret these lines as Ss and even more far fetched that these mean Satan's Solemn Servant. I would like you to respond to the fact that what kadabra has in the forehead is a five pointed star. I would also like for you to provide images of kadabra doing these hand signs. And finally I would like for you to explain how you came to the conclusion that the wavy lines are Ss and to provide what evidence do you have at your disposal that proves supposed Ss actually mean "Satan's Solemn Servant"
Pokemon

Don't worry, this is legit. Look at Kadabra. It has a pentagram on its forehead, and it tends to brandish the three-fingered equivalent of a "Hail Satan," which you might know as the "Rock on" hand-sign. To look at something less circumstantial, the three lightning bolts on its torso represent the Satan "s." When three are together, they can be read as, "Satan's Solemn Servant," similar to the way KISS actually stands for, "Kings In Satan's Service."
Pokemon

It's not a pentagram. It's a five pointed star. The defenition of a pentagram is: the shape of a five-pointed star drawn with five straight strokes. Link here for more info: https://en.wikipedia.org... I actually feel kind of insulted that you had me so low in consideration as to think I mixed up the concepts of pentagram and pentagon but let's gloss past that. You specifically said that "The only time it is DEFINITELY evil is when it is in a circle, upside-down, or both.". So even entertaining the argument that the five pointed star is a pentagram, which it isnt, according to yourself you can not definitely prove it is evil so that's that. Now going back to the lighting or Ss or what it is described as in the wiki "red wavy lines". You mention lighting bolts tend to represent lucifer's fall from heaven. Now I looked up the passages in the Bible that referred to Lucifer's fall from heaven. The fall is described in two passages; Isaiah 14:12-14 and Ezekiel 28:12-18. In none of these is lightning ever mentioned. So I don't know where you found this information that Lucifer is somehow connected to lighting bolts but the Bible certainly does not mention that. Now even if Lucifer was connected to lightning bolts somehow, you still failed to provide evidence that those (already giving you the benefit of the lines being lightning bolts) lightning bolts in Kadabra's stomach are a reference to Satan's lightning bolts. Going to his name now: Once again you failed to provide any evidence to support your claim that Abra, Kadabra and Alakazam are words used to summon demons. I actually looked up the words and found they contained a much more innocuous, even beneficial (not that I believe that they have any effect whatsoever), meaning. Abracadabra's first known mention is from third century AD book called Liber Medicinalis which prescribes people afflicted by malaria to use an amulet with the word inscribed in it in a geometrical pattern. More information provided in this link: https://en.wikipedia.org... What I found of alakazam was meaningless or contradictory with most references seeming to indicate conjuring or sudden transformation. To finalize I just want to remind you that Kadabra evolves into Alakazam which is the mos powerful of the two. With the evolution all the "satanic symbolism" seems to disappear which means that the none satanic version is more powerful than the satanic version. How's that for sending a message of satan's might. Bear in mind that this last argument is even considering all you said to be true, which I don't believe it is and I think I justified my position accordingly. It has been a pleasure debating you A bit of a weird topic and you might want to get a checkup, but entertaining nonetheless. Thank you for your time and may the best man win
Pokemon

First of all, a five-pointed star IS the same as a pentagram. You are thinking of pentaGONs. I have been advised to drop the hand sign. But when you searched for the s, did you actually type "satanic s?" The imagery is clear. Now, the pentagram itself isn't evil. It's how you use it. The only time it is DEFINITELY evil is when it is in a circle, upside-down, or both. Even if the lines are just lightning bolts, that is still bad. Lightning bolts tend to represent Lucifer's fall from heaven. Now to prove my point, I will use a different example: Kadabra's name. The name of it and it evolved and pre-evolved forms are part of an incantation, which, contrary to popular belief, happens to be real, and even usable if one is open to demons. To address the argument that this stuff goes over the heads of children (and most people), I will point out that the subconscious mind absorbs everything. Children and parents are being desensitized. Here is a link: .
Banning cosmetic surgery

You may have realistic expectations with a cosmetic surgery, but still will never know how you will look after the surgery is done which is a major risk. You say yourself that all surgeries carry risk, therefore a person should reserve surgery or any medical procedures as a necessity to avoid further illness, pain, etc. Looking better or feeling better should not carry the risks that surgeries do with cosmetic surgeries. A safer and a better way is to get to the root of the problem as to why a person wants to make physical changes that are not necessary is to learn how to love themselves naturally.
Banning cosmetic surgery

All surgeries even those in life and death situations carry risks. The risks that one may encounter in a surgical cosmetic procedure are minimized when taken proper steps before the procedure. One must educate themselves about the surgery they choose to do and determine with a board certified surgeon if it is safe to get the surgery done. People who do not follow strict instructions from the surgeon or lie about any health issues are usually the ones who die in rare cases. Again, one should meet with the surgeon and get well informed at the time of the meeting the doctor will tell you if you have realistic expextations; after that is determined, then one can decide to "go under". Cosmetic surgery is not risky if taken the right measures.
Banning cosmetic surgery

Cosmetic surgery is risky. One of the risks involved is the uncertainty of how you will really look. You may expect to look a certain way, and end up looking different or even having a botched surgery. A person risks having an infection, paralysis, or even death, let's face it, some cosmetic surgeries require you to go under, which is an unnecessary risk in and of itself. These risks, especially not receiving the look you intend to have, will lower your self esteem, not enhance it like you claim. Most botched surgeries, and surgeries that do not give you the look you are hoping for, will require another surgery or procedure to fix the mistake. Because plastic surgery is so risky, it should not be done. http://www.forbes.com...
Resolved: Annemarie is a raving maniac.

When thinking of what to write, I couldn't come across the words to describe the stupidity of this incompetent oaf who has no social status or societal meaning towards the advancement of our country. That is why I am asking for a strong PRO vote on today's resolution of Resolved: Annemarie is a raving maniac. I will now describe some key terms that are in relation to the resolution. 1. Annemarie- A name for a dumb insolent oaf who resides in an elitist neighborhood in Wheeling. 2. maniac- Annemarie Krall Contention One: Annemarie has proven nothing. In her existence on this thing we called the earth, Annemarie Krall has proved nothing towards the benefit of society. She has given nothing and proven too little to be considered a life form. For example, she is a bumbling oaf who can't decide what to say in a situation that makes her feel uncomfortable. She is dumb and I can't put it in any simpler terms. Contention Two: Annemarie doesn't even know her own name. When asked, Annemarie didn't know how to respond to a question that asked her the name she was given by her legal guardians. She instead decided to call me a 'bumbling oaf' which was completely nonsensical due to the fact that she had nothing to say. She is simply retarded. Contention Three: Annemarie has a set of swollen testes. I have seen them. They are rotten and swollen. It is for all of the following reasons that I ask for a PRO vote on the resolution that ANNEMARIE SUCKS!
Should it be okay to treat people with ugly faces like crap

My opponent has forfeited. I extend my arguments to the final round. VOTE grammar/spelling: tie Proper spelling and grammar on both sides. conduct: con Pro proposed an offensive resolution. And rather than explicitly conceding, she just gave up and forfeited. arguments: con I refuted all of Pro's arguments, and she ingored all of mine, and forfeited. sources: tie My opponent used reliable sources but they were irrelevant to the debate. I did not require sources. 4 points to me for each vote. 0 points to my opponent.
Should it be okay to treat people with ugly faces like crap

It's not a troll post. I am being completely honest with my opinion. Ugly people are often looked over for jobs, but if in the unlikely scenario that an ugly person is a boss then it's doubtful that the person would be rude to them at work. A lot of people have people they dislike the workplace, but they put up with it to earn their living for their families. I know I have a couple I don't like who work with me, but I keep it professional in the workplace. However, you'll find in most places will take the better looking person over an ugly person when it comes to promotions or even hiring. And most people won't respect someone if they are really good at anything because of their face. So say if someone has a really beautiful voice for singing but a face like a pug, and then take another person who can sing but not as well as the ugly person chances are most people will vote for the better looking one. I read an article once that even babies like pretty faces over ugly ones. http://online.wsj.com... http://www.newscientist.com... And I don't know about beauty being subjective. I know of a girl back in High School that got made fun of by everyone for being ugly. No one thought she was pretty. There are just certain people that a lot of people can agree that is pretty and there are just certain people who are so ugly that it's rare for people to find them pretty. Majority usually rules. So if you get five out of a hundred people who say that someone is pretty while the other 95 say she is ugly, then that person is ugly. Most ugly people are unhappy and bitter and take their problems out on other people. I've yet to meet a nice ugly person. Every time I see an ugly person I want to be mean right away to them. I feel anger and disgust with them. And most people I know feel this way. If I could get away with being rude to a boss for being ugly, I would. But I can't so I keep it professional and so does everyone else who is smart. But if we were allowed to make fun of ugly people, then it wouldn't matter either way since the boss already knows that it's okay. And so they wouldn't be allowed to fire them for it. Unfortunately we don't live in that kind of world. The world would be a beautiful place if we could treat ugly people like crap all the time without consequence. And I'm not meaning overweight people. There are overweight people with pretty faces. I am just meaning ugly faces. No one should be allowed to harrass someone for their weight though. Unless they actually do have an ugly face as well.
Should it be okay to treat people with ugly faces like crap

Thanks to Ellen for starting this debate. I dislike it when people start troll debates but I see no harm in accepting them in order to refute the troll, so I accept this debate. In what follows I will refute my opponent’s case. The first problem with my opponent’s non-argument is one of subjectivity. How do we judge whether or not a person is pretty or ugly? What are the standards? I may find someone attractive but someone else may find the same person unattractive. Maybe there are people who find you ugly and want to make fun of you. How would that make you feel, Ellen? The second problem with my opponent’s non-argument is that he/she has given us no reason why thesupposed ugliness of someone entails that we should treat him poorly. Why not say that we should treat attractive people like crap? It seems no less logical than my opponents resolution. Even if it is the case that prettiness and ugliness in people can objectively found, that does not mean that ugly people do not have a lot to offer other than their faces. Suppose an ugly person is a great film director. Should we ignore the fact that he is a great film director and simply treat him like crap because he is ugly. Suppose your boss is ugly. Should you treat him like crap? Probably not if you want to keep your job. In conclusion, my opponent has no defense of his resolution. It has been negated.