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

This is the argument from my former account xXCryptoXx. This argument was not plagiarized; for it is my own work being used on this account that I created. Cell Phones Are Great For the Ease of Students This is obviously going to be the biggest argument and it is quite simple. It is common knowledge that people are busy. Allowing students to have cell phones with them allows them to schedule things and make important contact with extreme ease. For example if your parents thought they needed to pick you up at 3:00 P.M, but didn’t know you had to stay after school to finish a test; that could have been a problem easily solved if the student had had the ability to contact his parents in order to tell them he would have to stay after school a while. Its also not limited to the student, if the parent is running late or cannot pick their child up from school for any reason, or even if there is a family emergency they should be able to contact their child. Cell phones allow a huge burden to be taken off parents and students, by allowing them to schedule things and contact others quickly and efficiently; something that could not be done without cell phones. In the case of an emergency, such as medical problems, a school shooting, ect. students will be able to quickly and efficiently be able to contact authorities which allows some order to the chaos around them and can save lives while increasing the chance that the perpetrator is caught. Gives Students Choice and Responsibility By allowing students to possess phones during school, this gives them the opportunity to mature and learn responsibility. With the ability to possess cell phones, punishment for using cell phones during inappropriate times will be active. This gives students the choice to either use or not use their phones during inappropriate times. If they are caught and reprimanded then it gives them a chance to grow in maturity. Allowing cell phones forces students to be responsible with their phones, and learn from mistakes they make. This allows students to mature and grow in responsibility. All The Benefits Without the Consequences If it is found that students cannot be trusted to use their cell phones appropriately then school rules can be placed in order to deter cell phone use during class. For example, students may be forced to turn off their phones and place it on their desk during class. This takes away the problem of students playing on their phones or being distracted by their phones during class, while still providing the benefits of students being able to use their phones after school or in the case of an emergency.
should we remove capitalism

Whilst I'd agree with your assertion that excessive individual wealth/greed can be harmful, especially concerning the exploitation of third-world nations, I'd counter that this is not an example of Capitalism, but its anti-thesis: Corporatism. When defining Capitalist values, the concept of individualism is certainly a must, but so are the ideas of a meritocracy and personal freedom; corporatism defies those cornerstones. Corporatism, I'd argue, is far more to do with statism than the free market. Countries like China, for example, are Corporatist because the state lowers the living standards of its workers so they can be exploited by corporations who take this chance to decrease costs. The wealth the corporations bring is then pumped back into the state for its own programs. This has arrived from the state interfering with the free market and disrupting its impartiality for its own favour - this isn't Capitalism. Statism isn't individualist, it isn't meritocratic and there's no personal freedom; it takes away individual autonomy so citizens can remain oppressed for its own betterment. In relation to your point concerning the damage Capitalism is doing to the planet, I do share that worry. However, it's also the solution to its own problem. The idea of the 'Green Economy' is one of the hottest words in the business world right now; companies everywhere are out-competing each other in terms of 'green' innovation. The car industry is an obvious example in this, but there are also more obscure instances such as 'Memphis Meats', a company which has spotted a gap in the market for 'clean meat', and has developed a proven system where animal DNA is cloned into fresh, edible produce that's identical to a fresh kill. In relation to your last point concerning Capitalism being the reason the 'common man' is miserable, I'd simply refer you to the links in my original answer; whilst he may not think it, the 'common man' is better off now than ever before.
should we remove capitalism

don't you think profiteer's who has billions of dollars due to capitalism should restrict themselves to theirs needs, any how they are using poor peoples for their benefits I'm just saying we should educate people about resources and their conversations , we humans have already eaten to much from this planet ,I'm just saying if peoples take as much as their need their will be some chance of harmony . we humans have to think such system in which at least all of us gets basic needs.present day capitalism is wearing out this planet and common man who is walking on the street and is a reason of his misery.
should we remove capitalism

In relation to the question of whether we ought to 'remove capitalism', I'd argue that would be one of the most damaging things you could possibly do. Your opening statement concludes that through such a system, the 'rich gets richer', whilst the 'poor gets poorer'; this is an unfounded assumption. For the past two hundred years, rates of extreme poverty (bit.ly/2iwW8WF) have been on a sharp global decline, and life expectancy (bit.ly/2G8gct4) has greatly increased throughout all regions of the world. In all of the data, these improvements pick up particularly during the post-war period and latter part of the 20th century, where globalisation and capitalist values spread rapidly. If we take India as an example, whilst it's certainly true the rich are getting richer, the poor are too (bit.ly/2GladnN). Since adopting free-market Capitalism, India's poverty rate has shot down, and continues to decrease. By 2030 (bit.ly/2vVdl5C), the World Bank has estimated that we shall have near eliminated extreme [global] poverty. Perhaps the best comparison between Capitalism and left-wing alternatives is with East and Western Germany, where East Germany is still unable to catch up nearly 30 years after reunification - with GDP per head being 67% of that in the West. Also, there are countries such as Zimbabwe, which abandoned Capitalism for Socialism, and, as a result of being unable to pay for the excessive government expenses, printed money and increased inflation 80bn times over between 1996 and 2008 (bit.ly/2pESHBq). The only alternative to Capitalism is Socialism and Communism. Throughout the 20th century, the latter two ideologies pitted the world into states of dire poverty and hardship; many of those countries have been rescued by the benefits of global Capitalism. If we were to scrap such a successful system now, it would destroy all the progress that's been made.
Sin is important

1. Your LifeMy opponent completely drops this argument so you can easily see that I won this contention due to Con dropping this argument so you can extended across my arguments here. Con keeps saying that the distinction between the legal system and sin is gray, but I've showed you that it isn't so my argument here stands.2. TrustMy opponent yet again drops this argument meaning that I win this argument and you can extend across my arguments and that I have now won two contentions.2.5 7 Deadly Sins. Lust- My opponent dances around my last rounds argument of this leading to rape so you can extend my argument here. Gluttony- You don't need to recognize sympathy for people that kill themselves by going to Mickey D's 4-5 times a weak and end up dying of heart failure or a heart attack. Greed- All acts of sin are punishable, I've proven this throughout this debate. Weather that it is through jail time for murder or you lose someone's trust because you lied. You still get punished. If what Con is saying is true then there are no sins because they all have punishments. Wrath- Though wrath isn't always channeled, as a matter of fact 86% of people are abused because of wrath and that isn't a good thing. (. http://www.futureswithoutviolence.org...)Envy- Already addressed. Pride- Already addressed.3. After lifeMy opponent dropped this in round 2 and can't bring it up in rebuttal's so his round 3 argument is null and void. ConclusionAs we can see today that my opponent has dropped almost every single argument that I have made and that I have backed up with reasonable facts with sources and we can see that Sin is important weather it's from a murder all the way down to a wee bit lie.
Sin is important

The distinction of sin and the modern legal system is the crux of the debate, as outlined in the first argument.LustThe bible states that looking at a woman is the same as sexual intercourse. Matthew 5:28The legal system says, go ahead and look, have sex if she's of age, just don't rape her.GluttonyThe medical system says to keep in shape, psychricy says if you have bigger issues to worry about then don't worry about your weight.The catholic church says that gluttony is a sin, and does not recognize the sympathy that is due to those who suffer.GreedThe legal system states that armed robbery and embezzlement is punishable, and is thus irrelevant.Again, the capitalist system states that greed is a good thing, and motivates people to be more productive by earning higher wages. Contrast this with Communism, which does not allow greed as a motivation. It simply does not work.The bible has been used to support Communism, a la Acts 2.WrathThe legal system states that murder is punishable, and is thus irrelevant.Wrath, properly channeled, fuels every comptition on the planet.EnvyThe legal system states that robbery is punishable, and is thus irrelevant.Seeing a car in Consumer Reports is the most common form of envy, and is abstracted from people.PrideDislike is not addressed by the legal system. The job desription of CEO, manager, and authority requires price. Negotiation of a deal requires pride. Being in the military require pride. Be strong. Army Strong. Semper Fi.The only threat of sin is the afterlife, which my opponent negated in his argument.There is no afterlife, but that is for another debate.
Sin is important

1. Your LifeMy opponent is ignoring today's debate of that is that is sin important. My opponent says this isn't important, but God laid down the 10 Commandments. The 6th Commandment of 'Though shall not kill,' and the 8th commandment of, 'Thou shall not kill.' (http://www.ucg.org...) Now we can all agree that these are sins and that we have even built the legal system around the 10 Commandments! So my opponent's argument about this first contention not being important is false.My opponent claims that my article is false, however, he hasn't brought up an article to counter claim this. Until then my article stands and his claim is just disregarded. My opponent claims that rape is not traumatic, but however he disregards my argument that 1/3 of all rape victims commit suicide. If that isn't traumatic then I don't know what is.2. TrustMy opponent dances around my entire argument here so you can extend all of my arguments here. 2 1/2. 7 Deadly SinsMy opponent shows you only a portion of the picture, but let me shine some light on this predicament.Lust: Sexual desire can lead to rape. According to Phil Chalmers's book True Lies, he states that a high percentage of the rapist/ murders that he has interviewed has stated that the reason that they killed/ raped that person is because they stuck out in the hallways and that they looked good. http://www.suddenimpactspeakingteam.com...Gluttony: In the large desire of food it makes people fat and over weight. They get to the point to were if they are so over weight that they can get a heart attack, which is 40% of all deaths in America are heart attacks from fat people. http://www.ehow.com...Greed: Greed can lead to armed robberies and they can lead to embezzlement. This hurts not just them but the economy too. (http://dictionary.reference.com...)Sloth: This leads to laziness and many people get fired for this. (sorry couldn't find a source for the percentage)Wrath: Many times wrath can kill people. Also wrath is what leads to husband's beating their wives so it's obvious that this isn't a good thing.Envy: Envy can lead to robbery.Pride: This can lead to egotistical maniacs. We all hate those type of people.3. After lifeMy opponent doesn't even try to refute this point so with only one round left and that being rebuttals the Pro wins this argument, because in debate arguments are like egg shells. Once you drop them you can't pick them back up.
Sin is important

Rebutting my opponent's points. 1. Your Life. 1a. It is not addressing the point to bring up the larger amounts of sin. Everyone agrees that rapists should be punished. Including rapists. 1b. The article writer claims to be not racist, prefacing a racist comment with this remark. 1c. The number of rapes is overreported by this unreliable source. 1d. Rape is not traumatic to hardened criminals, especially when one considers the harsh environment in which the person lives every day. Response to the core of the argument. Rather than looking at the sins most atrocious, look at the sins most common. For men this would be lust, impure thoughts, and masturbation. Perhaps a white lie. Sex outside marriage. Where is the harm in sins that are not crimes. This is the core point. 2. Trust 2a. The most popular people are the ones that are the best liars. "Does this dress make me look fat" is easily evaded and redirected. 2b. Again there is confusion here regarding the distinction of sin and the modern legal system. 2c. A child molester would not work in a daycare, they would be placed on the sexual offenders list. 2d. I have heard reports of the entire factory running to the woods when an officer of the law arrived. Nobody wants to mess with the law. However, police do not enforce the gray area between the legal system and religious sin. Note the seven deadly sins. These are actually positive attributes. Lust: sexual desire, perfectly natural and perfectly normal. Gluttony: desire for food. Biological in origin. Sometimes a symptom of job stress or clinical depression. If a person is making six figures perhaps it is worth it to be overweight. If a person lost a spouse, it is hardly to the point to bring up the topic of eating habits. Greed: the core of the capitalist system. Sloth: without downtime the mind snaps. Wrath: emotional thrusts against what seems unjust. Envy: fuels greed, addressed above Pride: self-confidence By focusing on the the overlap between religious sin and the modern legal system, my opponent raises a straw man.
Sin is important

Sin is important for several reasons, but for round 1 I'll give you 3 good reasons.1. Your life.Sin can affect your life in more ways then one, but lets take this to the larger amounts of sin. You can be put in jail for being a rapist, murderer, or a robber and this can either land you on death row or in the state pen. In jail there are many problems that you would face, but one of the highest problems that many people that go to jail face is rape, which is at an 85% chance, (http://www.loompanics.com...) and even murder. Did you know that if you die in jail that your death isn't recorded. If you get raped it scares you for life and can even lead to suicide, 33 (http://www.musc.edu...).2. TrustSin can also affect your personal life as well. If you are a constant liar people aren't going to trust you. That's just common sense. You might say how has this really affected anyone, and I'll say Casey Anthony. People that get out of prison for serious crimes also have a tough time finding jobs. This is common sense, because I mean that aren't going to let a rapist work at a day care center. 3. After LifeSin can also affect your after life as well. If you have committed a mortal sin then you go to hell. If you have a meh, amount of sin then you go to purgatory, and if your a saint you go to heaven. Now my opponent will probably come up here and say that I'm crazy, because not everyone's a saint and that if what I'm saying is true then hardly anyone can get into heaven, but this is false. People in Purgatory can get into heaven through prayers. http://www.catholic.com...
Resolved: The US government ban on incandescent light bulbs was a good decision.

I will not be countering my opponents main argument so far and here is why: I completely understand that this ban will save energy, and, though I personally do not believe in Man-Made Global Warming, I understand it will help the environment, at least in energy saved. I do not disagreed with these things. What I do disagree with is the government telling a company that it can or cannot do something, simply because it would be more efficient, or would help prevent something that is not entirely proven to be happening. Farmers also send up a lot of dust and other harmful things while they are planting/harvesting. Should we say they must change their approach to these things simply because it would either A) Help others be more efficient. or B) Help prevent an unproven theory. I'm sorry i am on VERY limited time and I can not argue more. I will finish in the next round.
Resolved: The US government ban on incandescent light bulbs was a good decision.

Before continuing, I would like to point out that the ban on incandescent light bulbs refers to the clause in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 that bans incandescent light bulbs without a 25% increase in efficiency from production, importation, and marketing. For the following reasons, I affirm the resolution:Contention 1: The light bulb ban is environmentally safer. With an increase in efficiency requirement of the light bulbs, we will provide lighting that requires less energy and releases less CO2 into the atmosphere that contributes to global warming and ocean acidification. Contention 2: The ban does not harm people. The ban does not ban the complete sale of all light bulbs, only low-efficiency incandescents that give off less light, meaning that people will acquire more quality in their lighting with less energy expended, meaning that the right of the people to make their own selections of light bulbs will not be harmed. Of course, there are alternative, more environmentally-safe light bulbs, including CFLs and LEDs in production as well. In addition, the right to regulate commerce is existant in the Constitution, meaning that government is not over-extending its rights. Sources: "The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect. " The Discovery of Global Warming. Feb. 2011. Web. 3 Dec. 2011. <. http://www.aip.org...;. "Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) - FrequentlyAsked Questions. " Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. United States Department of Energy. Web. 03 Dec. 2011. <. http://cdiac.ornl.gov...;. "Ocean Acidification Due to Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. " The Royal Society (2005). Stanford University, June 2005. Web. 3 Dec. 2011. <. http://dge.stanford.edu...;. Web. <. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...;.
God doesn't exist

It is very easy for someone, in this case God, be neutral but wish for good. In World War II, before America joined in, we obviously WANTED good to triumph over the Axis. We were neutral in our actions. What many people claim about evil is that God must have condoned it. Let us consider things for a second. God, in the Old Testament tells the Jews that they will go through persecution. Furthermore, because of the Holocaust, Israel had a reason to be formed as a Jewish state. As said above, He fulfilled His promise in the Old Testament to the Jews by creating Israel. You can not argue on the grounds that prayers are not answered. Many of my prayers have worked, and some have not. I might pray to win the lottery and not win it. Does that mean God is not worth worshipping? You really do not have much of a point here. This is where I will try to combine science and religion. Some die-hard religious people believe that God created the universe in 6 human days. However, we can look at a combination of this and the Big Bang. God creates universe and all in 6 "days". Or, he created the universe in some LONG period of time that follows the principles of the Big Bang. God maybe set the whole thing in motion and let it follow it's natural course. The Sabbath (7th day) refers to the seventh day of the week. Or Sunday. The day of rest. The story in Genesis is a paradigm for the Jewish calendar. Work for 6 days. Rest on the seventh. Let us look at an example of humans. I have a gun. I point it at someone. I have the power to kill someone, but I don't. I have the power but don't use it. Let us look at another example of humans. If you were a parent and had a child, would you let the child never come to any harm? Would you not let the child learn for him or her self? Why is it impossible for God to wants us to choose, and then let us choose, even if that choice harms us? . You stress that God is all powerful. Since He is, do you honestly believe that He would allow the way for man to learn be flawed? We can use science to explain many things, but not all things. What gives water the property to change states of matter? Why can't clouds hang on to the water forever? Why does the sun have the ability to evaporate water? These are all miracles from God. This is a very weak argument if I may say so. Does the story of Genesis claim, God created a rock. And He created a apple tree. And He created fire ants….No! Just because the book of Genesis does not say every individual and event he created means nothing. *****The ONLY explanation for the creation of the universe is God. Until you pose an alternative we must assume that God exists.
God doesn't exist

You make only one argument so far as to why God does not exist. You claim he can not be all good and all powerful. Why does God have to be "good"? He is neutral. He creates good and evil, and gives man a choice. He wants man to choose good. But he is also fair. He has good intentions, but gives man the choice. Imagine the Fairness Doctrine. CNN wants to spout liberal rhetoric, but to be fair, they interview some conservatives. You listed many claims of what God has to be, but you never say why he is not any of those. Since you are trying to prove God does not exist (not the other way around), you must prove why he does not meet these requirements. But here is a quick answer to why he matches them all. The Bible. Genesis story – God is all powerful, worth and worship, and evades time. Revelations – God tells us the future (all knowing) I don't have to pray to see a miracle that God exists. I am alive. The sun rises every morning. The grass grows every day. Rain can fall from the sky. Stars shine in the night sky. We take many of God's miracles for granted. Here is one argument for my side. Creation. Where did man come from? Micro-organisms…Where did micro-organisms come from? Some soup thing…Where did the soup thing come from? The universe…Where did the universe come from? GOD!!!