BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Electronic Devices are interfering with the learning in young children.

I believe that children are becoming greatly affected by the major use of technology in present day life. Studies have shown that it is affecting the way that children are concentrating. For example, reading a book and focusing on the pages has a different atmospheric element than reading a web page surrounded with ads and hyperlinks. It has also adapted children to have selective focus. This means simply that there are so many distractions that the young child is more likely to engage in the non-learning aspect of what they are focusing on. For example, if a child was trying to read a book online, yet there was an ad for a new game on the same page, their attention would be diverted. The focus of a young child has a large affect on how they learn and are able to survive in the real world.
Electronic Devices are interfering with the learning in young children.

It is possible that children might not be educated enough to use online lectures. However, these days many schools, even the elementary schools, teach their students how to use online lectures appropriately. As technology develops, there are more and more effort to teach children how to utilize it well. Some people would worry if the technology would hurt children's health, but we cannot say that it is caused only from the computer. The majority of the health problems that children have from using computer a lot are from their bad postures when sitting on the chair. As the risk increases, there are coming out more convenient chairs that set their postures right, and soft mouse wrist pad with cushion can be one of examples too. It is an obvious truth that there are more benefits than shortcomings. The technology provides children the opportunity to experience other cultures too. The best example can be pen-pal website. Through pen-pal website, children can make other friends from different countries, and they can share their cultures each other. Without going there directly, they can learn about other different cultures, which can be greatly helpful for their educational purpose. Also, the technology overcomes the limit of place and time. There was a girl who was in the hospital from pneumonia, but she always missed her friends and teachers, and wanted to go to class while in hospital. If it was in the old time, it would never be possible, but thanks to the developed technology, she could participate in her class thorough video conferencing. Like this, children can use technology not caring about specific time or place. These days, the technology is so affecting our society that our lives would never be possible without the technology. Not only the adults, but also the children should realize that fact, and to get used to the modern society better, they also need to learn it. Technology can have some bad effects, but there are much more positive effects, which is beneficial to every aspect of world.
Electronic Devices are interfering with the learning in young children.

Though I do see your point that online lectures could be beneficial to learning, there is a down side to this. Young children will not even have the thought of looking up a lecture to understand their lesson better. Though the resources are available, they have not been educated enough to find these websites, however they may find them more reliable when they are older. This is definitely a different thought than the interference of electronics in young children. There also has been recent research that is trying to find a study to prove that thumb injuries and stiffness in the wrist are side effects caused by the use of too many electronic devices at a young age. I believe that this is true because it makes students use their hands in a solitary motion. I also believe that this has affected the physical learning aspect of children. It has disabled them from such physical activities such as cutting, coloring with crayons and other young activities. If these base aspects are not learned at a young age, students will become physically enabled and will not be able to function to the best of their potential. Though I do believe that a good moderation of electronic devices would not be a problem for young children, I know this is not the case. Children do not have good time management and not all parents stay on top of their children, making sure they moderate their time on electronic devices.
Electronic Devices are interfering with the learning in young children.

I see your point that many children wouldn't be able to manage their time well enough. However, it can be only a case to few of them. That means it is not an obvious fact that a lot of children are not responsible for managing time. Even though that problem is considered seriously, there are a lot of benefits other than that. By using electronic devices, children do not have to carry their heavy books to every class. It is pretty hard for them to carry their books home whenever there is homework. However, with the electronic books, they do not have to do that. It gives them a total convenience. Also, children can get extra lessons through electronic devices. For the most representative example, there is computer. A lot of educational websites are already helping children to study, but there has been something newly popular recently. It is called "Online lectures", and is gaining a lot of support from students all over the world. They offer many subjects that not only what we learn at school but also other subjects that we don't even have at school. Children can try other practical subjects that they have wanted to try before, or they also can get extra help from the lecturers if they didn't understand the class enough at school. Of course they can contact with their own teachers whenever they have questions through email, if they didn't get enough answer, internet lecture can be a great help.
Electronic Devices are interfering with the learning in young children.

Though I do agree that managed time is sufficient for a substantial amount of learning in young children, this is not always the case. Many children are given these electronic devices in order to distract the child for the parent. In this case, the children will have to manage their time on these devices by themselves. This is a very hard thing for small children to do, since they have not fully developed a sense of responsibility or time management. Children can very easily get caught up in these games and will change the game instead of managing their time to do something different. Since there are so many different games and apps on devices, overall time management is not easy. Though I do see your point, that managed time by a parent may be beneficial, it is just not the way of life in many different cases. Also, children learn from example. Many adults now have become more and more fantasized about technological devices. If young children see an adult displaying more time towards these devices, it will reason them to do the same. Though this is not the answer to the problem, it is still a different aspect of looking at the situation.
Electronic Devices are interfering with the learning in young children.

Even though children study with textbooks, there will always be possibility for them to be addicted into games, such as video games or computer games. The great efficiency of studying is mostly up to how well they form their own study habits. If they set the time to play with study-bot, or if they try to control themselves even a little bit, there won't be any big problem like playing games all the time. At the social problems, study-bot does not harm children at all either. Children do not have to use only electronic devices to study. They can still go to school and classrooms, and have chances to meet other teachers and friends. The study-bot is just one of ways to help children study, but they don't have to rely on it entirely. So, the electroic devices does not necessarily weaken their social skills. For the health problems, the excessive use of electronic devices can cause eye problem. However, as I stated before, as long as they control themselves by trying to set time regularly, it won't affect their health problem that much. Study-bot is not an authorative device which dominates children's life, but a helpful device that increases the educational efficiency of the children, which means that it does not really cause any social or essential problems.
Is It Ever Okay To Hit A Woman

Well Ruby, I accept your challenge and would like to open with a question, one which I hope you do not take into offense; Are you a feminist? It does not influence the debate much, but it would assist me in understanding where your viewpoint on this subject lies. I had originally thought to agree with you on the grounds that it is never okay to hit anyone, but it is clear that you meant that it was mainly man to woman. While it is true that on average, men have more physical strength than women, wider bodies with less curves and can hide certain emotions such as sadness while having less control over aggression. There are always exceptions however, and I find it odd that my spindly form could possibly harm anyone. On the other hand, there can be... how it say it, rather butch or physically capable women who do not meet your stereotype. In places like Thailand and Spain, (source, Nationmaster.com) up to and over a tenth of reported crimes are committed by women, and while you may say that the others were all men, all I have to prove in this debate to win is that there are some occasions where it would be permissible to strike a woman, just as there are occasions for someone to strike a man. You did declare that it was never okay to hit a woman, but if I was attacked by a woman, my small frame would not be able to gently subdue her as you imagine in your stereotype of both genders. This small fraction (about 5% of the time) is still a number, which must be zer0 for your statement to be true. (and don't try to change the motion now, the title is still Is It Ever Okay To Hit A Woman). I await your response, Wifey McBeaty- I mean, Duncan.... yeah, Duncan.
Is It Ever Okay To Hit A Woman

I think it is never okay to hit a woman! The average man is much stronger than the average woman. Hitting a woman can easily knock her off of her feet, but if a woman hits a man it usually has barely any affect on the male. I think that under no circumstances is it okay to hit a female. If the woman were to come at you restraint her, you are more than likely stronger that her so hold her back, or hold her down but never ever hit a woman. I think it is sick to ever think that a man thinks it is okay to hit a woman. I have been in a abusive relationship before and he was 10 times stronger than me. I could do nothing about it! Anyone who says it is okay for a male to his a female has obviously never been man handled or beat by a man before. I feel very strongly that if a man ever touches a woman in a violent or abusive way to report it. I'm not saying if a woman hits a man it's okay, but never hit her back. Tell her that if she ever does it again you will report it, even though the chances are that it didn't even hurt. From my own experience, when a male would hit me it would knock me off my feet, but if I were to hit him he barely flinched. I say never hit a woman.
Global Warming Is Killing People

I would say global warming is a hoax, created by left wing liberals (redundant, I know), in order to control the masses. Have you noticed how the phrase, "global warming" is no longer used, since most of the U.S. is experiencing "record" cold weather? Now it's "climate change". How convenient...so every time the temperature changes, the liberals get to blame human activity, and use propaganda similar to what the communists use, in order to tax people and acquire wealth and power. You are ignorant (not an insult, just a brief way of saying you're uninformed), and have bought into the propaganda. You have 16-years on this planet, yet you're convinced that you know exactly what the weather is supposed to look like. By their very definition, "climates" change...it's what they do. Ever heard of the ice age(s)? The earth goes through both warming and cooling stages, and any person who believes that we humans are capable of affecting the climate is naive beyond measure (and a sucker). If you are such a person, give me a call, I have a bridge I want to sell you. Now that we've finished our opening arguments, please explain how global warming is killing people. We're all dying (no pun intended) to know how my SUV is responsible for deaths of other people.
Global Warming Is Killing People

Droughts have been occurring since even before we began recording history. They're unfortunate, but natural disasters are a fact of life. It is very dangerous however, to want to blame every natural disaster, and the deaths that result from said disasters, on the activities of mankind. You have offered no facts that support your claim global warming is killing people, and have offered no evidence to support your theory of man-made global warming. My argument is simple...man-made global warming is a hoax created in order to control people. We can no more affect the climate than we can the weather. Global warming advocates are very much like lemmings, or cult members. They believe the hype, and throw away any and all evidence to the contrary. For example, this year is one of the coldest years in recorded history, as a result it's no longer "global warming", now it's "climate change"...how convenient. Here are some more factoids for you global warming zealots (1): - Only 4 of the top 10 warmest years occurred in the past 10 years (1998, 1999, 2006) - Out of the top 10 warmest years half occurred before 1940 - The years 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2004 were cooler than the year 1900 - 1996, just two years before what Al Gore called the hottest year in the history of the planet, was actually cooler than average. - 1921 was the third warmest year in recorded history (behind 1934 and 1998). (1) http://www.globalwarminghoax.com...
Global Warming Is Killing People

can't you see? there are a lot of calamities because of this "climate change". isn't it enough that you can see people drowning because of its effects? can't you see that people are dying because they don't have food to eat because of the drought? isn't it really enough? it is clear that it IS killing people. it may not affect you but it affect others. if you were one of those "others", how would you feel?
Is Dance A Sport

Odette has the the scene and pirouettes across the stage, she's at the violins, she's at the flutes, she's at the basses, ooooh, she's taken down by the evil knight Rothbart at the oboes. Wait a minute, there's a flag on the stage. The conductor is calling a foul. Apparently Odette was tackled in mid pirouette. The conductor has announced that the tackle curse does not turn Odette into a swan, and the dance is move forward five stanzas into the woodwinds. Rothbart is in the conductor's face. This could get ugly. Well folks, who knows where this is going? It's anybody's ballet now.
Is Dance A Sport

The opening arguments are basic, so I will give a basic response. It is true that dance is strenuous, requires a high standard of coordination and talent, and is not just for girls, though I haven't heard too many people say it was just for girls. Construction work is also strenuous, but not considered a sport. Trapeze acts require a high standard of coordination and talent, but are not considered a sport. Dances have competitions, just as sporting events to. Spelling Bees also have competitions, and they are not considered sporting events. Has anyone attending the ballet ever said they were going to a sporting event? I can find no official statement that places dance in a sporting category, so to state that dance is a sport is purely based on opinion, not fact. Dancing may be athletic to a degree, and meet certain sports criteria, but so do other activities that are not considered a sport. According to the above examples, dance is not a sport.
Is Dance A Sport

Dance is a sport and I will argue with anyone that is against it. I want all of you haters of dance being a sport to learn one of our competition routines, go to our countless practices, perfect it, and perform it. We make it look easy because we are trained to, and yes we do sweat, we sweat because we are working hard and taking no breaks. Also if you say dance is only for girls and guys are weak if they dance, then go on YouTube and look up videos of guy dancers and you try and do the tricks and stunts they do. Finally if you look me straight in he eye and tell me that dance is weak and not a sport, I will kick you in the face no matter how tall you are.
mp3 players should be allowed in public schools

" mp3 players play music. music helps with the learning process. for example, when playing mozart to babies, science has proven that they learn faster. " Plenty of reason to allow them-- in private schools. Course, ya really thing the average student is gonna have MOZART playing on them? *checks his playlist, looks and sees metal... *checks an average playlist, sees rap... " when saying "help america"... I am part of america, the citizens are part of america. being part of america, when you help america, you are helping the citizens of america." Doesn't help the dude who spawned the AN HERO meme when his ipod was stolen :http://encyclopediadramatica.com... So, you should avoid saying you are helping a collective unless EVERY MEMBER within benefits :D. " you keep straying off the path. we are not debating about the existance of public schools. and it doesn't matter if that is what SHOULD be debated, the topic is not about the existance." The position that public schools should not exist is P. The position that mp3 players should not be allowed in them is Q. Q follows from P. I am not straying off any path, I am taking a premise to a relevant conclusion. " you are speculating that we make the public schools non-existant, well sadly for you, public schools do exist, and it doesn't matter whether or not they SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT..." This debate makes claims about what should be. It does not make claims about what should be GIVEN public schools existing, it makes absolute claims-- claims for all contexts-- including ideal contexts in which such schools don't exist. It does, therefore, matter that they should not exist. Further, making public schools more palatable by increasing the learning quality in them entrenches them, harming the cause of eliminating them. This is another reason why it should not be. You have claimed again and again my arguments. are irrelevant without demonstrating how. I have demonstrated again and again why my (unaddressed) arguments are relevant-- it follows deductively from the arguments that the resolution is false.
mp3 players should be allowed in public schools

given, I did focus too much on your odd approach, that I forgot to say WHY MP3 players should be allowed in public schools. mp3 players play music. music helps with the learning process. for example, when playing mozart to babies, science has proven that they learn faster. http://edweb.sdsu.edu... the link above shows research of proof that people learn better with music playing. when saying "help america"... I am part of america, the citizens are part of america. being part of america, when you help america, you are helping the citizens of america. you keep straying off the path. we are not debating about the existance of public schools. and it doesn't matter if that is what SHOULD be debated, the topic is not about the existance. I will gladly debate you on the existance of public schools in a different debate. just create the debate, but that is not what THIS topic is about. you are speculating that we make the public schools non-existant, well sadly for you, public schools do exist, and it doesn't matter whether or not they SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT... the topic stays with MP3 players as the focus. MP3 players are beneficial to the learning process, they should be allowed in public schools. thankyou. X
mp3 players should be allowed in public schools

" even though it was a very bold move, sadly, it is not what the topic is about. " It has implications for what the topic is about. It is a premise of an argument from which the conclusion related to this argument is logically derived. Therefore it is relevant. " without taxation, we cannot pay those people who help america every day. ex. police officers, firemen, elected officials, teachers, etc.." As a matter of fact we can. Simply replace taxation with a law enforcement user fee for the purpose of police, the military, firemen, and officials (why "elected" ones? That doesn't have a great track record). Btw, it is impossible to "help america," america is not an evaluative entity. It is only possible to help individuals. As for teachers, I presume you've heard of private schools? Naturally, without public schools, the market is bigger for private schools, allowing for production at a cheaper rate, especially relative to the newfound growth of incomes due to lack of taxes. " although confusing, the last statement he made was supposed to be allowing the existance of MP3 players in them is clearly not... he made a mistake, and clarified that in the comment section. " Yes, I corrected it to what it should have said. You haven't addressed it. " ragnar-rahl, I respect your odd approach on this topic, but sadly it does not even slightly have anything to do with the topic. I am sorry." The topic states that mp3 players should be allowed in public schools, i.e., that allowing such is part of what should be. It follows from the premise that public schools should not exist that this is false. To prove your statement that it is irrelevant, you would have to dispute my deduction, which you have not done-- or to otherwise defeat it, you would have to disprove the premise, which again you have not done. If Q follows from P, and Q is a position on the topic, then P is relevant to the topic. Indeed, it is you, not me, who has not yet made any substantive argument relevant to the resolution thus far.
mp3 players should be allowed in public schools

My first part of my argument is not for my opponent, but for all of the people commenting on this debate. Stop attacking R-R, he took an unusual tactic on this debate, and if you read back on the early comments, you will see that we both were expecting it. stop all of the arguing with him. you can get in your say, AFTER we finish this debate. thankyou. ____________________________________________________________________________ "Public schools should not exist" was the very first thing my opponent said. he said it very boldly, and it made me say, "wow". even though it was a very bold move, sadly, it is not what the topic is about. the topic is mp3 players should be allowed in public schools, not public schools should not exist, although I would proudly debate anybody on that topic, just not in this debate. R-R said "Taxation is unacceptable" without taxation, we cannot pay those people who help america every day. ex. police officers, firemen, elected officials, teachers, etc.. the rest of what R-R said was "Now, clearly, the nonexistence of public schools precludes allowing mp3 players in public schools-- it is not possible to allow something "in" something that does not exist. And since the nonexistence of public schools is part of what should be the case, allowing the existence of public schools in them clearly is not part of what should be the case." although confusing, the last statement he made was supposed to be allowing the existance of MP3 players in them is clearly not... he made a mistake, and clarified that in the comment section. ragnar-rahl, I respect your odd approach on this topic, but sadly it does not even slightly have anything to do with the topic. I am sorry. X