BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cell Phones in School Pros and Cons

Despite my opponent forfeiting her right to speak in this third round, I will attempt to conclude my arguments in the best way possible. It is the belief of the Con that we should indeed take advantage of the amazing technology we have at our fingertips in the modern day and age, but cellphones are not an appropriate technology for school. Earlier in this debate the Con's argument centred around the fact that cellphones are unlikely to be used responsibly by high school students (immature at their age). Having said this, the Con wishes to close this debate constructively by proposing a solution to providing technology to high school students far better than unlimited and unrestricted personal cell phones. Schools could take advantage of technology by using iPads or Laptops blocking games and apps except ones with a focus on learning. If the tools to procrastinate were taken away from students but the ability to use technology productively remained, we would make fuller use of it.
Cell Phones in School Pros and Cons

Ola Marzouq, although it must be conceded that cellphones provide quick access in terms of contacting other people, in the case of schools, it it very unlikely that this useful resource will be used responsibly. Seeing that teenagers are at a period in their lives when their natural instinct is to rebel against the society they live in (BBC News), it is far more likely that mobile phones will be used irresponsibly. For instance, modern phones like iphones and the Samsung Galaxy range can be used to play games in class, and often in a boring lesson a student's concentration will waver. The temptation of taking their smartphone out of their pocket and texting a friend or using an app will in most cases overcome a will to focus on school, something our society asks us to find boring and a waste of our time. This simple truth is reason enough cellphones should be banned in schools.
Cell Phones in School Pros and Cons

Although in case of emergency it could indeed be useful to notify a child of a change in plans or a family emergency, these can easily and undoubtedly be delivered to the child in question by school administration quickly and efficiently after the news has gone through official channels. Furthermore, laptop computers provide all the features of a cell phone. As well as this, cellphones are widely used for texting in class rather than any (extremely limited) educational function that they may have. Cellphones are a primary reason for students not to focus in class, meaning that they get far less out of their education and in doing so limiting their futures.
Cell Phones in School Pros and Cons

there is no doubt that a cell phone allows for the advantages of being able to contact a person directly during an emergency or otherwise . Knowing that a child has a mobile phone puts the parents at ease because they can call them in case of any change in plans , emergency instructions and the like . In addition , cell phones can used as a tool to aid academic . A cell phone comes with several cell phone accessories like calculators , cameras and the internet etc.There are several websites which can be used for academic .
A pro life voter who Attempts to justify a vote for Obama is rationalizing.

Dear Amcclinton, While reading your arguments, I'm reminded of "Alice in Wonderland" (circa 1984). You quote Edmund Burke and take the exact opposite meaning from it. You (selectively) quote from the Bible to support various (contradictory) positions. You distrust those who say that they are pro-life conservatives, and support those who demonstrate that they are pro-abortion liberals. All the while suggesting that God gives authority to the government leaders – after selecting them and directing them to do what they do, you insist that they can do no wrong for they are but the pawns of God. But if they order you to war, then it is you who commits sin. If as you state, the "LORD determines his steps." – Proverbs 16:9" Then how can the leader direct you to war? If as you state: "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." – Romans 13:1 Then tell me Ace: how can it be a sin to do what those authorities tell you to do? Edmund Burke did not mean that it is better to do wrongly, than to do nothing. He was saying that good men MUST do that which is right. You further imply: … Obama displays moral character. Do you mean like when he voted in the Illinois Legislature to abandon babies who were born alive during a botched abortion? You also said: "The president does not control a woman's choice. Therefore, he does not control abortion. He controls the laws ...that govern abortion, but he himself does not determine what a woman will do with an unborn child." My response: The president also doesn't control a rapist's choice to rape. He doesn't determine what a rapist does with a woman. But, if he funded rape and did not jail rapists, you and I would say that he supported rape. And we'd be right! You are rationalizing by making distinctions without a difference. You come across as a teeny-bopper voting for Home Coming King, instead of a serious voter , voting for the President. I quote: "tact and poise, able to raise $745 million, ...stirring hearts. Frankly, this sounds like a man-love thing, similar to Chris Matthews : "...when I hear him speak a thrill runs up my leg." Finally, when you took the untenable position that you had to choose between a pro-choice Dem., and a pro-war Repub., that you chose the former. This is a false choice. There is no evidence that McCain or Repub. Candidates, in general, are more inclined to war. When I demonstrated that the statistics would suggest the opposite, that Dems – since 1900 are far more likely to have entered or long continued a war, you responded with some gibberish about how past Dems would be Repubs., today. But I'll answer this, anyway. Wilson, FDR, Johnston, Clinton and Obama were all Dems. And would never have been Repubs.
Is abortion immoral if the fetus consents to the procedure

Jesus was well away that he was going to die, and accepted this as an inevitability, and by forcing his followers to aid him in his endeavors he made them assistants to his suicide. Therefore assisted suicide is not immoral, therefore if the mother has the consent of the fetus to terminate the pregnancy it should not be considered immoral. Also consider, if the actions of the two consenting parties do not directly harm anyone besides the consenting parties how can that be considered immoral?
Is abortion immoral if the fetus consents to the procedure

Pro argument: "If a fetus consents to the abortion it should not be considered immoral." While the relativism of the word "moral" is ongoing, I will debate from the point of view most likely associated with the word. Historically and currently, most debates on abortion are from people of faith. The issue is the the beginning of life, whether it begins with conception or with birth. Based on this, "moral" refers to "being a good person" from a God-fearing type of person's perspective. In the same way, actions that are considered "immoral" are those that do not reflect the actions of someone who has a relationship with God, or at least the Judeo-Christian perception of God. "Thou shalt not kill" comes to mind. Suicide is not a felony, but assisted suicide is. Murder, by the definition of morality provided, cannot be moral, and must be regarded as immoral. Conclusion: Even if the fetus consents, abortion must be regarded as immoral.
bullying

"What doesn't kill you makes you stronger". Absolutely. Being bullied and facing down a bully is certainly a rite of passage all of us have faced in our lives. How an individual deals with being bullied can define who they are and what they may become as a person. I speak from personal experience when I say that being bullied and eventually facing my fears and confronting the bully helped define me as a person. I succeeded and overcame my experience with a 'bully". I felt brave and empowered. I "sacked up" and faced my fears. I conquered my fear and went on to be a brave and successful person. I don't think the death rate from bullying is substantial. My stance is that if a person gets bullied to death, they probably were weak and their culling likely strengthened the rest of the society.
Batman is the Best Human

Thanks for accepting this challenge. Let's start Strength Batman has shown to be able to lift 1000+ lbs. http://gothamalleys.blogspot.com... He is bench-pressing two 500 LBS. weights, and possibly more weights. He is bench-pressing AT LEAST 1000 LBS. Here, Bruce Wayne is climbing vertically up a brick wall, unsupported, with just his hand/feet. To show just how much strength was involved, Bruce Wayne weighs 210 LBS. according to various sources. We can speculate that the Batsuit weighs 30 LBS. On his hands and feet, he’s lifting approximately 230 pounds. http://batmanfeats.blogspot.com... SPEED/AGILITY Batman catches Impulse Batman beats the Teen Titans. Notice how he over powers Donna, hits Kid Flash, and Deflects Speedy’s arrow, at the same time. http://batmanfeats.blogspot.com... He did this while injured and as a rookie. This shows that Bruce Wayne is, at the very least, a master gymnast. Batman Dodges Bullets. The suit was weighing him down. http://www.comicvine.com...
Batman is the Best Human

I take the position that Batman is physically the best human. I argue that, though he may not be the best in each physical area (speed, strength, stamina, etc.) he is good enough in all these areas to be considered the best all together, similar to how 4<5, but 4 and 3 together is more than 5. I think that we shouldn't debate martial arts training because that is largely speculation. This is not a fight.I debate that Batman is the best HUMAN. Superman is better physically than Batman, but Supes is an alien. People like Captain America doesn't count beause they got to the level they were at through augmentation. So no Deadpool, Captain America, Edward Cullen, Deathstroke, etc. People like Flash don't count, because they have powers. So no Taskmaker, Raven, etc. People like Iron Man and Green Lantern don't count because their physical prowess come from technology.First Round is Accepting.Second Round is Arguments only.Third Round is Rebutals/Arguments.Fourth Round is Rebutals.Fifth Round is Closing Statements.DefinitionsBetter-SuperiorAugmentation-Enhancement through foriegn means (ex: Radioactive Spiderbites, Super soldier Serum, etc.)Physical Superiority/Prowess-Level of abilities done including, but not limited to: lifting, running, sprinting, jumping, etc.
Batman is the Best Human

Thank you for debating. I suggest checking the DCwikia. Batman is really overpowered. He knows 127 martial arts, can dodge bullets after they were fired, (as seen in Batman: Under the Red Hood), lift at least 1/2 tons, has an IQ of 192, has outsmarted Braniac, Darkseid, Superman, etc., and has all the money he ever needs, and has a million plans. That's why people say he could take on Superman. I suggest you look into the character.The psyhological part is awesome. Anyways, he is somewhere around Ozimandias's level (maybe equal, or just lower), but nowhere near Mr. Satan. Good Job.
Noahs ark never happened...

Now I'm going to list the things i see make it impossible for Noah's ark story to be possibly true 1. since all the humans on board where of one race how did new races arise in 4000 thousand years? and 8 people is not enough genetic diversity 2.'"19The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. 20The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered. 21All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind;"' So i assume you know Mount everest is the highest mountain in the world ? and since in the Bible it says that water was that high animals would either die because of Lack of Oxygen or because they froze to death 3. There would have to be 50 animals of each kind for there to be enough genetic diversity . there would be severe genetic defects 4. If there was only a few thousand pairs of kinds of animals why is there so many species right now estimates show there is roughly about 15 million species of animals so how did that happen in 4000 years 5.As the animals left the ark there was no plants and food therefore wouldn't the animals eat each other or just die out 6.There would be signs of migrations for example after leaving the ark the kangoro would travel to Australia and we found find fossils on the way 7.The Problem of Food and Water , i really dont need to explain much on this one for example 2 elephants would require 365,000 Ibs. Of Food and 36,500 gal. of water , the Girrafes are going to need 54,750 Ibs. of food , the hippos are gone need 65,700 Ibs. of food and the Lions 16,060 Ibs. of Meet and that meet is going to rott , what makes it even more incredible is that in Genesis 6:21 it says 'You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them." . 8.Most Sea Life would die , Because there would be Changing Water temperature , pressue , salt&fresh water mixing = fish die
Noahs ark never happened...

My opponent has decided that his arguments are sufficient evidence of why the story of Noah's ark didn't happen. Like I said in my prior arguments, neither him nor I have absolute proof that it happened or didn't happen. But as you can see, I have explained in fairly good detail of why neither one of us can argue about something that happened in the past when none of us were around to see it happen. All we have is stories amongst the many cultures and the old testament book of Genesis to go by. Since we don't have any archeological evidence to support either one of us, then this debate is useless and thus, winning isn't important to me. If my opponent wins this debate, then it's only because his friends are supporting him rather than his arguments. I leave this debate up to my arguments and I could care less if I win or not. Have a nice day in the mind of our Creator, Saint Brad
Noahs ark never happened...

' Imagine an elephant weighing so many pounds and the two, male and female, would be too heavy for a boat. This is the kind of evidence my opponent was trying to convince you with.' Yet you cannot rebutt any of the arguments i have presented to you which really shows who should win this debate. 'Likewise, I do NOT have any evidence to say that Noah's ark and the boat he supposedly built happened because I was not there personally to see it happen.' Than you shouldn't have accepted the debate if you can't even rebutt any of my arguments . 'His people how to look up into the sky and connect the white dots, which we know today as stars, to get building shapes. ' seriously ? that is irrelevant to the topic. 'Here's a reference to the various cultures and languages that are about a great flood that happened in the past;' This is a logical fallacy just because someone belives in something that doesn't make it any more true , just because more than one culture has the same kind of a story it doesn't make it true if one culture has a story about a flood it is not impossible that another culture also has one . 'This flood was necessary to set up the day of the Lord when the earth's crust will be melted by hot molten lava, at least that's the illusion that will occur.' That's irrelevant to what the debate is about . 'It appears you don't want to argue with your imagination anymore since you're already encouraging your friends to vote for you. ' If someone here is using their imagination than it's not me. My Opponent hasn't presented me with any other good issue that i can address and has still failed to rebutt any of the arguments that i have presented .
Noahs ark never happened...

The evidence my opponent brought to you is called "imagination". Imagine an elephant weighing so many pounds and the two, male and female, would be too heavy for a boat. This is the kind of evidence my opponent was trying to convince you with. Likewise, I do NOT have any evidence to say that Noah's ark and the boat he supposedly built happened because I was not there personally to see it happen. All the eyewitnesses did not know how to write at that time because written languages didn't exist until God's plan called the beast began in the minds of people who survived the flood. This plan of God's taught His people how to look up into the sky and connect the white dots, which we know today as stars, to get building shapes. From those shapes came plans for making blocks for their buildings and characters for their written languages and mathematics that God needed to teach them so they would have languages to use for their building techniques and how to describe them. These characters and stories about their false gods ( things built with human hands ) became various spoken languages and various characters that we use in our languages today. Thus, the symbolic story of the tower of Babel which can be found in Genesis, also. This story wasn't about one particular building, This symbolic phrase is describing the building with human hands up until this time because man is still erecting buildings that come from invisible thoughts that God puts in the minds of men. So the only way the people who survived the flood could tell their story was through the ONE language that they spoke to each other. All other spoken languages and the characters for their written languages didn't come until much later and that's why this stories about a past flood can be heard in many different cultures and languages. Here's a reference to the various cultures and languages that are about a great flood that happened in the past; http://en.wikipedia.org... Although they call them myths, these myths came about because there was definitely a great deluge as I described it in the writing that I shared in the first argument of this debate. Here it is again if you missed it the first time; http://www.debate.org... This flood was necessary to set up the day of the Lord when the earth's crust will be melted by hot molten lava, at least that's the illusion that will occur. It appears you don't want to argue with your imagination anymore since you're already encouraging your friends to vote for you. So I will stop with this argument to see if you want to continue imagining some more ideas to write down in your next argument to prove your point, possibly by using some Christian interpretations again like the 4,000 years you referenced to that Christians believe in. God bless you, Saint Brad
Noahs ark never happened...

For one thing, I found it very difficult to read your argument with my quotes and your arguments about them all in one paragraph mixed together. If you want to win this debate, then you should at least make proper quotes " As in this statement" by the author you are trying to debate with. Otherwise it gets very confusing to those who are reading these arguments and vote on them. I'm not trying to win this debate. I'm only sharing information that our Creator is giving me to write down in this post about what He created and knows about. He's not a fool at all. He's very wise and knows exactly what He's doing at all times. I just happen to be His last saint that He's using to teach me who I am in Him. Now I know from His teachings that I was created as His voice. You don't have to believe this but this is how I'm able to write about the flood and Noah's ark. I didn't have to read about it in a Bible to learn that it was possible for God to make sure He carried the genetic information from one side of the flood to the other side. From this genetic information, our Creator can change anything He wants to make new creatures from the various species of animals that He designed as illusions for this world and us humans ( also illusions ) to enjoy. He can even place illusions in this world that didn't have to make it from one side of the flood to the other side. Why do you think man keeps discovering new species all the time? Here's a quote from your last argument; " Why would i say something new since mainstream christians can't even adress these , without feeling the need to use the quotoes from a book that I don't belive in . If Christians could destroy my previous arguments i would find new ones but they can't ." Here's another quote from you in the same argument; "most of the stories about the ark come from around that time , also according to the Bible the Earth is 6000 years old therefore it couldn't have happened 20,000 years ago according to Christians ." Do you see how you're contradicting yourself? No further argument is needed. You have proved to me that you're incapable of debating, using your own thoughts instead of plagiarizing the thoughts of other people and the very Christians and Bible that you don't believe in. God bless you, Saint Brad
Noahs ark never happened...

'It's obvious you were lazy and didn't read my argument. I could care less what you think might have happened during the time that none of us were around to witness' No I just don't listen to your theory since I am addressing the story of noah's ark as it is and I do not care about your theory of earth . I am talking about the story of the ark from the bible. ' Your argument contains nothing new to anyone who has put any thought at all to the problems this story of Noah and the ark has contributed to man's search for the Truth.' Why would i say something new since mainstream christians can't even adress these , without feeling the need to use the quotoes from a book that I don't belive in . If Christians could destroy my previous arguments i would find new ones but they can't . 'you have no proof because you weren't there to witness it.' You do know there is such a thing as scientific evidence and scientific theories right ? if you do think that all my arguments i have listed in Round 2 are not valid just because i wasn't there than i just have nothing to say .'I don't have any proof that can be used as evidence that Noah's ark did or didn't happen during this age. ' You shouldn't have accepted the debate than , i thought so . 'But I do know our Creator who told me about the past, present and future and how it was possible for Him to put the human and animal species on a boat to survive the flood' ' Your personal thoughts are not taken into account . 'He also told me how he was able to take these illusions that entered the big boat and make many various looking creatures from these few species through His eternal plan to take His invisible vibrations and process them into illusions that appear to change into different looking creatures from the original species that survived the flood. ' So there was only a couple thousand 'kinds' of animals on the boat right? than how is it possible that now there is millions of species that would mean that a few thousand species of animals in 4000 years have turned into millions of species , there would litterly have to be new species everyday. 'Who ever taught you that the flood happened 4,000 years ago? It might have happened 20,000 years ago or longer, Who knows but our Creator who didn't find it necessary to tell me how old things are.' most of the stories about the ark come from around that time , also according to the Bible the Earth is 6000 years old therefore it couldn't have happened 20,000 years ago according to Christians .