BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
cell phone use in school

Although my opponent has not posted his or her argument, I shall post mine. Cell phones should not be allowed in school for many reasons. I shall list each reason as a contention. Round 2 I will extend all arguments, and I hope my opponent will return. 1. Distraction There are countless amount of teachers who would strongly vote against cell phones in schools. They would say so because of the big distraction that it has in the studying environment. How can someone learn while watching his or her friends new instgram post? Not only teachers, but the student who is using his or her phone repeatedly, could be a distraction for the whole class. Let's say your in a math class, and you have a test tomorrow. You really need to catch up on everything so you excel on the test. Your doing your math, but oh wait! a bright white screen comes up from someones desk! Lets see what he's looking at! I dont' need to go on, but an obvious argument is that cellphones are a huge distraction for the school environment. 2. Addiction This may seem funny to some people, but those who frequently check their Facebook pages and other peoples, can easily get addicted to using his or her phone. When someone, after every free moment they have, turns their phone on and off to see if he or she got a new text, a repetitive tick forms, and grows into an addiction. That addiction could make people focus less on important things such as the persons' studies and his or her future. 3. Writing Habits Children who begin to use cell phones at an early age tend to have a less of an ability to write neatly. After texting, the student creates a habit of always typing instead of actually writing with a pen and paper, so the student will constantly be penalized for having bad hand writing. 4. Inequality and Profiling This may seem new to some people, but cell phones are commonly used to tell what kind of person someone is. For one thing, cell phones can be expensive. People may profile those without cell phones, as people who are poor and can't afford them. Those who have expensive phones are profiled as rich. This can lead to conflicts which would ruin the school environment. 5. Health People who use their phone commonly, tend to get sick more often because of radiation. Another thing, cyber bullying is increasing throughout the country. People are committing suicide because of cyber bullying. The problem with it is, people carry his or her phone with them everywhere. People are constantly getting mean texts, and they cant escape from it. Those who cant hide from their schools troubles will not have a good future. As you can see, cell phone use in school should not be present. I await my opponents arguments.
fear=pain+memory

"a baby is only aware of pain if it has the contrast of memory of joy"Source? And even if this point were right, it wouldn't support your position in the debate (as the discussion is about the cause of fear, not pain or how it functions)."ok.. you just took a drug that wipes your understanding of pain and death, but you are afraid to jump of a cliff, what is stopping you? "I left a bunch of studies in the previous round that answer exactly that.
fear=pain+memory

"i must know i can die to be afraid to jump of a cliff"Unsubstantiated and untrue. The fear of falling is very likely to be non-associative (1 - 3).Pro's general position is incorrect as well. The conditioning model (most similar popular model to Pro's position that I could find) of the origin of fear acquisition is not supported by data - to the contrary, the non-associative model is favored instead (4 - 6)Citations:1) http://www.sciencedirect.com...2) http://www.wadsworth.com...3) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...4) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...5) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...6) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Punishment for sexually abusing a 4 month old infant

A child's mind is plastic and malleable in the early years of their life, which is why they call these years "formative" and "developmental", because the grey matter in their little brains are being pruned as a direct result of environmental stimulii. Putting this girl in an institution surrounded by sociopaths and designed to punish her is not going to alleviate her mental instability, but plastically form her mind into the permanent framework for a sociopath. Moreover, your argument is not internally consistent. You demand that "the child's rehabilitation must give way to... a term of 40 years in the State Reformatory for Women" does not make any sense. Any claim for the child's rehabilitation would not impose a term of any set period of time, let alone 40 years, as we do not know how long rehabilitation will take. A 40 year sentencing is purely for punishment, and this punishment is tenable only in the spirit of vengeance. What we have here is a very mentally ill child. We have her paying for a crime that she doesn't have the capacity to understand in it's severity. The 4 month old has been traumatized, it's true, but she has a loving family, and years of therapy and care from that family could see her lead a very happy and fulfilling life. There is nothing on Earth that could give a mentally ill little girl any peace of mind, in her entire life, after 40 years of incarceration.
Punishment for sexually abusing a 4 month old infant

There are four basic principles which apply in criminal sentencing. All are applicable in juvenile cases although the greater emphasis is placed on the first one listed 1. to provide for the treatment and rehabilitation of the offender 2. to incapacitate the offender 3. to provide for society and the victim just retribution 4. to deter others by example In juvenile sentencing judges consider primarily the needs of the child but also the safety of the public. The latter is reflected in the second and fourth principles listed. Less so in the third one. It is clear from the depravity and severity of her crime the child's rehabilitation must give way to the more than reasonable demands of society that she be punished and punished severely. For that basic reason a term of 40 years in the State Reformatory For Women is both necessary and appropriate.
Punishment for sexually abusing a 4 month old infant

I wish you had taken the other side then I could make (more) sensible and intelligent arguments. Skilled debating though is about making good arguments when one is on the wrong side of the issue. It is not just about arguing from where the facts are on your side and you agree with them.. With that observation in mind and it is not a criticism of you of picking what is clearly the best option offered I will proceed with a counter argument. As you mentioned the aggravated sexual abuse of a 4 month old girl or any infant of about the age is horrible. The abuse was very extensive. We will have to self censor the description of it. One can reasonably expect retribution be imposed on the perpetrator of such an evil crime even a 12 year old female. Now in the matter of adjudication of guilt and the disposition of punishment as to the matter of the defendant's age.--- in the matter of guilt-- does the child understand or is capable of understanding what she was doing when she abused the baby was morally and legally wrong. Did she have a mental capacity to be capable of knowing it was against the law. For the sake of the debate we must assume she was examined and found to be mentally competent. Common law doctrine generally assumes a 7 year old understand the basic concepts of right and wrong The second prong is with the matter of punishment. A note the rules of establishing competence are the same in both an adult criminal trial and a juvenile delinquency proceeding-- and the level of proof for conviction or finding of delinquency beyond a reasonable doubt is the same. If she was sentenced to death and were to be executed-- then the requirement is Is she aware she is going to the gas chamber Is she aware she will die in the gas chamber Is she aware she will die in the gas chamber to punish her for the abuse of an infant Now of course execution isn't an issue in this case and it shouldn't be-- and I don't know how the principal just outlined applies in matters of incarceration in adult penal facilities-- so lets go to another test-- does the need for punishment in the adult correctional system outweigh than the benefits from treatment and rehabilitation in the juvenile system. I will argue the severity of the crime requires she be sentenced to of a term of 40 years in the women's prison
Punishment for sexually abusing a 4 month old infant

A 12 year old girl has been found guilty of aggravated sexual abuse of a 4 month old girl. The judge has sentenced her to die in the gas chamber. Most people believe that is an excessive, unreasonable, and unnecessary punishment. But there is disagreement over whether the girl should be sent to the women's prison to be punished or to a juvenile treatment center to be rehabilitated. Pro will choose whether to sent the child to prison or to a treatment facility Con (me) will oppose whatever Con chooses and advocate for the alternative Note this takes place in the near future in a land ruled by a religious tyranny. One may assume which type at their own risk--- but it could be Christian just as well as Islamic or something else
Punishment for sexually abusing a 4 month old infant

You are correct she was sent to the State Reformatory For Women to punish her and to satisfy society's just desire for retribution. As for time needed for rehabilitation the most she would have in the juvenile system in most states is less than 9 or until she is 21. There are a few states where juvenile court jurisdiction even for adjudicated children ends at 18. If this were a real case one would hope your views would prevail. Unfortunately that is not always the case. Thank you for a good debate. And BTW I'd be worried if some of what I said made sense-- hopefully if didn't make sense because it genuinely couldn't not because of poor writing skills
IVF Debate

Just like there a chance of experiencing the "wonderful miracle of life", there is a chance of that happening several times. As mentioned earlier, none of the embryos can take, but all of them can as well. According to the campaign, One at a Time, 1 in 6 IVF births result in multiple children. This is very high compared to natural births. Children are very expensive. Considering the fact that rheas procedure is very expensive, the couple is either very wealthy or barely making it because of IVF. Being able to provide for your children is a very important deciding factor in having one. If a couple isn't prepared to have multiple then IVF is too problematic.
IVF Debate

Many custody cases do arise from IVF over the embryos, but that is not the fault of the procedure itself. Humans are complicated beings that have been known to destroy and ruin things in life. IVF is one of them. The cause of custody cases aren't the procedure's fault, but rather the people that choose the procedure. The overall reality of the situation is that doctors collect and culture a set number of eggs from the chosen mother. They are then mixed in a petri-dish with sperm from the chosen father. The fertilized eggs are then taken and implanted into the mother"s uterus to be taken in by the uterus walls. The process is relatively simple in comparison to other procedures such as surgery on fallopian tubes that would have to be performed if not for IVF. IVF provides people with families, healthy children, and a better life altogether.
IVF Debate

Along with the other social pressures, there is also another internal issue with IVF. This issue being what happens if a couple decided to under go IVF, had all the embryos made, then spilt up? Now there is the issue regarding ethics about just throwing the embryos away, however the main problem is who will get custody of the ebryos and decide what happens to them. A lot of couples decide to split up, but with IVF that makes it ten times more complicated. According to the Relationship Research Institute of Seattle, 13 percent of couples that were married that the time of the child's borth split up and according to the CDC's statistics in 2010, couples who are not married before have a .55 chance of lasting. The big issue is the custody battle over the embryos. One parent could want them to be used and the other not at all.
IVF Debate

To many people, and to me personally, dealing with stress and other people's opinions is well worth it if it means having a family. There's nothing in this world that is accepted unanimously by society, IVF included. Human beings as a whole are becoming sicker and unhealthier overall. As of February 2016, the CDC reports that about 3% of babies in the US will be born with a birth defect and they are the cause of about 20% of infant deaths. This number could be reduced with the use of IVF and genetic screenings by singling out the unhealthy embryos. The technology is available and not being fully utilized. Couples who have the option to undergo IVF and want to should be able to. They have every right to have a baby even if they aren't physically able to due to any reason. Imagine the heartbreak of a woman discovering that she could never have a baby of her own. That would never happen as long as IVF is available.
IVF Debate

With IVF, the couples and child can face ridicule from the public. Although you should make decisions based on your happiness and needs, other people have negative opinions on IVF. Many people feel that IVF has many unethical aspects to it. One if them being the fact that you pick and choose which embryo you keep and most often times throw out the other potential children. Ms. Uffalussy recommends that if you decide to go with IVF you have to really think about what you are doing before. With IVF you have to deal with all the stress and annoying opinions of others.
IVF Debate

The decision to undergo IVF treatment is completely up the the couple/person. It's exactly like everything else in life, those with more money have more opportunities. The risks and chances of a successful outcome are completely explained to the parents, so their choice to agree on the procedure is with them having full knowledge of it. Some people believe that the chance of having a child of their own is worth the money. During IVF, the embryos are examined using genetic screenings. These screenings only add to the benefits of IVF. As explained in an article by Leslie A. Pray, Ph.D., the technology can be used to look at the embryos before they are placed in the mother's womb. Having the knowledge of the genes of each embryo, specific ones can be selected and used a to reduce the risk of genetic diseases to pass on to the child and the child's offspring. These opportunities to increase the health of offspring are available and should be taken advantage of.
IVF Debate

Regardless of the slim chance of having a child, there are still many other complications surrounding IVF. For example, just the cost of the procedure is too much to bare especially for a normal middle class family that just wants to have their own child. According to a personal article by Jennifer Gerson Uffalussy, an IVF prcedure can cost about 20,000 dollars. This is a very expensive procedure for something that might not work. Only a few embros are placed into the uterus and all can take or none. So a couple could pay 20,000 to not even have a child. The cost of IVF makes the idea of kids for infertile couples almost impossible as well. The drean of having kids is only avalible to those with money and the emotional strength to come out with nothing.
IVF Debate

Although problems may arise with the use of IVF, there are possible complications with every single medical procedure performed. Even completely natural births have high chances of problems occurring. However, the fear of something bad happening with the pregnancy is bearable for the parents when considering that they actually have the chance to have a baby. According the National Infertility Organization, women that undergo IVF procedures can have up to a 20% better chance of a successful pregnancy compared to those who do not go through IVF. Having children and having a family is very important to many people and cultures, and to those people who cannot have those things, IVF is their only option. IVF not only opens new doors to possible families, but also reduces the number of fallopian tube surgeries on women. According to Dominion Infertility, the number of surgeries performed on women to fix infertility problems has decreased almost 50% due to IVF. That being said, the success rate of fertilization occurring with women who have undergone these surgeries is less than 20%. These surgeries are now unnecessary due to the use of IVF.
IVF Debate

Although this procedure gives couples the opportunity to conceive their own biological children there are still several issues that surround IVF. One of those issues is the health of the infant or potential infants and the mother. IVF can cause the pregnancy to have a higher chance of complications. According to an article found on Mayo Clinic, IVF can cause premature delivery and a low birth rate and an ectopic pregnancy, meaning that the baby is in a strange position during the pregnancy. IVF also has a higher chance of miscarriage which places even more stress on ht e mother than what she already is in because of all the possible issues surrounding IVF. According to an article by Susan Strock, women can develop Ovarian Hyper-stimulation Syndrome because of the use of drugs in the procedure. This causes the ovaries to become painful and swollen with symptoms like abdominal pain, vomiting and diarrhea. The health of the baby and mother is only one serious issue surrounding IVF.
The Bible supports the pro-life cause.

I would like to debate the proposition that the Bible supports the pro-life position. I've seen this topic come up quite a bit in the forums, so I'd like to officially debate it here. Ordinarily I would assume burden of proof, but for the purposes of this debate, burden of proof will be shared. Round one is for acceptance. Round two for opening arguments/rebuttals. Round three for rebuttals. Round four for rebuttals/closing statements (no new arguments). And for anyone wishing to vote, please consider both sides of the arguments. Don't just vote for someone because they bring up a verse you like. Consider the arguments presented and all rebuttals.
Race-based affirmative action in universities

Um, oookay then. I will make my first of two points of why affirmative action is necessary in universities. First I would like to say that unlike some certain views that people may have, I can totally see why someone would be against affirmative action. They most likely think that it is reverse discrimination against white people. That is a very reasonable argument, and heck, I used to oppose it myself for the exact same reason. Though after some serious thought about the world around me, I changed my mind. And now, would now like to explain how I feel now. First of all, affirmative action helps those who are disadvantaged, and those who come from places that lack opportunity. If there is a minority (or anybody) that applies to a good college, the chances are he or she has a passion about a certain field that they want to go into. What affirmative action does, is that it requires universities to give these wonderful, intelligent people the opportunity to learn, and to apply what they learn to real life. Maybe if minorities were to already go to college as much as whites do, I would feel that affirmative action is unnecessary, but since they don't, I don't feel this way. https://www.mtholyoke.edu... https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Race-based affirmative action in universities

This debate is for the user ABG and it will be concerning the use of race-based affirmative action in universities. AA is the use of giving preference to minorities in universities at least in this case. ABG will be arguing in favor of using this. Example A college needs to have at least five percent blacks in their college Example 2 A college had a choice between two similarly qualified students, one black and one white, they had to choose the black one. No trolling No semantics No kritiks No technicality wars (no definition or technicality argument) First round is acceptance I await this debate. Please try not to forfeit In short this is about AA in colleges
Violence is a neccesity

Now I feel stupid. I misread Con's argument. I really don't know how to defend my contention now, because I would have to say murder is neccasary. However, I can still defend one of my arguments. I was using the argument of a food chain to say that humans would be extinct without certain animals that needed violence to survive. Humans also need violence to kill animals, even today. Same for my second contention, I really don't know how to justify this anymore. So, to sum this up, this isn't a total concession, but I think it's fair to say Con won this debate. I'm not disappointing about this though, as I was looking for a challenge, and this was a good debate. However, Con still hasn't responded to my argument about drug trafficking.
Violence is a neccesity

Thanks Pro, I always appreciate a good response.Clarification of contentionIn this round, Pro has agreed to the resolution I proposed in round 1, which is "violence between humans is necessary for life". I'd like to point out that Pro did not contend the time dimension aspects I proposed in round 1, so the contention is not only that violence is necessary, but will always be necessary. In this round, I will show that Pro misunderstood my argument in round 1, therefore I will first clarify that position and then provide rebuttals of specific points from round 2. The key to my argument is the sentence:We also need to think not only of the hear and now, but to think back through the chain of violence that led to the current situation.Pro continues to raise examples of violence countered with violence. For example Bob murders Joe and then Sam arrests and violently imprisons Bob. Pro focuses on Sam's violence being necessary. However, this violence was only necessary because of Bob's violence. Was Bob's violence necessary? No, not unless Joe was himself the start of the violence, in which Joe is the instigator. There is always a causal chain of violence that begins with an *unnecessary* violent act. This shows that none of this violence was actually necessary for human life to exist. The difficulty for Pro in this debate is the steep curve of proving the "necessity principal". At best, Pro may be able to show that violence is necessary for order, but that is not the contention. Another way I might clarify this is to show a way that Pro *could* prove the resolution. For example, perhaps it could be shown that violence has psychological affects on humans that drastically increase our competitive spirit, without which we may not have survived. RebuttalsPro's first contention talks about non-human entities and is therefore irrelevant since the resolution only concerns humans.Pro's argument from round 1 is that lack of violence would increase unemployment. The main problem with this argument is that it is simply unsound. If violence didn't exist, how would we even know those jobs were missing? An analogy will help here: lets say that every year some strange, dangerous alien bugs infested the earth and it required some kind of special branch of the military to kill them. If we had the option to easily stop this somehow, would Pro say "No, don't do that. We'd lose those jobs". Economists don't spend time trying to invent things man could be doing in order to manage employment. Instead, labor is put to use creating those things consumers most urgently need and desire. Absent violence, I'm rather sure everyone would rather spend that money on a trip to, say, the Yucatan peninsula (for example).