BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Students Should be Allowed to Have Their Cell Phones at School

Thank you for your response. I’ll just quote my opponent and respond. “Ok, so you say that cellphones can be used for east contact, well, schools do have phones for that purpose, so you can use those. You're asking for permission to use you're phone anyways, so why does it need to be done on a cellphone?” The problem with phones that the school supplies is that there often aren’t enough of them. Allowing students to have cell phones on them allows for a quicker way to contact their guardians that is also easier to do. In addition, cell phones are good to possess in that during a dire emergency students may not be able to reach office phones. “Scheduling and contacting can't be done without cellphones?” No, what I am saying is that if there is a schedule change or anything of the sort then students will be able to contact their parents when otherwise they could not. “Tell me when peoples lives are saved when that cellphone comes in handy.” It is not just school shootings. Cell phones are also useful during times where the ambulance must be called immediately because a student is in grave danger or in anything alike that. The fact remains that cell phones can save lives in dire emergencies, and the safety of students should be very highly regarded in any school. “Most juveniles don't care if they get caught with their cellphone in class. They'll just start texting in class the next day, and the day after that, and the day after that.” Punishing everyone because of the action of a few students is not fair. Anyways, that wouldn’t be a problem because schools have the right to create rules where cell phones cannot be taken out during inappropriate times, and if they are the school has the right to punish the student accordingly. “Ok, so if said student has the phone sitting on their desk, what's the point if it being there? Why not just leave it in said students house?” The student could still use in the case of a dire emergency and after school to be picked up, to call for a schedule change, ect. “because the teachers would have phones, the main office would have like 5 phones, and said school would be near houses, so if their was an emergency which left teachers AND the main office deprived of their phones, the occupants in nearby houses would be able to contact authorities.” Again, if the situation is grave where 911 needs to be called immediately then it is good for the students to have cell phones on them, especially f they are not any authorities or the office. In addition, the danger does not necessarily have to be very attention grabbing, like a school shooting, where people in the area would know what is going on. The fact is, there is nothing to lose when allowing students cell phones. They provide the benefits of schedule changes, calling parent guardians, contacting authorities ect. while providing a certain safety net for children. If cell phones are being used inappropriately the school has the right to implement strict rules regarding cell phone usage to deter inappropriate use.
Students Should be Allowed to Have Their Cell Phones at School

Ok, so you say that cellphones can be used for east contact, well, schools do have phones for that purpose, so you can use those. You're asking for permission to use you're phone anyways, so why does it need to be done on a cellphone? Scheduling and contacting can't be done without cellphones? That's absolutely ludicrous. Most students and adults aren't retards, so I would hope they know how to use a calendar, or an agenda. It's that simple. I can understand your school shooting point, but wouldn't the call sound from your phone attract the perp? And how often do school shootings happen? You're saying we should allow students to carry their phones everywhere because of school shootings? Riiiiiiiiight. Tell me when peoples lives are saved when that cellphone comes in handy. Most juveniles don't care if they get caught with their cellphone in class. They'll just start texting in class the next day, and the day after that, and the day after that. And right off the bat, cellphones should NOT be allowed at elementary schools, students at that age could NOT regulate themselves. Middle school? Possibly. High school? Probably not. Ok, so if said student has the phone sitting on their desk, what's the point if it being there? Why not just leave it in said students house? If their going to use their phones after school, then why not leave at home, what could a juvenile need a cellphone so badly for after class? And about the emergency thing, that completely unnecessary, because the teachers would have phones, the main office would have like 5 phones, and said school would be near houses, so if their was an emergency which left teachers AND the main office deprived of their phones, the occupants in nearby houses would be able to contact authorities. Overall, I've countered pro's points, while adding in a few of my own.
Supreme Court Case: Finn The Human VS. Flame Princess

Thank you cooldude bro for this awesome debate. It was mathematical! (although none were used) Hillarious debate, I had loads of fun.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------THE DEFENCE CALLS ICE KING TO THE STAND!(Throws cold water at Ice King's face. Ice King wakes up)Couldn't YOU act civilly and not fight the Flame Princess?Uh, Yeah, probably. But I had to fight her because of the letter Finn wrote.And so Finn does tie into all this doesn't he? His letters did cause some havoc.Well yeah, I guess so.Thank you.The defence calls Finn to the stand.Finn, Flame princees made the choice to fight the Ice King, But you provoked her to do that with your letter correct?Yeah man,.Flame princess was invited to fight correct? And you constructed this invitation which inevitably caused the destruction for the Ice Kingdom. Do you feel you hold any responsibility?Yes, I do.Then please pay for the damages. Thank you.The defence calls Flame Princess to the stand.You made the choice to destroy the Ice Kingdom. You are capable of making choices and you are responsible for making these choice agree?Yes.Then you will pay for the damages also. However for the act of misleading you or lying to you and to the Ice King which the consequence was an all out battle and property damage. Do you believe Finn should pay for the damages too?Hmmm... Yes, I believe this is right.Thank you.And finally Peebs - uh I mean your honor, since you are also a witness, was Ice King capable of surrendering or not fighting at all to save his Kingdom? Well, yes.Then his Kingdom's destruction is partly due to him making the choice to fight FP. So why should FP be held fully responsible for damaging his kingdom? At any point in time, Ice King could stop and give up.Yes, you have a point. This leads to my conclusion. Candies and other candy people, Flame Princess should not be held completely responsible for the catastrophe that happened in the Ice Kingdom. However since it was Finn's intention to make the Ice King and Flame princess fight and because of his lies - although well justified - were sill lies and he should be penalised because of the consequences these lies have brought forth. I believe Flame Princess should compensate for half the damages made and Finn should pay for the other half. Thank you all.Ice King claps and wooes. Others join in. Princess Bubblegum closes the court and flies on her morrow.And finally the song starts playing, "Come along with me..."
Supreme Court Case: Finn The Human VS. Flame Princess

This round is for Cross Examining one last time and for closing statements.THE DEFENSE CALLS FINN TO THE STAND!: Finn, it is already established that you did write the letters, however, it was Flame Princess's choice to fight the Ice King. Am I correct?Yes!Is it true she could've settled it civilly?Yeah!Is she in control of her actions!Yes!Did Ms. Flame have to destroy the Ice Kingdom?Nope!Could she have talked it out with Ice King?Yes!You were doing what you thought needed to be done. The cosmic Owl is a warning of something important right?Yes. Very Important. It could've been a matter of life and death!Thank you Finn, you may go. The defense calls Flame Princess to the stand! I hate to be rude, but it was your fault to destroy the Ice Kingdom.What?!??!You could've just talked to Ice King and worked it out.Oh man you are right.You didn't have to destroy the Ice Kingdom, am I right?Yes. I am sorry. I am responsible for everything.You do have control of your actions right?Yes...Thanks FP. You may go.The defense calls Jake to the stand! Jake, did you witness the fight?Well, no.Then you have no way of knowing what went down right?Yes.Then you have no right of telling what should've happened, and what shouldn't have happened.Yes.Thank you Jake. You may go.The defense calls Ice King to the stand!Ice King, did Flame Princess make any attempt to move the fight to another location?No.Did she try to work it out civilly with you?I was rushing with my ice speed, trying to work it out before it got out of hand, and then she hit me! I had to fight her!Is it true she also tried to kill you when Finn was helping you escape?Yes!That is attempted murder. We may have a case about this if you are willing to press charges.Maybe..Okay, now wh..*Forms Ice Bed*Sorry, this has been fun and all, but I am tired.*Goes to sleep*Damn It Ice King!Is that all the witnesses?No, I call PB to the stand!What? This is highly unconventional!That is my middle name!PB, you were watching the fight from your window. Am I correct?Yes.Did Ms. Flame make any attempt to work it out civilly?No.Thank you PB.Does the defense have an other witnesses?No, the defense rests!Ladies and Gentleman, Ms. Flame has control of her actions, and destroyed the Ice Kingdom without trying to work it out civilly with the Ice King. It was her choice, and Finn should not have to pay for a choice his Ex-girlfriend made. Thank you.
Supreme Court Case: Finn The Human VS. Flame Princess

This round is for cross examining witnesses. The defense calls Flame Princess to the stand Ms. Flame, You are here to tell me you destroyed the Ice King's kingdom to get him to fight you? Yes Why not just talk to the Ice King, and ask why he wanted to fight you? Uhhhhhh... Why not fight him somewhere else, so his kingdom wouldn't get destroyed? Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...... Why did you have to destroy his kingdom? I don't know! I raged! Your temper is your own responsibility, not someone else's! I guess my temper can get out of hand... Even though Finn wrote the offending letter, it was your choice to destroy the Ice Kingdom. I guess....... Yes or No?!?!? YES!! PLEASE LEAVE ME ALONE!!!!! No further questions your honor. The defense calls Ice King to the stand! Mr. Ice, I have video surveillance that shows you only using one mountain of your kingdom, to combat Ms. Flame. Is this correct? Now that I think about it, yes! So, you only destroyed one mountain of your kingdom, to stop her from attacking, and she destroyed the rest? Yes. Do you think Flame Princess is capable of making her own decisions? Yes. But she is low on my princess list. :) Oooookkkaaayyy. Then it was her choice to destroy your kingdom? You know what? yeah!!! No further questions. Does the defense have anymore witnesses? No your honor, the defense rests!
Supreme Court Case: Finn The Human VS. Flame Princess

The defence calls Flame princess to the stand!(FP gets sworn in)FP, is it ture that the letter Finn wrote siad that the Ice king wanted to fight with you or that he was inviting you to a fight?... Yes. (looks sad)Did you want to destroy the Ice kingdom?Yes, but only to get the Ice King out so he fights me face to face.The defence calls Ice King to the stand and he is sworn inIs it true that you transformed your own kingdom to a giant to fight the flame princess?oh that little thing? hehe, I mean, I had to fight her somehow right?And you knew that you brought your kingdom under danger by fighting her 'with' it.I guess.But if Finn never wrote the letter saying that flame princess wants to fight you then your kingdom would be safe yes? Well,I guess. But he did save Gunther though... Or was it Gunter? Ah nevermind.Thank you. I have no further questionsHey, no problem, maybe we should get together sometime?No.The defence calls Flame king to the stand and he gets sworn in.Is it true that - Woah, woah, wait a minute. I have no idea what's going on here. I wasn't even there when the fight happened. But it does make my daughter more evil so that's good. Anyway, I'll be heading back to my kingdom now if you don't mind.Okay... Does the defence have anymore witnesses?The defence rests.(speaking to the judge)Your honor, Finn is still the one who must pay for the damages because ultimately whatever his reason for writing the letters, may it be the cosmic owl or his lower body being ignited by FP, he is still responsible for deliberately provoking both of them to fight. It is only fair that he pays for the damages caused because he was the one who wrote the letters and wanted the fight to happen in the first place. Perhaps FP will share the same penalty as Finn but he should still pay for the damages his letters have caused. Source regarding this matter:http://adventuretime.wikia.com...
Supreme Court Case: Finn The Human VS. Flame Princess

This round is for questioning yours and neutral witnesses.The defense calls Finn to the stand!(Finn gets sworn in)Finn, is it true you had a relationship with Flame Princess?Yes, we were going out, but now she found someone else.Too bad. Why did you write the offending letters?I had a dream that FP was lighting my junk on fire. It felt good. I wrote the letters because ever time she and Ice King fought, I had that dream.Did you know Flame Princess would destroy the Ice Kingdom?No. That is the last thing I wanted. I even took Ice King in so his penguin, Gunther, could repair his kingdom. Does Flame Princess have control of her actions?Yes.Then it was her choice to destroy the Ice Kingdom, and she could have stopped at any time?Precisely.Thank you Finn. No further questionsThe defense calls Jake to the stand.(Jake gets sworn in)Jake, is it true you advised a Finn to write the letters?Yes.Why did you advise him to do so?It was the Cosmic Owl. He speaks stuff only when it is important. It could mean the difference between life and death. Finn had the Cosmic Owl in his dream. It could have been something important.So, you are saying that there is probable cause for writing the letter?Yes.No further questions.Does the defense have anymore witnesses?The defense rests.
Supreme Court Case: Finn The Human VS. Flame Princess

Your honor, Finn has indeed caused this tragedy to occur, it is terribly unfortunate (*ahem*) that the ice kingdom has been destroyed. Your deepest honor, it is a known fact that the heart of the flame princess is very fragile and her emotions have been recorded to cause catastrophic damages. Since Finn has a history of dating Flame princess, he knows about these things. There was even one time where after kissing Finn, Flame princess melted through the Earth's crust and fell into the core. And yet even when Finn knew of her fragility and her lack of control over her powers, he still wrote an offending letter to her when he knew the consequences. Therefore it is Finn who should pay for the damages for the Ice kingdom.Sources by images :https://www.google.co.th...http://www.google.co.th...http://www.google.co.th...
Supreme Court Case: Finn The Human VS. Flame Princess

This is the supreme court case. Finn the human VS. Flame Princess. Plaintiff, defendant, your opening statements. -JudgeYour honor, Finn wrote an offending letter to his ex-girlfrend, Flame Princess. and pretended that the Ice King wrote it. Flame Princess was recently charged and had to pay for the destruction of the Ice King. Our client thinks Finn should have to pay for the damages for the Ice kingdom. -ConYour honor, even though Finn did write the letter, it was Flame Princess' s choice to destroy the Ice kingdom. My client thinks that Flame Princess should have to pay for the damages, and not try to put the blame on Finn.Witnesses for Cooldudebro,FinnJakeNeutral Witnesses:Ice KingWitnesses for con:Flame PrincessFlame King
The United States Federal Government Should Greatly Increase Funding to NASA

Here is a basic framework for this debate. Round 1 is acceptance Round 2 is opening arguments Round 3 is rebuttals Round 4 you may not bring up new arguments on your side, but you may rebut and defend your case Round 5 will just be wrapping up the debate. No new arguments or rebuttals. Please take this debate seriously. If you are familiar with academic debate, such as Lincoln-Douglas, Policy, or Public Forum debate, this will be similar. I will be expecting to finish this debate and I expect you to do the same. Sources are needed, and we will be judging this round on 4 points: Which side can introduce and extend arguments the best Which side can win the framework debate. Which side maintains debate etiquette and civility. Which side presents their arguments in the best way.
modern media feeds on sensation and not substance

With this debate there exists a problem, because the phrase "modern media" has two possible interpretations. The first interpretation is relatively new forms of media, such as blogs, Youtube or even Debate.org; Under this interpretation, the topic can be considered false, because there exist many instances of substantive content being relayed through these channels. An example of such substance in new media is the postings on scienceblogs.com, which contains various blogs mantained by scientists, who offer informed and witty observations on current affairs. Also given the number of essays and textbooks made avaliable through new media channels, we can safely say that the new forms of media feed on substance as well as sensationalism. The second interpretation is the current status of mass media, which, again, has a lot of substantial content. Shows like The Daily Show offer biting satire with a lot of political content, we also have many informative documentaries. There is substantial content today, and there is substantial content in todays channels.
A world without deception is better than a world with deception

I accept. I wish the best of luck to my opponent as well. This is a very interesting topic, and I look forward to the debate. Also, just so we don't end up spending debate time trying to decide what the definition of deception is, here are some definitions.Deception: The act of deceiving (1)Deceive: To cause or believe what is not true; mislead (2)Sources:1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
A world without deception is better than a world with deception

This is the first debate I am participating in for the offical jury-moderated voting debate. I shall be arguing that a world without deception is better than a world with deception. As I am Pro and are arguing a positive claim, I have the primary burden of proof. First round is acceptance only. The debate shall go for four rounds. Voting shall last seven days, and the jurors are F-16, YYW, Thett3, Zaradi, and Bladerunner060. No one else may vote, and anyone else shall be countered.
I will not break a rule.

" Rule 8 as I have labeled it is not null and void and its creation did not violate itself because Rule 5 as posted by my opponent was referring to 'conditions of debate'. This obviously was referring to the foundation rules." What is obvious is not always true. A condition of this debate is any rule. Furthermore: I am the expert on what I refer to. Not you. See definition 3a on your link. "3 a: a restricting or modifying factor." All rules are restricting or modifying factors. This applies to all your arguments except one: "My opponent also claims that my Rule 9 broke Rule 3." I failed to specify. There, I was indeed speaking of a foundation rule. Foundation rule 3 is a rule labelled 3, just as regular rule 3 is a rule labelled three. My ambiguity does not change the fact of the argument. "In addition my opponent broke rule 2 as posted by me in using improper grammar in Rule 9 as posted by my opponent: "..." (I cannot post since the snippet HE put is indeed grammatically improper, since it's out of the context which makes it grammatically proper That was taken out of context. In it's relevant context: "Each new condition promulgated by past-- plus present -- Aerosmith-avatar-displaying debaters subjects itself to..." The subject is "Each new condition." The verb is "subjects." That subject and verb set agree. My post was grammatically correct. The terms in between were a phrase describing "each new condition." Rule 11 as he has posted is according to Foundation Rule 7 null and void. Since both debaters having "knowledge" (as opposed to opinion) that Pro had won would necessarily imply Pro's victory. Rule 12 is null if intended to be understood in the context of rule 11. If otherwise intended it has no content of course. Rule 10 as I posted has been violated. Due to the aforementioned truth about the nature of rule 5 Pro also loses. 12. Debater who has posted this debate! Thy next requirement: Read dictionary entries thoroughally! 13. Debater who has posted this debate! Thy next requirement: Eat something. 14. Debater who has posted this debate! Thy next requirement: Bow towards Ragnar! Read his profile for purposes such as discovering his general direction.
I will not break a rule.

Foundation rule 4 interjection: Rule 8 as I have labeled it is not null and void and its creation did not violate itself because Rule 5 as posted by my opponent was referring to 'conditions of debate'. This obviously was referring to the foundation rules. I did not create any new foundation rules. Therefore I did not break Rule 5. The Rule 8 posted by me is neither null nor void. condition-a premise upon which the fulfillment of an agreement depends http://www.merriam-webster.com... rule-a regulation or bylaw governing procedure or controlling conduct http://www.merriam-webster.com... Rule 9 as posted by me is also not null and void because it is not one of the 'conditions of debate'. Therefore it does not break rule 5 as posted by my opponent. My opponent also claims that my Rule 9 broke Rule 3. Rule 3 states that CON can not restrict PRO's ability to speak English. This does not keep PRO from restricting either player's ability to speak English. Perhaps my opponent also thinks that rules posted later can modify earlier rules. This is not the case according to Foundation Rule 1. My opponent has posted illegal rules, and by Foundation Rule 3, loses this debate automatically. Rule 8, as posted by my opponent uses the word 'is' (which was banned to CON in Rule 1 posted by me). In addition my opponent broke rule 2 as posted by me in using improper grammar in Rule 9 as posted by my opponent: "...Aerosmith-avatar-displaying debaters subjects itself to..." (subject-verb disagreement). Therefore, my oppoent's Rule 9 is also void (resulting in my opponent's loss of the debate.) Further, as Rules 8 & 9 as posted by me are not void, all three of my opponent's rules in Round 2 (Rule 8 Rule 9 and Rule 10) as posted by my opponent are void for not being attempted to be posted in German (resulting in my opponent's loss of the debate). 10. Die Disputanten kï¿½nnen hinsitzen. (The debaters may sit down.) 11. Die Disputanten wissen die PRO gewonnen hat. (The debaters know that PRO has won.) 12. Die Wï¿½hler mï¿½ssen dementsprechend wï¿½hlen. (The voters must vote accordingly.)