BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cell phones should be allowed in school

I do admit that distractions are a major problem in a classroom. There are other ways to distract someone than a phone. Talking is one of the biggest distractions. "and shows disrespect to the teacher." -Well, it shows disrespect for the students when the teachers begin using their cell phones. I think cell phones should only be used (other than emergency) or can be useful when it comes to calculators, and organizers. Not everyone carries a paper organizer or agenda with them. Cell phones have alarms and reminders, which could come in handy. If a cell phone goes off (not on vibrate), then the teacher should be ably to take the phone for the balance of a day. Treat cell phones like scissors. If a kid runs with scissors, you punish the kid, you dont take all of the scissors away. I can completely understand your point of veiw. Cell phones are distractions. However, they have MANY good uses. Banning cell phones might be a great idea, but banning even the presence of a cell phone (even when its off) is just not right. Office phones are not all that great for emergecies. An emergency may be private, and the presence of other students in the office may cause "talking" such as rumors. When talking to your family, such things should be kept private.
Cell phones should be allowed in school

My opponents position is that cell phones should be allowed in school, by implication he appears to mean specifically that the students and pupils be permitted to have mobile phones. As the instigator the burden of proof is upon my opponent to show that the presence of cell phones is overall of more benefit than their absence. My opponent makes the following contentions, "I think that cell phones should be allowed to be used in schools, but put on vibrate in classes". I object to this for several reasons, firstly not every student would remember to consistently place his or her phone on vibrate, as a result classes would be disrupted by the occasional ring tone. Causing annoyance to teachers and disruption to the learning process. Even if pupils remembered to place their phones on a vibrate setting it must be observed that several makes and models produce potentially loud vibrations. If left on desks as my opponent later suggests such devices are known to 'whiz around' as a result of vibrating on a flat surface, again causing disruption to classes. My opponent also states that "I think that teachers should only let students accept calls from their families" This would require the student to physically check his phone to see from whom the call is coming from, this distracts the student and shows disrespect to the teacher. My opponent is maybe considering that the presence of a mobile phone allows the swift communication of a family emergency, this can easily achieved by phoning the school directly. This would create a delay of no more than a few minutes which is perfectly acceptable as the student in question is unlikely to be a member of the emergency services. "Besides, even if one forbids cell phone usage, it doesnt prevent the problem. .. it only makes people use a phone in a place that it is uncalled for. (the bathroom or locker room)" Actually that does solve one of the major problems of cell phone usage, by restricting it to furtive places it prevents the disruption of the classroom. Additional reasons as to why cell phones should not be allowed in school are the increased possibility of thefts amongst students. Furthermore in the violent atmospheres of the American high schools which are increasingly installing metal detectors to prevent the importation of knives and guns efforts should be made to cut down on the number of unnecessary items a student may bring to school. Therefore I maintain that though cell phones have the advantage of instant communication this is not a pressing need in the school environment and come with problems that fair outweigh the benefits.
Cell phones should be allowed in school

I think that cell phones should be allowed to be used in schools, but put on vibrate in classes. I think that teachers should only let students accept calls from their families. cell phones should be face up on a desk though, so that when testing, no cheating is advised. Besides, even if one forbids cell phone usage, it doesnt prevent the problem... it only makes people use a phone in a place that it is uncalled for. (the bathroom or locker room)
All Atheist have no exact knowledge about Human nature

I know why you win our last debate because of our topic " Non Catholic Preachers are Preaching false doctrines" and I know those non-Catholic Christians were voting for you. And even this time if you will win it does not matter as long as I can preach what is the truth. In your belief and base in science you are corret but you do not know that there are a lot of things Science cannot explain.So please answer my question.Why do a person will not be satisfied even if he is the richest person in the world?This is the 3rd time I ask you this question. I hope you will answer it.
All Atheist have no exact knowledge about Human nature

Why a person is always seeking for something? Humans have evolved a sense of curiosity. I believe this is because humans subconsciously want to find new things and become famous. you can't find anything if your not curious. Why a person cannot add his life even if he or she is still young? that is untrue. modern medicine has be able to cure people who are dying but everyone has to die eventually. Why a person's mind know the good and bad? through generations people have developed community norms with have to be agreed on then those are thought to a younger generation. Why do people get hurt even if they hear bad words? because they have been trained to know those words are bad.
Smoking should be illegal

It goes without a doubt that smoking is extremely bad for you and others around you. It should be avoided, but banned? There are always problems with making something that was legal, illegal. Making smocking illegal would be a very bad idea. The reasons are below. 1. People are addicted to cigarettes. So many people would go through a painful withdraw. 2. Most people would not just let it go, they would break the law to get the drug. 3. The prisons would be filled up even more with criminals, costing tax payers millions. 4. Many people would be put out of work. Farmers, salesmen, factory workers, ect. .. Something we must realize is that kids are not dying from second hand smoke. In order for someone to die from second hand they would have to constantly be inhaling it. In conclusion, It is a persons choice to to smoke if they want, they know perfectly well that there is a risk of getting cancer. It is not a drug that will harm their mind like Meth or Cocaine.
Gun Control Laws

There should be more gun control laws because of the increasing mass murders in the last twenty years. These mass murders have occurred in places such as Alabama, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Washington, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. In these states, there are no requirements to have a permit to purchase a gun, provide firearm registration, and to supply an owner license. This shows that there is a correlation between minimal gun laws and mass shooting. The number of murder rates in Rhode Island, Iowa, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Hawaii are very low. This is because of the strict laws of requiring a state permit, owner license, and carry permits. These states have the lowest amount of murder from the survey of 2010. This shows that strict gun control laws in the United States lead to less murders. In my research, I have found that other countries besides the United States have a low murder rate compared to the united state. This includes Sweden, Spain, Australia, and Canada. Why is this? This is because of the many firm laws. These laws include registrations and permits, psychological tests, and safety courses. As you can see, states like Iowa, Rode Island, Hawaii and countries like Canada, Spain and Sweden, all have low murder rate because of more rigorous laws. From the research that I have provided, gun laws and murder rates associate with each other.
Gun Control Laws

I am sorry to see my opponent has forfeited his round, but, as promised, I will provide my rebuttal to my Pro’s argument. “There should be more gun control laws because of the increasing mass murders in the last twenty years.” First, I would like to illustrate there has not been an increase in mass murders in the last twenty years. A study conducted by Fox and Delateur asserts “mass shootings have remained stagnant over 34 years, averaging 20 a year, and that few are committed by the sorts of mentally deranged individuals that are commonly portrayed in the media.” [4] The study debunks the myth ‘Mass murders are on the rise’ by using FBI statistics and looking at any mass murders occurring between 1976 and 2011. Other sources such as “Mother Jones” limit the definition of mass murders and show a distorted view unlike the Fox and Delateur study which is a comprehensive study. “The number of murder rates in Rhode Island, Iowa, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Hawaii are very low. “ My opponent does not provide any evidence for this claim. “In my research, I have found that other countries besides the United States have a low murder rate compared to the united states.” Pro has not provided any evidence for his assertions. In fact, the link Pro provided in his opening statements actually shows union gun control, prohibition, and post-JFK assassination gun control corresponding to increasing the homicide rate in the United States in the related time frames. Thank you for your time, guy and gals! I look forward to Pro's Conclusion. [4] http://www.trendingcentral.com...
Abortion

My oppenet raises two points, fetoses are not human, and they mother has their rights. On the first note. What makes something human? Fetusess don't have arms and legs like we do, but that dosnt make you human. Animals have those. In fact nothing physical makes us human. It is our Dna. It is unlike any other animals and makes us special. It plans each little part of our body. Fetusess have human Dna, so why are they not human? In fact they have functioning BRAINS and HEARTS very early. How is this creature not human? Its Dna spells out a code for that of a completely unique human bieng. It really is a humane that is still growing its tissue and body. This argument is especially invalid in third trimester abortions when the fetuss is preety much a human child.Second, does the mother posses rights to the fetuss? Well while it is in her body, it is human condidering its complex and unique Dna. This organism is exactly like any human. Its body has just not totally formed. The bill of rights protects people from losing their life property or freedom without do process of law. You can't kill a us citizen with constitutional rights just cause its in the uterus. The constitution declares all federal law trumps state law. Any "rights" to murderer granted to any body are nullified by the bill of rights. In fact, in roe v wade, the court said if it could be proven that the futuss was alive, abortion would be unconstitutional. Any right created to limit the rights of others is no right. Segrigation in schools was no right though the south claimed it was. Any right becomes null and void when it violates the fundementalnrights of others. No amount of talk about rights and freedom can cover up the fact that this right is purchised with mass murderer. These new rights are only a way of the strong to oppress those with no voice. The only reason abortion is socially acceptable is because only the doctor sees the actual abortion. The women just knows shes no longer pregnant and happy. If the mother had her new born killed, it would be reported everywhere. However, the fetuss is hidden away so our society doent have to witness murderer that is justified because the childs arm isnt toally formed. We don't see the corpses. We just know that the stupid babies gone. The Dna of a fetuss paints a picture a complex individual. Maybe not physically, but genitacaly. This being will grow a heart and brain and its new nerves feel pain far more then any of us can. They are brutally sucked from their home and slaughtered before the idol of convience and barbarism. The rights of the constitution should be granted based on science and life, not on if that life has travled through a vagina. How stupid are we that we grant you your rights based on whether you have been through a Virgina! We should reject the trampling of the rights of infants and their pointless slaughter!
Abortion

I present my starting arguments. Women possess a moral right to decide what to do with their body: Without abortion this right would be violated, they would not have the choice of what to do with their body if they were disallowed abortion. a woman has the right to decide what she can and can't do with her body the foetus exists within a woman's body. a woman has the right to decide whether the foetus remains in her body. therefore a pregnant woman has the right to abort the foetus. Abortion brings to light the many ideas of human rights such as: every human being has the right to own their own body, for instance, if a person has a parasite living inside them (not that I am comparing the foetus to a parasite, this is merely an example) the person would want the parasite removed from their body, the parasite is alive and functioning with the involuntary aid of its host, does the parasite being alive make it automatically able to remain living inside the persons body? The person would remove the parasite. The parasite being alive does not make it automatically outrank it's host in terms of life. The parasite is unwanted therefore it will be removed. The same applies for the foetus, it is the mothers choice of whether she would abort it or not. a foetus is part of a woman's body. The foetus is not yet a human, it is merely a potential human. At this stage of development the foetus is a part of the mother's body, it therefore is the woman's decision to abort it. It is not murder if the foetus is not human. therefore that woman has the right to abort a foetus they are carrying Sources: http://www.bbc.co.uk... I look forward to hearing from you.
Abortion

Ok for starters 1.3 BILLION fetuses have been aborted since 1980 making the abortion the greatest genocide in human history. It has be proven beyond a doubt that a fetus is totally alive and human. Not just alive, but it also already has a unique Dna code that will never be replicated again. The the killing of a fetus is not just killing a bundle of cells, but a complex human organism that will NEVER be replicated again. From a legal standpoint, infants are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is illegal to kill a newborn, unless it's in the womb. Aperently the uterus as the strange effect of taking away the rights of those withen. This is espicially evesent in the case of early births. If to women are in the exact same day of the 3rd trimester and one baby is born early, the docters will try despritly to save it. If the other women wants an abortion, the docters are paid to kill it. These two organisms are IDENTICAL but one is considered not human. All humans have natural rights including life. Murderer deprives one of the right to live their life. A fetus is human, just not as devoloped. That is like making murderer legal, but only the murderer of kids because they're less devoloped. Some contest it's a women's right to an abortion, I find this identical to a States "right" to own slaves. That is only the right of the powerful to deprive the weak of their rights.
The beauty is just a concept related to tastes

Ok, so we all like chicken right? No, we don't, some of us do and that's our taste. Just like beauty, some people think that wearing fewer clothes is more beautiful, some think that shorter people are beautiful, and so on (i will not say whether or not either of these are in my opinion beautiful). Just like your opinion of chicken, beauty is a taste someone has, not a fact. So really it is odd to say that beauty is not a taste-related concept. I want to use an example from Harry Potter. A lot of people think that Hermione (Aka Emma Watson) is a very attractive character, but, within the story, many people think otherwise. Really the way we can tell that beauty is related to taste is what attracts people. Some people are attracted to some features that others are not, therefore we can discover that beauty is a concept of a person's taste. In these last two paragraphs, I've only discussed one type of beauty, which is appearance. There is most definitely the second type of beauty which is found in personality. This type of beauty is also related to a person's taste as some think that smart people are more attractive or funny people are more attractive. In the end, it is purely decided by a person taste In these 3 paragraphs, I have discussed how both the Physical and Personal aspects of beauty are considered often beautiful when judged by a person's taste and preferences. And in the end, not only are we all beautiful, but we all do love chicken - Anonymous Chicken Lover
Elliot Stabler makes SVU better

I think that Detective Olivia "Liv" Benson is who made svu what it is today. I sat that cause she is the cast member who connects with the audience and the victims. Unlike Elliot who only chases the guys and nothing else. Liv is the person who goes and chases the bad guy even when she is disabled. She is the one without her there would be no svu. It would be sv instead.
Elliot Stabler makes SVU better

I agree that Liv helps to make SVU a little better show to watch, but not anywhere close to as much as Stabler does. She does not add the emotion to the level that Stabler does. She and him make an amazing team. There are times she is not on the show and Elliot makes the entire show worth while with out Liv. Where as Olivia only adds a minimal amount to SVU. This is why the new seasons are not worth watching because Elliot is not in them.
The User Known as AnDoctuir Should Go Back to Being the User badger

1. He Never Denies That He Is BadgerHe claims to not want to be badger any longer yet when asked or confronted he proudly states that he is indeed the former member known as badger. If he is so easy to cough up his true identity, why not go back to being who he started as? His style never changes so everyone always knows its the same user anyways so why continue to change accounts? For the sake of continuity he should go back to being badger.2. Renown and Prestige Over his past 3 or so accounts this user has racked up over a thousand forum posts that could have been going towards his badger account. If he goes back to being badger he can continue to acquire these stats on one account thus gaining prestige and renown in the community. This user is not afraid to make offensive, numerous and blatant posts so he clearly is not shying away from the community so why not be this way on a single account? 3. Continuity and Ease Instead of bouncing from unestablished account to unestablished account he should go back to his one main account for the ease of the community. It would be much easier to interact with this user on a more meaningful level if he didn't change accounts every week. It would also establish a sense of continuity so it would be easier to gauge badger and his responses over time thus giving everyone a more workable medium in which to interact with. It would also ease up the clutter of the forums. Instead of having hundreds of forum posts by low ELO, noob-like accounts cluttering the forums which were all posted by a single member it would be much better if all of these were coming from a single account. Since badger has no qualms about admitting he is badger he should return to being badger, gain some more stats, prestige and renown while helping keep the site easier to use by increasing continuity and decreasing clutter.It would be better for badger and the community at large if AnDoctuir returned to being badger. Thank you.
No exams

Rebuttals: R1: I am not convinced that exams make kids suicide. Pro needs to back up his statements with a reference. Everything else here is gibberish that I do not need to answer to. R2: Exams are only a waste of time if the time is not well spent. Also, I contend that being a bookworm is a good thing. My 1st point: Exams give an indication of what a student knows. This actually saves time, so the teacher knows what the class needs to learn next. Exams are a useful tool.
No exams

Hi mate ..i think you should focus more on not wasting your turns.u just wasted one trn asking about resolution.. I dont have much time to.waste..you need to speak about how are exams good. So ..i was talking about how are exams bad... Exams are a total wastage of time..if you want to take tests ..there are formatives in every school..But a test of 100 marks 3 hours is too much... Because of these long exams,some children try to not focus on sports ,dance ,etc and become bookworms..
America Is Doomed Since Obamas Back

First I would like to start out by saying, I should have re-worded the topic. I should have said: America is in trouble since Obama's back. I see that using the word 'Doomed' isn't the right fit. Now for my argument.Four years ago, before Obama was elected, the national debt was high enough that each person (men women and children) wold have had to pay only about $20'000 to get out of our 'hole'. Now (after four years of President Obama) that has nearly doubled. Making it $40'000 that each American would have to pay to get us out. My Question to you is, In four years will it be better? Will the debt be gone? Or will it have doubled again? How long until we, possibly, work for e other country?I have a friend who told me that the national debt is not Obama's fault, but it's the governments. No it is not. It is the president's fault. The government is at part of the blame her, but 9/10 of that blame goes to the Commander in Chief. You are making bare assertions with no evidence, sources, proof, verifications, warrants, or implications, I will not be able to successfully respond to your arguments until they have ground, and of course assertions without proof are groundless.
America Is Doomed Since Obamas Back

First I would like to start out by saying, I should have re-worded the topic. I should have said: America is in trouble since Obama's back. I see that using the word 'Doomed' isn't the right fit. Now for my argument. Four years ago, before Obama was elected, the national debt was high enough that each person (men women and children) wold have had to pay only about $20'000 to get out of our 'hole'. Now (after four years of President Obama) that has nearly doubled. Making it $40'000 that each American would have to pay to get us out. My Question to you is, In four years will it be better? Will the debt be gone? Or will it have doubled again? How long until we, possibly, work for e other country? I have a friend who told me that the national debt is not Obama's fault, but it's the governments. No it is not. It is the president's fault. The government is at part of the blame her, but 9/10 of that blame goes to the Commander in Chief.
Super Mario World is better than Super Mario Bros. 3

It is with great disappointment that I concede in this debate. I thought I would have time to post an argument/rebuttal, but I did not. I apologize to my opponent, TN05, for forfeiting the debate. I know that he was looking forward to a great debate and I couldn't deliver. I probably would've lost anyway, as he provided an excellent set of arguments. My hat off to him.