BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Students should be allowed full use of their cell phones during school hours.

My opponent continues to talk about a ban of cell phones. A ban is a legal or formal prohibition. Beer was banned once, and it could not even be seen unless for certain uses.. However, unlike like this ban on alcohal, cell phones are allowed to be in the student's back pack or pocket, when alcohal was not. This means that there is no cell phone band, but a restriction of use on cell phones. He also said that cheating has occured before the cell phone. Yes, this is true, but cell phones are not as easy to catch compared to people passing notes. Students today have found ways to hide cell phones and when they need knew ones, they will create them. My opponent said that a longer period for the phone to be away from its owner should counter my countinuous flow of rule breaking and punishment. It can only holt the process until the student gets the phone back, which would still be a continuous flow that can only end at permanant loss of the phone. My opponent brought the point of an emergency occuring outside of the school. He is saying that students should have their cell phones on in case of a random emergency that may have a low risk percentage of occuring. Unless this emergency is already known by the student, then he or she should not have their cell phone on. During school hours, students could use their cell phones to send a threatening text message to someone. This could be endangerment of a life, punishable by law. Making a great chance that the school could be seen negatively for not preventing these things does do harm to the government because the school system, or education, is usually looked upon to be the best . "ban." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2009. Merriam-Webster Online. 22 January 2009 <http://www.merriam-webster.com...; "Cell Phone and Pager Issues." National School Safety and Security Services . 2008. National School Safety and Security Services . 22 Jan 2009 <http://www.schoolsecurity.org...;
Wylted Won the 2015 DDO Presidential Election

I don't have time to debate much anymore , and never get to finish debates due to time constraints. However after seeing this topic, I was more than happy to take it up and catch a pretty easy snipe. I'm not going to spend a great deal of time on this debate, as it's not needed. Con is trying to negate a truism which is practically an impossibility, so there is no purpose to put much effort into this debate. His entire case hinges of what are fundamentally bad comparisons which relate this website to real life. I will show how there is a dichotomy between his case, and what actually occurred during the election. Dichotomy 1Wylted Won vs Should have wonI want to establish a dichotomy between what pro is actually debating, and what he should be debating in order to win. Pros entire case is not that wylted won, but essentially that wylted should have won. Pros entire case relies on his thoughts and accounts of the election being true and objectively applying to this election. Without the accounts he listed being true, he is only arguing for why he thought wylted won, not for the fact that wylted actually won. Nothing in his case shows us why wylted won, it simply shows us why pro thinks wylted should have won. This is based on the next point i'm going to makeDichotomy 2Real Life vs DDOPro basically posts a whole bunch of stuff that shows why the votes that came in last minute should have counted, and relates this to real life situations and elections. (1) DDO is not real life , and the criteria for the elections on this site are different than real life. Applying real life scenarios to a site that operates under different situations is invalid. Not only that, every election has different criteria. This elections rules are listed here ( . http://www.debate.org... )(2) Max is the absolute authority on the site and declared certain contingent factors that applied to voting. (Such as the election ending at a certain time point, again rules found above)(3) The votes that came in, came in after the person on the site who has absolute authority said the election ended. (4) The person whom has absolute authority determines and makes the final call on the election , which was made here in regards to the rules that he set in place ( . http://www.debate.org...) and also here ( . http://www.debate.org... )(5) Wylted acknowledged and accepted his loss. Airmax gave the candidates the chance to dispute the outcome, wylted accepted it and Airmax determined that bsh won. ( . http://www.debate.org... )ConcludingNo examples pro can give, will possibly show that Wylted won this election. The person winning the election is determined by the rules which are subjective to the absolute authority on the site (airmax). Seeing as how airmax concluded that BSH won, and also due to the fact that wylted accepted the loss without contesting it, there is no way in which wylted actually won. Pro can argue all day long for why wylted should have won, but that will not win him the debate. To win he must show that Wylted actually won, which leaves him with the positing of negating a fact.
The Second Amendment Restricts Gun Ownership More than it Grants the Right of Gun Ownership

Thank you for debating. I believe that what Con is referring to when he says "both the ratified and passed verisions must contain the same language" would be covered under the British Bill of Rights of 1689. However, all British laws in the colonies would nullified after the United States was formed on July 2, 1776 when the actual vote for independence was passed. So ratified and passed versions do not have to contain the same language. And the final version is the supreme law. But good stuff, I had to think about that for a while.
The Second Amendment Restricts Gun Ownership More than it Grants the Right of Gun Ownership

Thank you for making this debate Pro, I will be arguing against your premise. My arguments will show the Second Amendment does NOT restrict Gun ownership.My opponent has outlined the differences in the Second Amendment detailing the punctuation and capitalization of the text creating different meanings.As Pro stated, an Amendment is passed by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress (the first step for ratifying a constitutional amendment) and the final version, passed by three-fourths of the states (the second step for ratifying a constitution amendment). However, both the ratified and passed verisions must contain the same language. This could possibly nullify the Amendment all together.Also, due to there being separate versions of the Amendment, there is no reason to assume one is more correct than another. Pro has stated how one version unrestricts guns, and the other restrcits them. If neither side is more "true" than the other, it would be assumed 50/50, meaning the Second Amendment does not restrict gun ownership MORE than granting it; as the premise suggests.Until the Second Amendment is ratified and passed again, both language/punctuation/capitalization can be assumed true, not making either one more correct than the other.
The Second Amendment Restricts Gun Ownership More than it Grants the Right of Gun Ownership

Please excuse my inexperience. This is my first debate here. But here is my position: The Second Amendment restricts the right of the individual to bear arms (weapons) more than it grants the right of gun ownership. And without the Second Amendment the individual would have more rights to gun ownership. As we all learned in high school history, there are two versions of the Amendment. The first version, which passed by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress (the first step for ratifying a constitutional amendment) and the final version, passed by three-fourths of the states (the second step for ratifying a constitution amendment). The primary difference between the two versions are a capitalization and a simple comma. Here they are: The version ratified by the states and authenticated by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The version passed by Congress is: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Generally, a capital letter denotes a proper noun. So the upper case M, as in the Congressional version, references a particular militia; that being the state-sanctioned militias, as most currently defined by the Militia Act of 1903. The lower-case m in the second version would refer to a group of individuals who form an ad hoc group of armed men and women. In this same way, the upper case A in "Arms", refers to only to state-sanctioned weapons; those being weapons that are currently legal to buy. If the A was left as lower-case, the word "arms" would refer to all and any weapons. So, the Second Amendment serves to restrict gun ownership more than it guarantees the right of gun ownership, and without the Second Amendment, the individual would have more freedom to arms ownership.
The Second Amendment Restricts Gun Ownership More than it Grants the Right of Gun Ownership

I would glady accept this as well. I am glad we are able to come to an agreement upon this. Now, our acceptance of the change of premise would essentially end in this debate as a draw, which I also will gladly accept. I do apologize to any readers who have gotten this far hoping to pick a side to win, but I urge you to NOT to vote. But please leave comments as to any thoughts on this debate.
The Second Amendment Restricts Gun Ownership More than it Grants the Right of Gun Ownership

I was unaware the "same language" was part of British Law. Thank you for the information and I gladly drop that argument. However, there are two completely necessary parts to passing an Amendment. Ratifying and the passing through Congress. You cannot do one with out the other. Making them mutually exclusive. One is not more important than another. There is no legislation stating that the "passed amendment" is to take precedence over the "ratified amendment". Therefore, it still stands that either language is appropriate when viewing the law, meaning the second amendment could restrict gun usage, or allow it depending which grammar you choose to look at it.
Abortion is immoral and the destruction of life.

Hello. Thank you for reading this. I intend to prove in this debate that Abortion is immoral and results in the destruction of life. I would like to exclude religious arguments and arguments outside of the US. I also do not consider an abortion immoral if the procedure is to save a mother's life or remove a fetus that will not come to term. A few disclaimers: I would not advocate the passage of laws to restrict a woman's ability to get an abortion. I am simply arguing that it is an immoral act, destroys life, and other morally superior options are available. I would like to narrow the scope of these arguments to the impact on the parties involved. The parents, doctor, and fetus. I will not be trying to argue against the impact abortions may or may not have had on society. Please use this first round for acceptance and arguments. Please no new arguments in the 3rd and 4th rounds. A1. I believe that life begins after conception during 5th week of pregnancy when the heart starts beating. When the heart stops beating, a person is considered dead, so once the heart starts beating, they should be considered alive. An abortion after this time (as most are that are performed) destroys a human life and is therefor immoral. A2. I don't consider it murder. When you murder someone you take them away from their family and friends and leave only the memory of they time they knew them. When you abort a fetus, you entirely remove them from existence. They are deprived of all life without their consent. This destruction of life is worse than murder in my opinion. A3. If a doctor does something to harm a fetus, they would be held accountable as if they hurt a human being. The fact that we hold doctors accountable to the unborn should mean that women are also committing an immoral act by ending the life of their unborn children. A4. Alternatives exist such as Emergency Contraception or Plan B, and adoption. Since all women faced with abortion have multiple choices in varying degrees of morality, it would be helpful to place them in order from most moral to least. Moral>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Immoral Safe sex > Plan B > raise a child > adoption > abortion > leaving the baby in a dumpster. Arguments might be made that if the child would be raised in extreme poverty then adoption might be more moral than raising the child, but abortion would still be immoral and the destruction of human life. Please list your definitions (if you have a problem with my semantics) and your arguments why you believe abortion is not immoral. Wait until the 2nd round to counter my claims as it is the last round for new arguments. Thank you again for your time.
Abortion is immoral and the destruction of life.

Look: If the mum has been raped, it's okay (according to you). If the mum would die to have baby it's okay(according to you). But if the mum would have to miss months of work for maternity leave, be weak to the knees and covered in her own sick because she is in the slums of India or any country where this occurs then it's not okay according to you. If she decided to take one sad night out of her working life and have sex with her boyfriend and perhaps was in a country where contraception was like gold and a bowl of rice was the only thing she could afford then if her man didn't pull out in time she has to be burdened with it? I don't appreciate your morality, and I think you need to understand just how harsh some women live. They never had the chance to know about contraception, they might have been barely legal age-wise or perhaps felt like getting dominated but then it felt too good to stop. Why do we do any medical procedure? Why do we save people who jump off a building due to being drunk, after all it's their fault for being drunk, why do we bother to help anyone? This is the key error in your moral system, you think ALL abortions should have the same moral reading, in fact this is not only naive but rather ignorant as a world view. If killing is wrong, then should we just not fight any wars? Let terrorists take over? Foolish in every regard has your debate been so far. You don't understand that pregnancy itself is very damaging, there are women who eat so little that pregnancy won't kill them, in fact they can't afford having this tested, all they know is if they have the baby all the 9 months they'll probably be exhausted and collapse by the end. Just consider what you are talking about.
Abortion is immoral and the destruction of life.

Since my opponent has abandoned the previous arguments, I would appreciate that they not introduce anymore arguments in the next round as it would be impossible for me to answer to them. I would appreciate if con would take the time to respond to individual points in the final round or offer a simple "concede" to the point or entire debate. This way I can be sure that they have taken the time to read the points I spent so much time to make. Cells do not have a heart beat which also proves my first argument in that a cell is not human, however, if I were to harm cells on your body without your consent, it would be considered assault or at the very least harassment. If I creep into a woman's room and do something that causes her to miscarry her child while she is sleeping, I would have committed a crime. Since that woman would lose her child, I have committed an immoral act and since I have cheated that unborn baby of a chance at life is also immoral. Just because the culprit is now the mother instead of myself, the immorality of the act does not change. If you will not concede that an abortion is immoral in 99% of the cases (after 1st heartbeat, notwithstanding rape or incest), than at least concede this example: If an 18 year old girl is pregnant and wants to keep her baby, but her parents and boyfriend pressures her and threatens to cut her off financially or kick her out if she does not have an abortion, wouldn't you say that abortion was immoral?
Theories On Afterlife

The most accurate answer to the question what afterlife is like to humans - This existence will feel exactly the same as the time before the existence of the animal that ceases to exist. This answer is backed up with all the knowledge we have, mostly by biology in this case. Dispersed matter you were once made out of, can't feel a thing. this is also the reason why such a long time as 13billion years can fly by in an instant from zero to this moment you exist, no track of time.
It should not be possible to have a shared burden of proof in a debate

Before I begin this round, I wish to point out something: " It should not be possible to have a shared burden of proof in a debate" is the motion of the debate. The key word is "should". This is which is a better option, not which is 'true'. I feel that it should be allowed. This is based on the grounds that the best way to judge a debate can come down to issues other than who proved what. A decisive argument can be more important, or major concessions, or turns, or other issues of importance. My opponent has basically stated that "a tie is never competitive". However, I am not arguing whether one is unfairly advantaged (as one is in a EYP debate, due to the system & committees), and I am not arguing that debates are not competitive. I am simply stating that the debate should be judged on who argued best, not who convinced the crowd. I used the example of a tautology or debates with unreasonable burden of proofs because voting solely on Burden of Proof is illogical in this circumstance. This is to show that having Burden of Proof as the only stance is unreasonable. There are other factors, for example who debated better, who had more evidence of claims, who had better responses. In response to my opponent's Napoleon, let me point out that when your opponent makes a mistake, you do not say nothing about it, you capitalise on it. That is what makes a debate engaging, and strong. If you remain silent, what's the point of turning up at all? The aim of a debate is tro promote stronger rhetoric, argument and debating style. If you simply refuse to partake, the victory should go to the one who actually did something, even if they did not complete the entirety of the argument. To conclude, it is better to have shared Burden of Proof in what I will call compound debates, or debates which contain multiple motions in the full resolution. It promotes the spirit of debating to allow the burden of proof to be shared.
It should not be possible to have a shared burden of proof in a debate

Firstly, I wish to address my opponent's point about BP. As he knows, as he has done BP before, there are four teams, two proposers and two oppositions. The two proposers can go through in a debating round, not just one from either side. Therefore, I count these as separate debates. However, that was just a sidenote in reality from my major contentions:European Youth debatesI apologise if I did not make this clear last time: part of European Youth Parliament is to shape a motion. Each group shapes a motion, then presents it on an issue after discussion. Each group must defend their own motion as well as criticise the other motions. Even if they successfully criticise everyone else's motion, they eventually are required to defend their own motion. They hold both a burden of rejoinder and a burden of proof. Furthermore, the allowance of abstaining from voting and internal voting does not detract from the formal nature of the debate, which include adjudicators, debating speeches, evidence, counterplans, impacts, and other such issues that are involved in a debate. In ESU Mace, one may not run a counterplan nor question evidence. This does not stop it from being a debate. The characteristic involved is whether it is adjudicated based on the persuasiveness of arguments raised. In this sense, EYP is a debate, as the persuasiveness of arguments and counterplans is what one is adjudicated on. Japan ArgumentIf PRO did not argue that Japan would be better with nuclear energy, but criticised wind energy, while CON says nothing, then we get a problem. If we accept the burden of proof as not shared, then we cannot say PRO wins, as he does not fulfil his burden of proof. However, we cannot say CON wins, as we'd be disregarding the entire fact that he said nothing. The fairest conclusion would to say that the burden of proof is shared between the two. In conclusion of this point (and my only contention), a motion can exist where it can be split into more than one motion. For example, Japan should abandon nuclear energy and support wind energy can be split into two separate resolutions. In this circumstance, the burden of proof has to be assumed to be shared in order to maximise fairness and value debates properly.1 - The Speaker's handbook, page 305
It should not be possible to have a shared burden of proof in a debate

Greetings all. In this debate we will be arguing whether a shared burden of proof is possible in formal debate. I would expect whoever takes this to take it seriously, avoid semantics, and read everything I outline below carefully before accepting. I still look forward to a fun and engaging debate on a topic of such relevance to this site, given that shared burdens of proof seem to be in vogue on here right now. DefinitionsDebate for the purposes of our argument, a debate shall be any engagement between two individuals or teams, the result of which must be adjudicated objectively based on the persuasiveness of the arguments raised. This is important - formal debating is competitive, and always has decisive outcomes. Shared burden of proof shall mean that both sides have an equal burden to pursuade the adjudicator(s) of the debate, as opposed to only one of the sides having the burden to persuade. Some debates are not judged on burdens but on the balance of probabilities - these are beyond the scope of this debate. Other words have their normal dictionary definitions. No restriction is made as to the setting of this debate. StructureDo whatever you like. I'm not going to bog you down with acceptance rounds or anything. In each round you'll get 8000 characters to state your case and 72 hours to post them. Note that I have the burden of proof in this debate. My CaseThe problem with shared burdens in formal debate is that they can lead to situations where an adjudicator is unable to fulfil their duty. An example would be if niether debater fulfils their burden of proof. When only one side has the burden of proof, this cannot happen as the side without the burden would win by default. With shared burdens, however, both debaters failing their burden means that niether side can win, meaning the adjudicator cannot give a decisive result. Another example is if both debaters do really well and fulfil their burdens. Again, this cannot happen in a debate without shared burdens because the team with the burden would win by default. With shared burdens, it's all a bit of a mess. The only way of ensuring that every formal debate has a decisive outcome in a burden of proof system is to ensure that the burden is carried by only one side, and that the resolution provides a clear mechanism for them to achieve this burden. For example, in this debate, I can achieve my burden by showing that with shared burdens of proof, it is possible that a debate could not be adjudicated correctly, which of course undermines the whole point of formal debate (to be convincing), so it should not be conducted in this way to avoid the problem. I'm going to keep my case super-short so that everyone can read it quickly and easily. It's not a very hard case to understand.