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

“Since it is not clear what "at school" means, I will interpret it as having your phone during class.” In context it means on school premises before school, during school, and after school. My opponent contends that students cannot be trusted to not play with their phones during class. I already responded to this in two ways. First, by allowing students to have their phones during class it gives them the freedom of choice, and therefore the responsibility to make decisions regarding their phone. This is good in that it allows students to exercise free will and mature through their decisions. In addition, the matter isn’t necessarily about whether or not students can be trusted to stay off their phones because the matter really comes down to how strict teachers are with phones in the classroom. Since students playing on their phones during class would be a problem, teachers will (or at least should) have heightened security and restrictions so that that doesn’t happen. Lastly, the benefits of having a phone which I am about to defend far outweigh the students’ personal decision to use their phone during class. My opponent fails to contend to the fact that students exponentially help students to plan and schedule, benefitting not only the student but also several other external agents. My opponent’s only real response is the same as he gave in the argument before this one, which I have already rebutted. This is an example of how the benefits of having a phone far outweigh any solvable consequences that they may give. My opponent once again fails to contend to my argument that cell phones are extremely useful during emergencies such as a school shooting, natural disaster, abuse, ect. My opponent’s response was “yeah well how often does that happen I mean c’mon bro” which is absolutely absurd. The lives and well being of others is MUCH more important than students distracting themselves during class. If an emergency ever happens students should have the ability to contact another person quickly and efficiently. Over to you.
Students Should Be Able to Have Their Cell Phones at School

Since it is not clear what "at school" means, I will interpret it as having your phone during class. Eleanor Roosevelt said that with great freedom comes great responsibility. But with cell phones in classes, will students be responsible enough to know not to use it? The answer is probably no. Ask yourself, would you rather play the addicting Candy Crush Saga or listen to the boring lecture going on right now? Think about it. My opponent mentioned that students can use cell phones to plan and schedule things, which is true, but what happens to the phone after the planning is done. Usually, it is either texting or playing games, etc. Cell phones allow students to be a bit too free, for they provide entertainment and distraction with a touch of a button. My opponent has also mentioned how cell phones are important for emergencies. But how often is there a real emergency? This is an excuse to bring your phone to classes. I will provide more in my next argument. GOOD LUCK! P.S. I am not addicted to Candy Crush.
Students Should Be Able to Have Their Cell Phones at School

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 allow order to the chaos around them. 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. Any problems with cell phone usage can simply be solved with more strict authority. For example, if the school is having trouble keeping kids off their phones during class, then they can reinforce rules and authoritive cell phone checks, ect. in order to deter cell phone usage during class.
Businesses do not pay any taxes

I know it sounds a little crazy to say that businesses do not pay taxes. This entire debate is based and spawned by the liberal idea that the rich don't pay their fair share and if you believe or do not believe that, this debate should be at least a good education on those who choose to read it. In a way, you are correct in that it is a bit of wordplay. Do businesses write checks to the IRS every quarter? Of course they do. They write giant ones in some cases. However, there is a large faction of this country (USA) that believes the rich businesses get all of these "tax breaks," and "subsidies" and do not pay their "fair share." I am frankly sick of hearing it. Businesses are entities. They are not people. They do not pay taxes out of their pockets at all. They collect taxes. Let me back up a second. For a business to decide how it can competitively price anything it sells, it has to figure out its cost for producing that product which would include:1. advertising2. production3. overhead4. cost of acquiring all products and machinery to produce the product5. labor6. business fees, licenses, regulation compliance, etc. 7. taxesAll of these things and more together determine what a business's costs are. They have to pay these things out of their profits. In other words, these things are part of the cost of doing business. If any of these things go up, their cost of business goes up and eventually, the cost of their products, depending on the level and amount of competition there is for their products. Any business would tell you this. If the costs are too high and the cost of the product gets too high and customers do not buy, we all know what happens. The business goes under. Happens every day. The point is that customers pay all of a business's bills. Without a customer buying their product, there is no money to pay for overhead, labor and taxes. When you hear someone say that Walmart or Exxon or whatever need to pay more money in taxes, you know you are hearing someone speak out of sheer ignorance on this subject and I don't care if they have 10 master's degrees in economics. Why do I say that? Because when the ignorant speaker says the rich businesses need to pay more taxes (no amount is ever enough for this mindset), what they are really saying is: "I want XYZ corporation to raise their prices and so we consumers can pay higher prices at the cash register and so they can in turn pay the government more money in taxes." No one realizes they are saying that but they surely are. Presidents, Congressmen and talk show guests plus all sorts of well-known people keep echoing this idea that we need to raise taxes for the rich and that is code for raising taxes on me and you and yet so few actually see it. When a business has its taxes increased, it has its cost of business increased. When its cost of business increases, they have to raise the cost of their products to hopefully survive. The business does not pay taxes. The end consumers pay ALL TAXES in every business. Voting for someone wants to raise taxes on anyone eventually finds it way as a tax increase on every consumer.
Singing Battle AGAIN!!!!

I'm so so so sorry. Yes, I had some urgent matters to take care of and I apologize sincerely. I'll just post two songs. 1. "Say Something" by A Great Big World and Cristina Aguilera So in the beginning of this song I kind of sucked, but I think I improved towards the end. http://www.smule.com... 2. "Love Yourself" by Justin Bieber I'm far from a belieber, but I have to admit that his new songs are amazing. I'm kind of obsessed, lol. Same thing as the last one, I'm bad at starts, but I get better as the song progresses. http://www.smule.com... Again, I am really sorry about missing the deadline.
Singing Battle AGAIN!!!!

I'm hoping my opponent was unable to make their round for personal reasons, I will still proceed. Best wishes to my opponent and I hope all is well. My next choice of song is, Chandelier. I'm not going to lie, I'm a bit biased when it comes to me singing it just because I try so hard to make it sound perfect but it doesn't happen that way lol. Anyways, hope my audience and opponent enjoys! http://www.smule.com...
Singing Battle AGAIN!!!!

Hello everyone! It has been such a long time since I have done this but I have been so busy at home while job-hunting at the same time not doing much. Just wanna throw in some fun time for me! So for the first round please sure to just accept this way it gives us both time to look up songs we would find to sing for our audiences. And you are able to use whatever you can to upload your songs. Whether through a video or audio, I have not way of sending up a video so I will be sending up audios. Have fun as I will! Best wishes to whoever wins! Remember you are a great singer already! :)
Singing Battle AGAIN!!!!

Thank you for letting me know and I understand. Just do your best with the last round and don't forget to post up the one for the other round, and to all the judges please at least give my opponent credit for still posting up for rounds even if it wasn't for that exact round. Just judge according to the songs. Thank you again. And my last round post song I chose was wayyyyyy out of my league if you ask me lol. Something different for me to do lol. Sugar, by Robin Shultz http://www.smule.com... Anyways, enjoy and thank you to my opponent again for joining! Hope everyone enjoys the debate. May the best winner win! Good luck!
Singing Battle AGAIN!!!!

Umm, this is kind of ironic because I already forfeited one round because of personal issues, but my Smule account is not letting me sign in? I don't really know what to do. I feel really bad about this, so I'll post two songs next round... I guess. I hope I will figure it out by then, it's just that there are only 2 hours left until my argument is due and I don't think I will be able to log in by then. I swear this is not my fault, I'm really not sure what's happening, it must be some glitch with the app?? Again, my apologies. Thanks.
Will China surpass the USA as the #1 superpower? take into account economy, military, etc...

Hey Instigator, When I read your opening debate, I did not see ANY round settings. Ex. Round 1- Blah BlahRound 2- Blah Blahand so on. .. .. .. .. .. So I set the rounds and if you dont follow them and you are not following them, it will be an automatic win for me because you still have burden of proof.
Will China surpass the USA as the #1 superpower? take into account economy, military, etc...

Since the are no round settings, I will set the rounds. Round 1: Opening Debate (No arguments or rebuttals) Round 2: Air Force Arguments (No rebuttals yet) Round 3: Army Arguments and Air Force Rebuttals Round 4: Navy Arguments and Army Rebuttals Round 5: Army Rebuttals and Closing Debate I wish instigator good luck! U.S.A., Majducator
Will China surpass the USA as the #1 superpower? take into account economy, military, etc...

Will China surpass USA as the number one super power in the world? What do you think? After the first Cold War between USA & Soviet ended in the late 80"s, the American Think Tanks started to think what country will be the next USA foe. China was on the top of the list, and they hoped that China would be a lovable and peaceful Panda rather than an angry Dragon that could blow fire all over the world. At the time they predicted China would surpass USA as the top super power at the end of this century or earlier of next century based on the GDP growth of 4% for USA versus 7% for China. Due to two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the weak GDP growth in USA versus the strong one in China, several think tanks revised their predictions recently (2012), and they predicted that China could surpass USA within a decade for the economy and 20-30 years for the military. One of the predictions even predicts that China will surpass USA as the number one in economy in 2016. look on the following facts... History tells us that no country or empire can be on the top forever; soon or later it will fall. Pyramid in Egypt, Roman Empire in Europe (Italy), England/France/Span/Portugal in the last millennium and Our Angkor Empire are the examples. China population is one of the main factors that will make China surpass USA as the super power. And time will be on her side too if she does not act erratically. It appears that USA was at the top of the world in 90"s when things went well for her people. Jobs were plenty and also high paid. People enjoyed their easy life style like roman did before they declined. At the same time, they started to move high technology jobs to overseas especially to China to compete with others in the global economy. To my opinion, moving jobs to China was a mistake. Right after September 11 2001 event, USA declined gradually by fighting two wars, and higher paid jobs was moving faster to overseas. This put the stress on the economy, and the great recession occurred in 2008. The federal debt gradually climbed higher and higher. Now the debt is about 16 trillion dollars, and China holds part of it for about 1 trillion dollars. The conservatism and individualism tend to decline gradually since the great recession. People depend more and more on the Federal. This was the path the western European countries had been through. While USA is declining in all areas, China is growing faster especially the economy and military. -http://khmer.be...-/ I look forward to debating my oppenent. i hope this will be a great debate. Rules...simple! 1. have fun 2. watch language 3. no personal attacks. 4. don't just copy your argument online n paste it. if it something u want to quote go ahead.
I will not contradict myself.

Questions1. Do you like apple pie?2. Was there ever a time you didn't enjoy sexing another man?3. Should "In God We Trust" be removed from US currency?4. Is it easy being green?5. Aren't you gay?6. Is the answer to this question "no"?7. Which word appears first in a dictionary: "yes" or "no"?8. Do you support freedom of speech?9. Does a solipsist reality undermine human ethics on the basis of absolute determinism?10. You know I'm only asking these questions so as to follow all the rules in the instigation, right?Contradictions1. Opinions on Subjective MoralityRound 2, Question 4: "Is morality subjective?" (ANSWER: "Yes.")Round 2, Question 5: "Can someone form a subjective opinion on a subjective matter?" (ANSWER: "Yes.")Therefore, it can be deduced that my opponent must believe it is possible to form an opinion on matters of morality. However...Round 1, Questions 6-10: "Do you believe [random thing] is morally acceptable?" (ANSWER: "Neither yes nor no, because I don't believe in objective morality.")I didn't ask "IS [random thing] morally acceptable"; I asked "Do you believe [random thing] is morally acceptable". I was asking for his subjective opinion on a subjective matter. However, he showed an inability to form a conclusive opinion on the matter due to the fact it was a subjective matter (as shown by the "because I don't believe in objective morality").2. Yes, Yes, NoThis one is just too darn simple.Round 2, Question 6: "Is your answer to question 7 "yes"?" (ANSWER: "Yes.")Round 2, Question 7: "Is your answer to question 6 "yes"?" (ANSWER: "Yes.")Round 2, Question 10: "Did you answer "yes" to one of the questions 6 or 7?" (ANSWER: "No.")What do you mean "no"? Of course you did! I didn't say "only one"; I just said "one". He answered "yes" to two of them, which obviously means he answered "yes" to one of them.
I will not contradict myself.

1. Should people be punished for their crimes?2. Prior to answering this question, have you chosen to answer "yes" to at least one previous question?3. Can someone be forced to genuinely love someone else?4. Is morality subjective?5. Can someone form a subjective opinion on a subjective matter?6. Is your answer to question 7 "yes"?7. Is your answer to question 6 "yes"?8. Is anarchy better than government?9. Does free will exist?10. Did you answer "yes" to one of the questions 6 or 7?
I will not contradict myself.

1. No 2. Not applicable, because answer to #1 was "no." 3. No. 4. No. 5. Yes. 6. Neither yes nor no, because I don't believe in objective morality. 7. Neither yes nor no, because I don't believe in objective morality. 8. Neither yes nor no, because I don't believe in objective morality. 9. Neither yes nor no, because I don't believe in objective morality. 10. Neither yes nor no, because I don't believe in objective morality.
I will not contradict myself.

1. Do you believe in God?2. If yes, do you believe God is all-loving?3. Are you neither attracted to females nor males?4. Do you believe some actions are objectively morally wrong?5. Do you love anyone besides yourself?6. Do you believe the death penalty is morally acceptable?7. Do you believe it is morally acceptable to kill in self-defense?8. Do you believe it is morally acceptable to steal food for survival?9. Do you believe abortion is morally acceptable?10. Do you believe euthanasia is morally acceptable?
I will not contradict myself.

Rules: 1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions. 2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct. 3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers, citing all questions and answers involved in the contradiction. No new contradictions may be pointed out in Round 5. 4. When CON points out a contradiction, PRO may use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over. 5. If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO wins. 6. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO loses. 7. Because sources are largely irrelevant, and can really only be used by CON most of the time, the two points associated with sources will be given to the victor of the debate. However, it is still important that debaters back up their arguments with sources when appropriate. 8. A contradiction may only be pointed out if both parts of the contradiction are brought up in this debate. 9. For any questions involved in a contradiction, PRO may define any words in the question or the answer using the online Merriam-Webster dictionary at his own discretion, unless the words were already defined by CON when the question was asked. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...... 10. If PRO ever fails to abide by any rule, PRO automatically loses. 11. If CON ever fails to abide by any rule, CON automatically loses. 12. Before posting his or her Round 2 argument, CON must challenge PRO to a debate that is an exact copy of this debate, except that Rule 12 must be absent.
I will not contradict myself.

Incredible. Pro, you didn't even bother defending yourself from your own contradiction (not that I blame you... I mean, it's pretty cut-and-dry, but c'mon...).Contradiction 2: "You're welcome, Con."That's all my opponent has to say about his contradiction: "You're welcome". Not much of a defense there. Let's review his contradiction:Round 2, Question 6: "Is your answer to question 7 "yes"?" (ANSWER: "Yes.")Round 2, Question 7: "Is your answer to question 6 "yes"?" (ANSWER: "Yes.")Round 2, Question 10: "Did you answer "yes" to one of the questions 6 or 7?" (ANSWER: "No.")This is a clear contradiction, whether capitalization matters or not, so let's look at both scenarios.Capitalization does not matter He says he didn't answer "yes" to one of the previous questions when he clearly did.Capitalization does matterThis would save him from the contradiction of question 10, but it creates a new contradiction. He said in both questions (6 and 7) that he answered "yes" to each other, when he really answered "Yes".ConclusionIt's all there, black and white, clear as crystal! You contradicted yourself, whether capitalization matters or not, so you get nothing! You lose! Good day, sir!
I will not contradict myself.

Disappointing defense there, Pro.Contradictions2) "I did not answer "yes"... I answered "Yes." Capitalization, my friend."Capitalization, huh? Well, let's look back at the questions...Round 2, Question 6: "Is your answer to question 7 "yes"?" (ANSWER: "Yes.")Round 2, Question 7: "Is your answer to question 6 "yes"?" (ANSWER: "Yes.")Oops. Looks like you actually didn't answer "yes" to either question. Thanks for pointing that out.
I will not contradict myself.

1. Yes. 2. Yes. 3. Yes. 4. Neither. Ask Kermit. 5. Yes. 6. Neither. Nice trick. 7. No. 8. Yes. 9. No. 10. No. re: Contradictions: 1. What does "It is possible to form a subjective opinion on a subjective matter" entail? It means that it is POSSIBLE, NOT that from ALL subjective matters (e.g., morality) a subjective opinion can be deduced. Based on the phrasing of "Can someone...?", there is no contradiction here. 2. "Did you answer "yes" to one of the questions 6 or 7?" I did not answer "yes"... I answered "Yes." Capitalization, my friend.
Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives.

**the opening said, "I will leave the second speech in the fourth round blank to keep the debate real." however the second speech is mine and not my opponents, and so I am not sure as to if I should leave this message blank or not. So I will only make a minimal post and if it was suppose to remain blank, please ignore it. Thank you** My opponent has nothing to defend against my case, that sanctions work so rarely and are always negatively effecting us (via supply and demand theory, as pointed out earlier), that there is no reason to keep using them. My opponent's only response to this is "...my opponent has presented no case..." he even makes my case. Agreeing that sanctions work rarely, "...once in a great blue moon" as he put it and he also admits that he knows they cost us and present hardship for our people with, "I NEVER said it was going to be easy." So to summarize... 1) They rarely work, "once in a great blue moon." my opponent agrees. 2) They always negatively effect us (via price theory, supply and demand), sometimes worse then others. My opponent agrees. so why are we using something that always hurts us and only works rarely and produces minimal results? The only logical answer is that we shouldn't. **again, if this was suppose to be left blank, please ignore this post**