BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Tablets should NOT replace textbooks K-12 schools

ARGUEMENTS 1.Tablets Enrich Education 81% of K-12 teachers believe that "tablets enrich classroom education." The survey of technology in the classroom by the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) also concluded that 77% of teachers found technology to "increase student motivation to learn."[1] 2.Can Be Updated On a tablet, e-textbooks can be updated instantly to get new editions or information. Schools will not have to constantly purchase new hardware, software, or new physical copies of textbooks. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said that "too many students are using books that are 7-10 years old with outdated material." Tablets are especially beneficial for subjects that constantly change, such as biology or computer science. [2] When you update an e-textbook it will take less than an hour when ordering a textbook it can take up to a week. 3.People Read More Students who own tablets purchase and read more books than those who read print books alone. The average tablet-owning US student reads 24 books per year on a tablet compared with 15 in print for those who do not own a tablet. [3] According to a survey by the Pew Internet and American Life Project, 30% of e-content readers (including 40% of those under age 30) say that they now spend more time reading than they used to due to the availability of e-content. [4] 4.Weigh Less Print textbooks are heavy and cause injuries, while a tablet only weighs 1-2 pounds. Pediatricians and chiropractors recommend that students carry less than 15% of their body weight in a backpack, but the combined average weight of textbooks in History, Mathematics, Science, and Reading/Language Arts exceeds this percentage at nearly all grade levels from 1-12. [5] According to the US Consumer Product Safety Commission, during the 2011-12 school year more than 13,700 kids, aged 5 to 18, were treated for backpack-related injuries.[6] 1.Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), "National PBS Survey Finds Teachers Want More Access to Classroom Tech," www.pbs.org, Jan. 23, 2012 2.Federal Communications Commission, "Digital Textbook Playbook," (2.55 MB) www.fcc.gov, Feb. 1, 2012 3.LearnStuff, "Graduating with Technology," learnstuff.com, Aug. 17, 2012 4.Kathryn Zickuhr, "Younger Americans' Reading and Library Habits," libraries.pewinternet.org, Oct. 23, 2012 5.Thomas Adams, "Textbook Weight in California: Data and Analysis," California Department of Education website, Apr. 14, 2004 6.Mary Elizabeth Dallas, "Overloaded Backpacks Can Injure Kids: Experts," nlm.nih.gov, Aug. 26, 2012
Tablets should NOT replace textbooks K-12 schools

I don't think that tablets should replace textbooks, I don't because they can affect your health.Tablets can cause eyestrain, headaches, and blurred vision. According to the American Optometric Association. It also has a higher incidence of musculoskelectal disorders with repetitive strain on muscles. Tablets have too much distraction in class. Students like to pay more attention to the Tablet screens or bright screens. They also may pay attention to apps, emails, games, and other websites instead of their teachers.
tic tac toe

I think this type of debate degrades the quality of the site. I've argued that. I've argued against the only statement you made in round 1. You've failed to offer rebuttals. If you want, I'll play you tic Tac toe through PM anytime you want but I refuse to do It in a debate. I'd appreciate if you concede now and send me that PM or go to a tic Tac toe site to play. If you want we can even discuss our opinions on if tic Tac toe is philosophical while playing the game. Here is a novel ideal also, to play tic Tac toe without degrading the quality of the site. Issue a challenge that is an actual debate but also make winning at tic Tac toe worth source points. It actually might be a good way to have a handicap against an opponent significantly better than you at debating.
tic tac toe

"Tic tac toe is very philosophical. "I had no reason to believe that the debate had an alternate resolution. Here is some steps I had to take to get to this point.1. Go to a website called debate. org. This is my first hint I'm attting to debate somebody.2. Go to the portion of the site entitled debates. This is the second clue I'm about to debate something.3. Press ccept challenge button on something entitled open debate. This is the third clue that this is a debate.4. Click on a tab after accepting that says "argument due". Debates have arguments not tic tac toe, so if this was a tic tac toe game why would it say "argument due".5. The debate has an 8,000 character limit. The biggest limit neccesary for a tic tac toe game would be like 500 characters, why would it be 8,000 unless my opponent expected an argumentHere are some things I want the voters to keep in mind. This is a debate site and tic tac toe challenges degrade the quality and purpose of the site. These tic tac toe challenges shouldn't be taking placeMy opponent didn't make the resolution clear when issuing the challenge and has done very little to defend that his original intention was a tic tac toe game. It's for these reasons I urge youote con
Science can determine human values.

I will just respond to one of the points from last round. Question 1Pro's statement that maximizing well-being is a philosophical statement. Science can't tell us whether it's right or wrong to do that. That's pretty much all I have to say. I believe I have firmly negated the resolution. I have shown that science can't determine human values, it can only inform them. You can't determine the resolution scientifically, so it's a self-defeating statement.
Science can determine human values.

1: Can you give one argument for a moral position that doesn"t involve any philosophical reasoningat all? I'll provide a list of things that are a part of my argument that show that science can not only inform moral decisions, but make them. I'm assuming that Con is more or less asking for an example of science dictating what is moral. - Morality is based in the well-being of conscious creatures. - Maximizing well-being is moral. - Science can tell us what maximizes well-being. So. .. .Maximizing well-being is moral, and science can tell us what maximizes well-being. If MWB = Moral, then whatever tells us about MWB must also tell us what is moral. Since science tells us about well-being, it must tell us what is moral, not only inform moral decisions.2: Do conscious creatures have a moral obligation to improve the well-being of non-conscious entities, as much as is reasonable? (By reasonable, I mean within certain limits, such as not harming through action or allowing harm by inaction a conscious creature in order to help a non-conscious creature, etc. ). I don't understand what Con is asking me, so I am sorry if my answer seems to miss the point. I think that we can care about non-conscious entities as long as it relates to something conscious. For example, throwing a rock into an empty pond should not be a concern, because it does not relate to the well-being of anything conscious. It would be different with cutting down trees, because forests influence the well-being of conscious creatures.3: How do you ground objective morality, as (I"m assuming) an Atheist? As you may have noticed, I agree with Sam Harris and Joseph Daleiden on morality. I would read 'The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values' and 'The Science of Morality: The Individual Community and Future Generation' in order to understand how I try to ground objective morality in naturalism. -----That is the conclusion of our debate.
Science can determine human values.

I will take the position that science can only inform human morality and values, it can't dictate it. What humans value and how we treat each other is a philosophical concern, not a scientific one. I accept Pro's terms, with one addendum: Human Values also relate to how we ought to treat each other. Unless by Human Value, Pro is not including ethical concerns, and just means whether or not we place value in a thing. It may help if Pro could indicate which one he means in the comments or in the next round. I look forward to the debate.
The public school system is academically and socially superior to homeschooling

I would like to start off by thanking you for giving me the opportunity to have another go in the final round. Home schooling is a productive method of teaching at home; I'll agree with you there. If you look on my profile you can see that I'm actually pro-home schooling. I would like to remind the viewers that I'm debating whether home schooling is the better option or not. We can patronize what falls under the category of the debate or we can look at the over all image. Emotion does fall under this because it has an effect on the social and academic success of the student. Here's a situational explanation: They say that close members of religion are better people. Statistically, more stop to let pedestrians cross the street. Your asked the question, should you join a religion? You refer to these statistics to make your decision. The next thing you know, your going to every Sunday mass afraid that if you stop, your going to hell. Please refer back to my first post. Those statistics will help you understand not only the reasoning but the unsolved solution these children are getting involved in. Thank you for this debate.And if you think every word I just said was absurd, read it again.
The public school system is academically and socially superior to homeschooling

After you accepted this debate, I realized that it needed four rounds in order for us to each argue three times, so this made the debate much shorter, with two argument posts. And the fact that you only got three minutes to respond with your second post makes things even worse. Therefore, I will repeal Rule 8, giving you an extra post after this one. I don't just want to win the debate; I want people to be convinced of the superiority of homeschooling. A question I would like you to ask yourself is: Is the lower grade worth it? The public-schooled children don't always get a feel of what homeschool is like, and they're stuck with the government's belief of what they think is right for them. In the end you may get more perspectives (or not, considering the following quotation), but everything would be thrown on yourself when you got out, since, as quoted from the Washington Times reference from my last post, "In all areas of life, from gaining employment, to being satisfied with their home-schooling, to participating in community activities, to voting, home-schoolers were more active and involved than their public school counterparts." Emotionally, the public school system is not the right choice: 73% of homeschoolers were found to consider life exciting, while only 47.3% of the general US population found life to be such.[1] But even if public schooling were emotionally better, emotion is not the subject of this debate but academia and sociality.The fact that you asked, "Is the higher grade worth it?" seems to admit that the proposition has been shown to be false. If not, then maybe in three minutes' time you were just speaking in conclusion that if I'm right, the public school is still on emotion's side. Assuming you agree that homeschooling is academically and socially superior to public schooling, the proposition is shown to be false.Well, considering that I've given a number of statistics showing 1) that homeschooling is academically superior, 2) that homeschooling is socially superior, and now 3) that homeschooling is emotionally superior (though this point is unrelated, as far as I can see, to the proposition at hand), I don't see anything else for me to say other than my conclusion. Homeschooling, as far as statistics can reveal, is a great method of schooling; those who are homeschooled enjoy great grades, outgoingness, and general happiness in life. While it may seem at first thought (in theory) that homeschooling would be academically and socially inferior, it rather is the superior option. Again, I will give Pro the last argument to show my reasoning to be incorrect. I excitefully await your response!References[1] http://www.hslda.org...
The public school system is academically and socially superior to homeschooling

I wasn't able to get to the computer today so I have 3 minutes to give it all I got. A question I would like you to ask yourself is: Is the higher grade worth it? The children don't always get a feel of what school is like and there stuck with their parents belief of what they think is right for them. In the end you may get good scores but everything would be thrown on yourself when you got out. Emotionally, it's not the right choice.
The public school system is academically and socially superior to homeschooling

I'm going to put my opinions right out there, showing both arguments and how I feel. Environments:- Being comfortable doesn't make a student better in the long run: Focusing, bullying, and fashion anxiety are all things a child is going to need to get over - Worst thing for a human is to be taught by one person. Statistics and how they don't make a difference: Here are the percentages of the reasons why kids are home schooled and my counteraction. 48.9%- Can give child a better education at home - These are the parents that think they have what it takes to do everything better than many trained professionals that teach children. 38.4%- Religious reasons - CDD and Hebrew school offer a good religious education that not only gives them their sacraments, but an understanding of the religious principles that they follow. 25.6%- Poor learning environment at school - Children need to learn with distractions, bullying, and immunity for people that have germ -phobia. If a child can be bullied in elementary school than they are going to need to deal with it to learn when they get older. 16.8%- Family reasons - This can mean many things and I'm assuming most are fears and children need to cope with it. News Flash, every child crys on the first day of school. 15.1%- To develop character/morality - It's easy to say, Thank you to your parents but it's more difficult when you have to say it to your teaches and other adults. 12.1%- Object to what school teaches - You may be totally against what your child is being taught but parents should know that a child learns best from seeing different points of views. 11.6%- School does not challenge the child - The child should be in higher classes or go to a harder private school. 11.5%- Other problems with available schools - I know a lot of people that absolutely hate their public school by high school and want to go but they can't pay other tuition's. This is a situation where I believe in home schooling. 9.0%- Student behavior problems at school - They are not going to get over the problem by being at home. 8.2%- Child has special needs/disability - There are free special needs schools and even public schools offer it. Thank you for reading. I am eager to read my opponent's arguments and debate more. Sources: (1)http://www.publicschools.org... (2)http://www.trinity.edu...
The public school system is academically and socially superior to homeschooling

Hello. Here are rules and definitions for this debate:1. By "public school," I refer to a publicly paid school.2. By "academically," I refer to how well one does in the educational side of school.3. By "socially," I refer to how well one interacts with others, how outgoing one is.4. By "homeschooling," I refer to the education of children at home, as opposed to the public school system.5. By "homeschooling," I do not refer to "no-schooling" or the "school of hard knocks," in which the children are at home undergoing no curriculum.6. Private schooling (and any other method of schooling, if such exists) is outside the scope of this debate.7. The burden of proof is on Pro to show that students who attend the public school are better educated and more social than their homeschooled counterparts.8. Pro will argue first, while I get the last word; I will not begin making arguments against the proposition during Round 1, and Pro is not permitted to post arguments during Round 3 (though Pro is allowed to post as long as the post does not contain arguments in favor of the proposition).Thank you, and may the best man win!
Pure religion contradicts rights.

I have set the round limit too low to properly allow any room for actual debating, I apologize and hope that, once again, we can debate this. Seige, I apologize and say that I really really really really want to debate you on this topic.(really do in fact) I ask for one more debate on this, this time I will set my alarm clock so I don't miss my rounds. My argument in a nutshell is that because rules are defined as belonging to a form of government opposite of anarchy, they must be restrictive. Because of this, any rule that prohibits a person from choosing a reaction outside of a set of rules is considered to be breaking those rules. Rules set up a system that within in it contains how a situation should be seen. If we look at the Greeks, we see a leniency towards pedophilia, it was the law that if a man slept with a male prostitute who had gone beyond puberty, then he and the prostitute would be sent to trial for violating the rules. Anyone male not having surpassed puberty was legally allowed to sell their body for the highest bidder[1]. Though these were looked down upon in ancient Greece, they were not uncommon, nor unheard of. I mention this example to show the shifting rules across the globe. It is my hope in this debate to first establish that rules present boundaries, that religion presents boundaries, that religion gives rules, and because boundaries are restrictive on anyone wanting to go outside of them, prevents action. It is not my goal to say that religion is against choice, only that religion may detour choice.I ask that may opponent accept my apology for my lack of punctuality in presenting my arguments and in turn, accept a debate in the future on this subject. Thank you.[1] http://www.topix.com...
Pure religion contradicts rights.

Religion, in this case, the belief of God, requires abstainment from personal choices, as such it binds the world-view of any who practice, the choice of religion also negates the choice of rights, because of this religion is inconsistent with humanistic values and in turn proves plainly what was already known.Definitions:God: The set that contains the beliefs and is implied by beliefs.As in: Abrahamic God has as elements Christianity, Islamic religion, and Judaism.Religion: The system containing a belief that proves another belief, has a belief containing every other belief, a belief that is unique and contains only itself and the total set of beliefs have a finite cardinality.Rights: Replace and identify with objective morals.I await your response.
I don't like cheese.

They order hamburgers. They balk at fast food menus. Well, they balk at most menus. They walk among us in silent protest of processed dairy, and they say it"s because it smells funny, or that it tastes rotten, or that it"s "too creamy." I"m sorry, that"s not even a thing. They are the cheese haters.* Though they are an admittedly small minority in this country, their rejection of cheese so markedly appalls and offends us cheese lovers, they might as well hate puppies--or freedom. I"m a tolerant person (here comes the but), but whenever I meet someone who doesn"t eat cheese, I"m equal parts confounded and disgusted. (Here comes the other but) But, I choose to stick around because I"m sure I can save--I mean help--them. I"m usually frantic during these fledgling encounters, shoving key exceptions down their throats as if the slightest movement in the other direction makes a difference in my life. For your frame of reference, here"s how that conversation typically goes down: Me: You don"t like cheese? Are you insane? Them: No, I just don"t like cheese. Me: *Silence* Them: It"s not a big deal. Me: But you like pizza right? Mozzarella is a mild cheese. Them: No. Me: Queso dip??? Them: No. Me: MACARONI AND CHEESE? Them: No. Me: WHY? IT"S NOT EVEN STINKY. I DON"T GET IT! Them: I"m sorry, I"ve just never liked it. Me: WHO ARE YOU????
I don't like cheese.

Why you up in this store? What you looking for? Cheese? I'm cheddar, I'm much better than the rest of these Don't speak too fast, you need to get a load of dis. I'm Swiss Alright, white boy, they get the gist... Got more holes in my body than my boy 50-cent Curdled on the streets - Geneva represent! We're Vinny and Louie forget about the other cheeses We're so hardcore, you gotta grate us to eat us You other chumps are weak If you ask me I can bring you to your knees with my pungency I'm not weak I'm strong I'll add flavor to your salad all night long We know you want to put us in your mouth and chew, don't you? We know you do! I'm old, I'm stuck in my ways I'm stuck in you're teeth and in you're breath for days Baaaaaaaaaah I got mo' flavor then y'all I make a wicked cheese ball My hobbies include doing bird-call Can someone take over for me? I'm living large in a condo If I break a hip don't put me in a home bro But paps, you don't even have a hip though Ohh This is breaking my heart, just tell them what they want yo We know you want to put us in your mouth and chew, don't you? we know you do! We know you want to put us in your mouth and chew, don't you? You know, we know, we know you do! - So, what kind of cheese you wanna get? - I don't think I'm in the mood for cheese You know, we know, we know you do
I don't like cheese.

Why is cheese bad? 1. High Fat Content Cheese, especially processed American cheese, has a lot of saturated fats. These fats are not healthy. By eating one slice of Domino"s Pizza, Americans get two-thirds the daily fat intake just from the cheese. 2. High Salt Content Much of the cheese available in stores has a lot of sodium, which is bad for your heart. Some cheeses are low in sodium, but many are not. 3. Too Many Calories Cheese has too many calories that are difficult to eliminate when you exercise. To combat the cheese, you would have to exercise double the amount of time. Calories from fat also aren"t the calories you want in your body. 4. Animal Enzymes Manufacturers like to use rennet in their cheeses. This is an enzyme that comes from calves" stomachs. To get this enzyme, manufacturers have to kill newborn calves. If you are an animal lover, you might not want to eat this. If you prefer vegetarian cheese, it"s made from bacteria, which is not healthy to ingest. 5. Unhealthy Processes Often, manufacturers process the cheese using unhealthy practices. The cows are given hormones to produce more milk. These hormones are passed to humans when they consume dairy. The machines also could put infections into the cheese. 6. Leads to Diseases When you eat the fat, salt and calories, you pack on the pounds. When you become overweight, you have a higher risk of heart disease and diabetes. 7. Mold Brie-makers spray on mold to make the white rind. Others have mold included in the cheese. This is not very healthy to consume. 8. High Cholesterol Cheese has a large amount of the bad cholesterol. This also can lead to diseases. -lifehacks.org
Abortion should be legal in every case, even late-term

Why? The primary reason that you should vote con is because Pro has not even came close to fulfilling his BoP. His argument revolves around the rape case and the instance in which the mother's life is at risk. However as I have proven this is not proving the resolution even close to generally true, thus I win the arguments. Conduct goes to me for forfeit. Sources go to me for I provided several sources while Con only provided one that wasn't pertaining to the case well.