BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cell Phones Should Be Allowed In School

1)TOPICALITY she still has not answered my topicality argument and since i did claim it as a voting issue she should automatically lose the round 2)They've been banned yes i understand that.. but from only 16 states 3)they are banning them until they have no cell phones in school whatsoever her resolution should not even be tooken into consideration. so with that i strongly urge a negative vote and i thank lexi for her time.
Cell Phones Should Be Allowed In School

i did not say that they havnt banned them yet im saying "why ban them" it can mean two different things... 1) they already have been banned 2) they r banning them....and for my argument im saying number 1.....and u cant use tennessee against me because im TALKING ABOUT JUST TENNESSE and again u only said 34 states so what happened to the other 16? they are already banned and one of those states is tennessee
Cell Phones Should Be Allowed In School

1)TOPICALITY A.The resolution states "Cell Phones Should Be Allowed In School" and she now changed the resolution to cell phones should be allowed in tennessee schools. B.Topicality is a voting issue and if she tries to argue that when she typed it that's what she meant then it should not be taken into consideration REFUTATION 1)at most schools they are NOT allowed althought they might not be allowed in tennessee her resollution states in schools. not in tennessee schools so i have a card here from desmoinesregister.com showing that only sixteens states have the RIGHT to ban cell phones. not that they already have banned them. "Sixteen states have laws that restrict cell phones and other devices in schools, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures." 2)Can be useful they can use them for calculators and take pictures in 34 different states. 3)emergencies they can be used for emergencies in 34 different states. 4)let parents know they can get ahold of their parents in 34 different states. NEW ARGUMENTS 1)she stated "They help students learn and be safe. Why ban them from schools for that reason?" she stated they already banned them from schools.. but yet she states it as if they haven't banned them yet
Cell Phones Should Be Allowed In School

At most schools they are NOT allowed.....and you cant say that ur three points still stand because I am debating this in the state of Tennessee and they are not ALLOWED in schools here... Cell phones in schools can be very useful at many times. They can be used for educational purposes such as: calculators, note taking and to contact a person who is sick or doesn't get the assignment off of the board. Also, it's been proven that children who listen to music while working can study and do work better. Most every cell phone is able to play music. For that reason, children can get work done with a better grade and they won't be talking as much to other students. Many times there are emergencies at school and if the power goes out, the phones there may not work. If there is an emergency how would students be able to contact your parents? They could just simply use cell phones to tell parents that they are ok or to ask to be picked up. If students forgot homework, or maybe a big project that was due today, students could just call a parent, or someone else, to come and drop it off. Also if there was a family emergency students wouldn't want the office to know first! Many students have sports practice, club meetings, etc. after school. If coach's call off practice how would parents know to come and pick their children up when the school closes? Maybe a student was absent last week and missed a test, they could just call their parents and tell them that they're going to test make up today. If a student was incited to a friends home, so they could just call his/her parents and ask for permission. Things like this happen every day, so it could be very useful. Having cell phones in school are very useful. They help students learn and be safe. Why ban them from schools for that reason? The fire alarm goes off, no phones work, call for help with a cell phone. There is no reason to ban them.
Gun Rights

All human interaction can be divided into reason and force. Most of us want to live in peace and wish to be treated fairly and will treat our fellow man with fairness in return. On a macro level, our military and national defense keeps our country free; in our communities, the task falls to the police and criminal justice system to keep us safe. When a rational man wants to take something and is willing to use force to do it, the threat of the police and the law keep them at bay. Police and law are not perfect, and the rational criminal man knows this, so he may act anyway. When irrational men such as the shooters in Aurora and Sandy Hook act, the law does almost nothing to deter them as they do not care about punishment. All of us understand this concept of the law on some level. Consider something as simple as crossing the street. The law states that the pedestrian has the right of way and can severely punish a driver for hitting someone. Do we therefore cross blindly- confident that the law keeps us safe? Of course not- we look out for ourselves and look both ways to make sure drivers are stopping for us. The same relationship is true for crimes of force. Brazen criminals have already made the choice to ignore the law; the law only restrains them by catching them and ultimately confining or executing them. The best the police can hope for most of the time is to catch a criminal after their crime and let the law punish them. It is very rare that the police stop a crime in progress.
we need to build a wall

"And yes make the argument that the rate is falling, But its 3% in 10 years. " I have no idea what your source is, But my source claims that illegal immigration via overstayed visas has gone up 3 percent in 7 years. Even so the amount of illegal immigration on foot has been steadily declining and in a few years the percentage of illegal immigrants via overstayed visas will overtake the amount by foot. SOURCE, Https://www. Factcheck. Org. . . " Let's all admit. The tunnel thing, The boat thing. Absolutely asinine. " How exactly is it asinine? A Lot of drugs are either flown in through plains or on a boat. While the majority of drugs are being smuggled in on foot, The drugs that are smuggled in on foot are either through tunnels or hidden inside of vehicles, All of which a wall wouldn"t prevent. SOURCE, Https://www. Nytimes. Com. . . "Donald Trump created better border control laws and policies, " Why should we spend billions of dollars on a wall when it seems that Trumps policies and border patrol is doing a good enough job already? " Secondly the wall's foundation would be as deep as 22 feet, According to homeland security officials. So really how many people are going to be able to dig 22 feet deep using tools that border patrol won't notice. " I have no idea where your source is from, However for the sake of argument I'll pretend the wall will go underground 22 feet, The majority of the tunnels found by the US have gone either gone as much or even exceeded 22 feet. SOURCES, Https://losangeles. Cbslocal. Com. . . - I would also like to mention that the links to my sources sadly may not work, If it doesn't I implore you to tell me as I believe siting sources is rather important.
we need to build a wall

okay well lets start with the overstayed visa statistic. Its an estimation. We do not know how many illegals are here right now, Again we have estimations but no real stats. The estimation is anywhere between 27% to 40%. So that means that the MINIMUM is 60%. Still a pretty big number. And yes make the argument that the rate is falling, But its 3% in 10 years. With a wall, The numbers will be better. Lets all admit. The tunnel thing, The boat thing. Absolutely asinine. Donald Trump created better border control laws and policies, So wouldn't that mean they would be a bit better at detecting a giant whole forming next to this wall. Secondly the wall's foundation would be as deep as 22 feet according to homeland security officials. So really how many people are going to be able to dig 22 feet deep using tools that border patrol won't notice. Not many. And boat? The gulf of Mexico for example is always being watched by border patrol. Cameras, Undercover boats, There are even microphones on buoys closer to shore. And 21 billion is not a big number in the US budget. People complain about how NASA's annual budget is small, Well thats how much it would cost. And this isn't a reoccurring thing, 21 billion and thats it. And the upkeep? According to a statistician named Liberty Villet, She said anywhere from 150 to 750 million. So at the most, 2 of Floyd Mayweather's paychecks. And the 2 methods, Wouldn't be less then 21 billion, They will add up. Once we move away from the border and focus on visas, More will come through, Then, You need to pay even more to handle both. Probably more then 21 billion in the grand scheme of things.
we need to build a wall

I would like to start off by stating that I am NOT against border security, I think it is rather important that only mentally stable people who will obey the law be let into the country. However I am rather uncertain about this notion that the border wall is the best solution to the immigration problem. . All of that being said I am going to now present my argument for why a border wall across Mexico isn't the best solution to the illegal immigration problem. - The amount of illegal immigrants stemming from over stayed visas has increased from 41 percent in 2008 to now 44 percent in 2018. While the rate of illegal immigrants on foot has dropped considerably ever since trump enacted stronger border patrol laws. SOURCES, Https://www. Nbcnews. Com. . . https://www. Factcheck. Org. . . - Furthermore once the wall is build who is to say that many will simply dig tunnels or come in through boat. One could make the argument that boats and tunnels are too hard to make and most will come in on foot. However as Ive already previously stated, The amount of illegal immigrants coming in on foot has dropped considerably while the amount from over stayed visas is rising so it would be a better long term investment to spend that 21 billion dollars and invest it into enforcing expired visas. SOURCES, Https://www. Nytimes. Com. . . - Another one of my problems with building a wall is that the federal government would take away PRIVATE land to build said wall as seen in this article where Texas landowners are trying desperately to keep their land. SOURCE, Https://www. Washingtonpost. Com. . . - My last major issue with the wall is the yearly upkeep required for the wall. While I could not find any statistics for how much the upkeep will cost, I could imagine it would be somewhere in the millions as you would need building materials, Vehicles for transport, And a large staff required for the nearly 2, 000 mile long wall assuming it gets built. All of that said while I will agree that a border wall would prevent some illegal immigrants from entering the country, Enforcing the people with expired visas and investing in more border patrol agents would be a better solution to the issue at hand. These 2 methods would also be significantly cheaper than building a 21 billion wall with millions more being spent on the upkeep.
Evolution is based on a Lie.

Anyone who actually read this debate saw my arguments that indicate evolution is not based on a lie, clearly laid out with sources and explanations. I do realize that I never explained the source listed as #4 in round 1, but I didn't really need to, because Pro never challenged my sources directly; the source shows homology of ape foot fossils and our feet bones. Either way, this debate was likely rather frustrating for voters to read. I didn't know I was walking into a chaotic stream of consciousness riddled with errors and spastic bouts of capital letters and exclamation marks before I accepted this debate. So, to those who usually enjoy my debates, sorry for my opponent; someone let him out of his cage. *Conclusion* I think it's fair that I don't respond to Pro's 3rd round, because it is as irrelevant as it is annoying. I invite readers to actually read aloud Pro's 3rd round following the rule that capital letters are YELLED. Now, how does that sound? One reading this aloud sounds like a spastic kid yelling to his mom while jumping on a trampoline, and it really did hurt Pro's argument, because there was no cohesion or coherency to balance out all that spaz. Readers, please look at the definitions from round 1. Evolution is a process by which organisms diversified, not the process by which life originated on earth. Yet all of Pro's contentions are with life origination. Evolution is based on evidence, like the sources I provided 1st round, and not based on a lie. Pro has not shown any of my sources to be unreliable or invalid, rather has mistakenly claimed that they show organisms in a microscope and emerging from inorganic matter; check my sources, none of that is there. Speciation is a fact and is not a lie, and evolution is based on speciation, which occurs by descent with modification/natural selection. Thanks for enduring, and I hope all readers truly understand what evolution ISN'T. . .. Ok, every once in a while all caps is fine. BUT NOT ALL OF THE TIME! !!
Evolution is based on a Lie.

Should be an easy debate. Atheist have been using evolution as a crutch for who knows how long! I say Evolution is a Lie because they used an ADULT in their Model, which is inherently impossible. Everyone knows life on Earth did not form as adults of each species! Invariably then they would have formed as newborn of each species! PROBLEM: They'd been dead in a week, no possibility that a Newborn COULD SURVIVE much less to ADULTHOOD without an Adult to feed, water and protect them in a harsh environment .... so How did life begin? There is no natural explanation or possibility that life FORMED as adults of each species? So SCIENCE'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION WAS BASED ON INACCURATE DATA ..... OR AS I WOULD CALL IT .... A LIE!!!!! There is no natural explanation or possibility that life FORMED from Newborns of each species, because they would NOT have survived to adulthood? Consequently Life by all scientific constructs .... SHOULD NOT EXIST! ONLY Earths creation by a being capable of creating life AS adults could plausibly accomplish Life's Beginnings. I say God created life on Earth, because Science has no viable or feasible explanation that can seriously be considered to the alternative! But you can certainly try. I figure if the greatest minds of science couldn't do it and HAD to use an adult model .... KNOWING life doesn't FORM as ADULTS. Neither can you?
absolute truth exist

For my opponent to prove the resolution true, he must explain not only why truth can be absolute, but by what metric we are judging truth under. If he is not providing some sort of metric to weigh truths under, then we have no reason to believe his truths are absolute truths, thus devolving the truths into relativity, which negates the resolution. The burden of proof is on my opponent to prove the resolution true. The burden on me is to refute what my opponent says. Since my opponent has made no official arguments, I shall end here and await his case.
absolute truth exist

1.) Is it absolutely true that everything you said is correct? 2.) Is it absolutely true that you didn't lie about everything you just said? 3.) Is it absolutely true that everything your going to say in round 3 is not a lie or made up? 4.) Is it absolutely true that you are even going to post in round 3? I was going to say God created absolute truth but I don't know if you are on of those people who would say I have to prove God exist first. In that case, absolute truth exist. I'm going to use a serious topic. Child molesting-when an older person takes advantage of a child. Is this wrong? Yes it is. Is it absolutely true? Yes because God says it is. I made a mistake on not making this debate more rounds i got a lot more to say.
absolute truth exist

My opponent basically just makes a bunch of blanket assertions as to what is absolutely true without ever warranting them. Moreover, he fails to provide a metric for how we determine what is true and what isn't true. Without said metric, refer back to my analysis as to how all the truths devolve into relativity without some normative metric to stand them up against. Since he's failing to provide and justify one, he prima facie loses the debate since he cannot prove what is objectively true. But let's address his "absolute truths".His first one is that it's absolutely true that we exist. This is false under the doctrine of epistemological solipsism[1]. Epistemological solipsism makes the claim that we cannot warrant the existance of anything outside of our minds. I can be relatively sure that my mind exists, but I cannot be sure that my opponent's mind exists. Therefore, we cannot be absolutely sure that "we" all exist. Thus, his absolute truth isn't an absolute truth.His second one is that we absolutely cannot live without water. The human body can actually live for about a week on average without water[2]. My opponent would need to prove that the second we stopped drinking water, we all died in order for his truth to be absolute. Since this isn't true, his absolute truth isn't absolute.The third one is the it's absolutely true that the Red Sox suck. While I'm no Boston fan, the Red Sox are one of the most accomplished teams in baseball history. Netting seven World Series titles and twelve American League pennants[3], they certainly don't "suck". His last one is that it's absolutely true we cannot live without oxygen. This falls under the same line of reasoning as the water one, being that the second we stopped breathing we would all die. If this were true, holding our breaths would be the most common form of accidental suicide. The human body can survive for periods of time without oxygen at all. While it certainly isn't healthy, it isn't instant death. Since my opponent needs instant death to prove absolute truth, he cannot prove it to be absolutely true.Moreover, my opponent makes the false claim that I am arguing nothing can be absolutely true. That is false, seeing as that's not what I'm arguing at all. I'm simply arguing in negation of the points you bring up, since the Burden of proof rests on you. In summary, my opponent has provided no warrants at all for any part of his case. He provided no normative metric under which to evaluate truth, meaning instant loss right off the bat. If that isn't good enough for you, I have refuted all of his "absolute truths" as not being absolute. He has literally no ground to stand on. Since he had the burden of proof, and he is failing to uphold it, there is no reason to vote pro.Thus, the resolution is negated.Sources:[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] - http://www.thewaterpage.com...[3] - http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Mandatory Organ & Tissue Donations

1. Active v. Passive Taking of Life is a false distinction Active v. passive taking of life in either case knowingly results in someone's death. If a parent purposefully denied their child food and water for several days knowing they would die it would be considered murder. If the fact that children need to eat and drink had somehow slipped their mind it would be manslaughter. Furthermore if the argument is that abortion is the active taking of life and that's wrong but passively taking life is OK then that would mean abortion would be OK as long as the fetus was merely removed from the body and then left alive knowing that since it is not developed enough it will not survive outside of the womb just like you know that left without an organ donation a lot of people will die. Contention Rebuttals: 1. Freedom of religion is not an excuse for breaking the law. A person can not sacrifice their child to Gods they believe in just because their religion tells them to. Rastafarians are not legally allowed to smoke marijuana because their religion tells them to. Similarly just because your religion says you can't donate organs doesn't mean you should get to do that especially considering that by not donating you are effectively responsible for another person's death. Not donating organs is murder. 2. Obviously for the sake of science a number of bodies could be saved for the sake of medical research by students, especially in cases where a body is not fit for donation then it could be used for medical students and researchers. 3. The government already mandates what we must do with our bodies. It tells us what substances we are permitted to put in our bodies. It tells us that we must take our bodies to jury duty or war if there's a draft for the sake of the public good. It tells students they must be in school which means their body must be in school. It subjects our bodies to be searched at the airport. Mandatory organ donation would not be completely totalitarian. It doesn't mean we wouldn't have liberty in most areas of life. What about the person who needs an organ? What about their liberty to live?
Mandatory Organ & Tissue Donations

The difference between organ donation and abortion is rather simple.1. Abortion is the active taking of a life2. Not donating organs/tissue is the passive taking of a lifeAbortion is the active taking of a life (i.e. murder, genocide, war), while not donating organs is the passive not saving of a life (i.e. not saving someone in a burning building, not giving CPR, etc.) Those things are totally different, so they cannot by equated. One is action, while one is inaction. One is kinetic, while the other is potential. It is like comparing apples and oranges.Now to my contentions:1. Freedom of Religion There are several religious factions in Judaism that forbid organ donation. Those that follow Shinto and the traditions of the Gypsies forbid it as well. Jehovah's Witnesses forbid blood transfusions. It would go against their rights as citizens to force them to go against their religion, both in death and in life.2. Medical ResearchThe bodies of many people are donated to medical colleges to be dissected by students. Organs, blood, eyes, and all. If all those bodies had the organs taken out of them, students could not learn properly.3. Big Brother owns your bodyBy making the donation of blood, skin, organs, or any other body part compulsory, it would no longer be a donation. When the government mandates what you must do with your body, they own you. At that point the government would be completely totalitarian.Sources:Logichttp://www.organtransplants.org...