BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Parking and coffee should be included in college tuition.

I'm sorry for forfeiting. Sorry for ruining the debate. I really should have responded. However, here are my late arguments and you can do what you like with them. Good arguments. However, just because students would like it and the colleges could easily do it does not mean it is a moral obligation, as you said. If universities want to charge for parking, they can do that. It is hardly immoral to charge parking fees, and Pro hasn't proven otherwise. Proving that parking fees are "wrong" would require far more evidence. Anyway, why force students to pay for what they don't need? Not all students are sleepless commuting coffee-addicts. As college tuition is so expensive already, why make it more so? This is the equivalent of airlines charging $1000 per seat but including free drinks, a full meal, as much luggage as you want, and two feet between each seat(!). This would be good for airlines and good for the man with $1000, but bad for the dude with only $729 and no hunger for plastic forks, trays, or chicken. Free coffee would lead to coffee being wasted and students inevitably consuming more of it than they would otherwise, as people will always use more of a desirable something if it's free. That is not a good thing. My argument: Charging for coffee OR parking is not wrong. It is also quite reasonable for a college to keep its tuition as low as possible and charge extra for such amenities. That's why I think parking and coffee should not be included in college tuition. You could argue that the additional cost would be minimal, but please remember how much airlines charge for extra bags and 7 more inches of legroom. Amenities can add a surprising amount. Again, I'm sorry I forfeited. Good job by Pro. Apologies.
kids sjhould have mobile phones in schools

Thank you for the debate. I will start by addressing each of your points in order. 2. TO TEACH RESPONSIBILITY I do not believe that teaching responsibility regarding technological devices should fall on the educator who is there to teach on a certain subject. In regards to cheating, I feel this is the greatest threat with the use of mobile devices. They have the potential to undermine the process of examination and proof of knowledge/understanding. They are simply too easy to hide and too easy to use with incredible accuracy. 3. TO AVOID DOUBLE STANDARDS School staff may require their devices to do their job. Students do not need their device to be successful students. Textbooks and other materials are provided during classroom sessions nullifying the need for cell phones regarding information since an alternative medium is provided. 4. IN CASE OF EMERGENCY Forgetting homework or a calculator is not an emergency. In regards to a threat or shooting, there are more accurate and reliable ways for this information to reach the parents. Many schools implement procedures that aim to keep the students and staff hidden in the event of shooter or physical threat from an individual. If a student has a cell phone that rings, flashes or otherwise draws the attention of the assailant, it can have serious consequences. 5. AS LEARNING AIDS If the school would like to use devices as learning tools, I think tablets are a better alternative. They can be set to block the internet without authorization and the apps can be selected and tested by an administrator before hand. Further, the screen resolution is better, the screen is bigger, and the performance is faster. 6. TO MAKE DETENTION MORE BEARABLE Detention is a form of punishment for behavior. It is not meant to be enjoyable or something a student should look forward to. 7. TO KEEP STUDENTS HAPPY You provided a source to a study that is not directly linked to the debate. I will skip this segment for now.
kids sjhould have mobile phones in schools

yes Most working people benefit from having their cell phones on them. They can access their email, call clients, check inventory, read the news, use software applications, and more. Students need to learn how to use their cell phones responsibly (see next tip!). 2. TO TEACH RESPONSIBILITY Students know they shouldn"t use their cell phones in school to play Angry Birds, or listen to music, or text their friends about the quiz they just took. Phones and tablets should be used responsibly and for educational purposes. Students could do research for English papers, or download an app that provides extra information on one of the chemical elements in the periodic table. When necessary, teachers could combat cheating by making students put their phones on "airplane mode" or any mode that will not allow them to send/receive any messages or use the Internet. Whenever there is a test, teachers can make students put their mobile devices in the front of the classroom until the test is over. 3. TO AVOID DOUBLE STANDARDS Administrators often take notes on their phones as part of teacher observations. Some teachers, coaches, and counselors use their cell phones in school settings, too. It may not be permitted, but they are allowed to do so without the same consequences as students. Why shouldn"t students be able to do the same? 4. IN CASE OF EMERGENCY If a student forgot his homework or calculator on the day of a calculus test, he could call his parents and ask them to bring it to school without causing a scene. In more serious emergencies, like a school threat or shooting, cell phones could help students connect with worried parents. 5. AS LEARNING AIDS Many phone apps offer visual representations of difficult-to-grasp subjects (like astronomy, science, or anatomy) that can assist visual learners and/or students who have dyslexia. Tablets offer the same services, but may provide a better user experience because of the size difference. 6. TO MAKE DETENTION MORE BEARABLE All students dread detention, and skipping it only gets them in further trouble. Why not give students an incentive to attend? Teachers can place a cell phone charging station at the front of the classroom, allowing students to recharge their phones while they"re busy with homework. The M8 Mobile Charging Station (shown below) is a perfect solution. This prevents students from using their cell phones during punishment and makes them feel comfortable knowing their precious lifelines will be charged after they"ve served their time. library-phone-charger 7. TO KEEP STUDENTS HAPPY According to a study conducted in 2005, Sonja Lyubomirsky, Laura King, and Ed Diener found that happiness causes success. Therefore if we keep students, grades k-12, happy they will be more willing to learn, more productive, and more likely to succeed. And isn"t that what everyone wants?
Homosexual is as normal/wrong as non-conceive Incest

To start, I'd like to first restate your position as I understand it, as to make sure that there isn't any confusion. First of all, when discussing any matters of morality, it is important to understand that every act starts off as morally neutral, and the prerogative is on whoever is making the argument that an act is morally wrong to provide reasons as to why that is. For example, if I were to ask wether or not rape was wrong, it would be assumed to be morally neutral, and it would be the oppositions job to provide reasons as to why that act is morally abhorrent. As such, I will make the reasonable assumption that for the sake of this debate your position is that in cases of incest where the conception of a child is not possible, such as gay couples or a couple where an individual is sterile, is a morally neutral act. Thus, I will provide reasons as to why cases of incest are morally wrong, and it will be up to you to argue as to why these reasons are acceptable or not. To begin, I would like to propose the unhealthy power dynamics that often arise in many incest couples. These unhealthy power dynamics can lead to numerous problems, but I'd like to focus on the most obvious, that being that when there is a large separation in the power of each individual in the relationship, it is often impossible for the weaker party to provide proper consent. "By definition, incest is never consensual, although often the perpetrator will convince the victim otherwise, experts say. The power dynamics of the relationship between a parent and child are such that it's always the parent's responsibility to maintain normal boundaries, even if it's the son or daughter who makes some kind of initial gesture" The above statement is from psychologist Debra Borys, when asked to discuss the effect incest has on its victims. The unhealthy relationships that come with incest can lead to various future problems due to the mental trauma or uncomfortable feelings associated with it. It is common, in order for victims to avoid thoughts of these acts, to turn to avoidance behaviours such as substance abuse, gambling, promiscuity and other ways that "people distract from their feelings" As a result, due to the long lasting effects that incest can have on its victims, any act of incest, even those that do not leave victims mentally damaged, will inadvertently normalise the behaviour. To conclude, I'd like to draw a parallel to a much more extreme topic to tldr my point. If 1 in a million survivors of rape came out of it and found that the experience was actually enjoyable, would that be any reason to assume that all acts of rape were alright? And if the answer to that is no, why is it any different when it comes to incest?
Homosexual is as normal/wrong as non-conceive Incest

I don't want to label homosexual or non-conceive incest as morally good or bad. But what i do understand is if someone see homosexual as morally good or normal behavior then he/she should see non-conceive incest as normal behavior as well because the reason that people use to 'justify' homosexual can be applied to non-conceive incest too...and vice versa....if someone see homosexual as wrong behavior then you can also use the reason behind it to 'condemn' non-conceive incest as well...
Nintendo is the best video game company.

Good job Con. I wanted to say that I read your entire argument- I don't have any answer to it. I am essentially saying, you win, Con. There isn't any way I can debate it. I concede that you are right on all your points. Good job, Con, you win. There's no way I can fight against your points. Good job on your debate- I need to tackle smaller subjects before going to bigger ones. I bit off more than I could chew here. Good job, and I wish you luck in other debates. Debate on!
This House Believes That A Virgin Birth Is Scientifically Possible, Even If Improbable!

Thanks to my opponent for offering to debate this interesting topic as well as providing the clarifications on the concept of “Virgin Birth”.I was concerned this debate would go down the road of someone who has never had sex getting pregnant through artificial insemination, or that the debate would descend into obscure semantics. Thus when the baby was born this would be a Virgin Birth, but as my opponent has clarified this is an all natural process and so these ideas/arguments have all been put to rest. As simple as this topic may seem, I think its best to clarify the processes involved in conception and birthing to explicitly remove any doubt that a Virgin Birth is possible. A virgin is “a person who has not had sexual intercourse”. Birth is the “the time when a baby comes out from the body of its mother”.(2) As such at this point we have determined that the baby must come out of the mother, so the question arises how does the baby get into the mother? We have ascertained so far that it is not through artificial insemination, and as this includes any “medical process in which semen is used to make a woman or female animal pregnant without sexual intercourse”(3). So how are we to inseminate a women if it is not artificial, well it seems only logical that sexual intercourse has to take place can be inserted into the vagina thereby introducing semen into the vagina. This is achieved through copulation which means that the female and the male have to engage in sexual intercourse.(4) However, if sexual intercourse has to occur for pregnancy to occur then said parties involved in this process can no longer claim to be virgins. As such the concept of a “Virgin Birth” is absurd in the highest as how can a women get inseminated if there is not sexual intercourse thereby losing her virginity. Now, unless I am missing something as I have laid out above, it seems to me that my opponent has to prove that semen can be introduced into the vagina of a women thereby causing pregnancy. I do not believe this is possible or even probable, unless there is some obscure case reported somewhere in some medical journal that I have not heard about. With this short introduction over. I now hand the debate back over to my opponent and wish him luck in his arguments. And the video was included last moment for its sheer brilliance. http://www.youtube.com... (1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...(2) http://www.merriam-webster.com...(3) http://www.merriam-webster.com...(4) http://users.rcn.com...
This House Believes That A Virgin Birth Is Scientifically Possible, Even If Improbable!

As-Salam-o-Alikum! This is an interesting debate topic, is it not? In any case the Spirit of the Motion is that there is a scientific possibility, or that science proves that a virgin birth could have occurred, even though it is improbable. My opponent would have to show that there is no scientific possibility that such a birth could occur. S/he could either provide medical/scientific evidence to the contrary or argue that the evidence I provide is irrelevant. In both cases my opponent must provide scientific evidence. My opponent should start immediately, and would have to leave the last round, where s/he can only engage in pleasantries and/or write 'no round as agreed upon'. The virgin birth refers to the natural birth of a child without any use of medicines, or any treatments. I need only show that it is possible, while my opponent will show that there is no scientific possibility. This debate is impossible to accept, message me or submit your name in the comments to be considered. I want a serious debate.
This House Believes That A Virgin Birth Is Scientifically Possible, Even If Improbable!

I want to clarify some things. My opponent may have swayed you, but give me a chance. Realize that my science is completely sound. If you go back to my original argument you will notice that the two cases take up only 1/8th of my argument. Also my purpose for mentioning Nature was to show that a faux fertilization can occur. Even my opponent concedes that a faux fertilization did occur. Had the woman in this case not been impregnated with sperm, and had taken large amount of calcium it would have been a complete parthenogenesis birth. You will notice that I used the article from slate a lot, and I read a few articles from Harvard which were made easy. I also quoted all these articles so anyone can go and see it for themselves. My opponent on the other hand has not quoted any journal entry or any article in relation to his position. I stand by it, that since my opponent only attempted to tackle the examples and not the science itself, I should win this debate. Now go back and read my original presentation on what needs to happen, then go and read a bit from my sources. The hard part was to create a faux fertilization, and that as my opponent concedes has happened and was recorded in Nature. That is why the birth of that chimera child is called a half-parthenogenesis. My opponent did not show why any of the conditions I outlined in my original argument cannot happen at all. Remember the resolution is: This House Believes That A Virgin Birth Is Scientifically Possible, Even If Improbable! Which means I just have to show that it is possible, that it could be. I do not have to show that has been. So even if there is only one in a twelve billion chance, my reasoning was never tackled, as such I should win this debate. My opponent accuses me of misrepresentation of data, I tell the readers to go and read my sources. Whatever I have argued, especially in round three has been taken from respected journals. So again I need not present an example, for the resolution does not beg for one. My original reasoning stands, and my opponent actually dropped the point about calcium where I wrote how eating vegetables could cause that rise, or a genetic symptom. I concede that you would need a lot of random, coincidental events to happen for a parthenogenesis birth to occur, but it is nonetheless scientifically possible. I have therefore fulfilled my burden. With that I beg to propose.
This House Believes That A Virgin Birth Is Scientifically Possible, Even If Improbable!

My opponent says I did not tackle the scientific analysis. This is a fallacy, as the problematic “scientific analysis” presented by my opponent comes from a false interpretation of the cases presented which I have debunked. As such the scientific analysis my opponent has presented has been debunked, as have the cases my opponent presents. To further clarify this point, my opponent cannot claim the science is valid when the cases presented show the claimed “scientific analysis” is bunk . If the cases are debunked, it means the science you were using to misinterpret the data has been debunked. My opponent says the medicine is sound, yet has presented zero evidence for this. As I have pointed out this has never been seen to occur in any mammals where separate male and female are needed to produce offspring. I showed that even in mice the eggs do not make it to the birthing stage and die just after implantation. This means it is impossible, and not even remotely probable as claimed by my opponent. Again my opponent claims I have not successfully refuted the Nature Genetics claim. If my opponent cares to read my argument from the previous round he will see that it has been successfully refuted and in fact he has presented zero counter evidence for any of my refutations except to say I am wrong. In contrast my first round argument showing how birth must proceed stands uncontested. Lastly my opponent claims the following “Some vertebrates use parthenogenesis to produces diploid zygotes. ” This is a unsupported claim as already pointed out multiple times in this debate. In fact the only evidence for parthenogenesis is that presented for plants which are not even part of the animal kingdom. Unchallenged contentions in this debate are as follows: 1) No evidence for parthenogenesis has been presented. In counter evidence, I have shown that it is impossible using the sources cited by my opponent. 2) False interpretation of the Nature Genetics manuscript in both round 2 and 3. My opponent refuses to acknowledge that he is knowingly misinterpreting the data to fit his claim. 3) Refusal to engage the uniparental disomy argument which can clarify the so called parthenogenesis. 4) Claiming the Jesus case is scientific evidence with zero validated proof. I should add my opponent is doing this even after the Bible has been shown to have claims that are dubious. I now hand the debate back to my opponent for final arguments.
If it isn't broke don't fix it

My opponent has forfeited. I'd like to thank Krazzy_Player for pointing out that I used the wrong terminology when I insinuated my opponent conceded arguments. I think the proper term I should have used is that my opponent dropped my arguments.Yet I have countered every one of my opponent's arguments, and shall present a final horned argument:P1: Either this debate is under the definitions I gave, or it is under the definitions my opponent gave.P2: If it is under the definitions I gave, then my opponent has dropped my arguments and I have won.P3: If it is under my opponent's definitions, then the resolution is relative, and my opponent cannot fulfill his burden.C: Therefore, in either case, my opponent has not met his burden of proof, and his arguments fail.Thank you
If it isn't broke don't fix it

My opponent did not set definitions in the first sound, so it is customary for the accepter to clarify definitions. Thus the definitions I provided should be the definitions used.ConcessionMy opponent concedes my arguments. Under the definitions I provided, my opponent has not met his burden of proof.Relativity and self-defeating argumentsMy opponent states that what is "broken" may be relative. But this is self-defeating. If the function of something is relative to the user, then my opponent cannot show "If it's not broken, don't fix it" to be false. In other words, if the matter is really relative as my opponent claims, he will not be able to show this notion false, since it would vary from person to person. Thus, my opponent would not meet his burden of proof.If the matter really is relative, then when the person stating "If it isn't broken don't fix it" is also making a true statement in regards to themselves. If it isn't broken to that person, it's impossible to fix it. Thus, claiming relativity of what constitutes "broken" is self-defeating.ConclusionMy opponent has conceded the debate under the original definitions. You cannot "fix" something that is "not broken." Fixing always implies improving or restoring to a certain condition. Thus, in order to "fix" something, that which you are fixing must lack something in some way. Hence it is impossible to fix something that isn't broken.
If it isn't broke don't fix it

Definitions Fix and Broken have multiple definitions. Fix may also mean "to correct or set right; adjust."This is a very real definition as well as the one stated in my beginning argument. Fix means "to do work to improve or adapt something. " Broken also is defined by "being imperfect or incomplete." Rebuttal With the definitions stated previously it is very possible to fix something that is broken. Also when you have something that is broken you can take that a couple of different ways. Using the definition previously stated if it is broken or incomplete, this means there is room for improvement. This statement is typically used figuratively in situations where not every one is happy. someone might say why don't you change that (Implying that it is not satisfactory) and another might say "if it isn't broken don't fix it. When used in a situation like this what is "not broken might not be broken to the owner but is broken or incomplete to someone else." Anyway what I am saying is that something might be broken to someone else but may not be broken to another. So with this being said why don't people "fix something that isn't broken so it is satisfactory to the majority. It is very possible to fix something that isn't broken. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
If it isn't broke don't fix it

DefinitionsMy opponent has not provided any definitions, so I shall do so:Broke: "not working properly" (1)Fix: "to make (something) whole or able to work properly again" (2)These definitions capture the usage of "fix" and "broken" in the phrase "If it isn't broken, don't fix it."The BoP also lies on my opponent.Contradiction of termsMy opponent claims it is possible to fix something that is not broken. He gives an example of Apple software. However, this clearly is a contradiction of terms. "Fixing" is only said of something which is not working. What constitutes "not working"? Obviously, this means somehting that doesn't function properly or does not achieve the ends we desire it to.ImpossibilitiesIf something is not broken, that is, it is functioning properly and working as we desire it to, it is utterly impossible to "fix" it. Fixing always means to restore something to its proper or desired function. Thus, if we are even able to "fix" something, it obviously must have been broken in the first place.ConclusionMy opponent's arguments fail, since by the very definition of "fix" and "broken" it is utterly impossible to "fix" something which is not "broken."(1)http://www.merriam-webster.com...(2)http://www.merriam-webster.com...