BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Students Should be Allowed to Use 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.
Free will does not exist

Notwithstanding the fact that "choices" implies predetermined options. The choice itself is nonetheless a conceptual conclusion. Derived from pre-conditioned information. Pre-conditioned information is a prerequisite of all conscious decision making. In simple terms: Unless we are aware that we have options we would only exist at a sub-conscious or instinctive level. Instinct is physiological predetermination and might or might not imply free will depending on how we care to view it. Though once again we are faced with predetermined options that necessitate consciousness. It would seem, That in order to function at both conscious and subconscious levels we must already know the answer before we can make the decision. I would therefore suggest that in both instances it is difficult to pin down much free will. Though: If asked a question where A and B are the options and we are compelled to answer A when we actually think B. Could thinking B be regarded as free will? Thoughts may not be tangible actions but are nonetheless physiological actions. Are we not free to think whatever we like? No: Because we were just as compelled to think B as we are to answer A. As for randomness; Is it possible for anything to be random? Cause and effect and all that!
A common man is a silent instigator under the cloak of a mute spectator

Ummm.... no. They didn't over throw the government by "texting on the internet." They over threw the government with physical protests. From the video you can see and hear that the protesters were anything but mute. I would normally say that these people are not "common men" but regardless, your arguments do not hold. If you don't want to watch the entire 10:21 video, just go to 1:01 to 1:14. My opponent's case has been negated. Thank you. http://www.youtube.com...
A common man is a silent instigator under the cloak of a mute spectator

As instigator, it is your duty to provide the opening argument, or state in your R1 that you are expecting your opponent to lead this dance. However, I shall go ahead and attempt to argue against something that has not been argued for yet (which is technically a strawman). I contend that the common man is not a silent instigator, but a verbal one and a loud one at that. Down on the quanta level, people interact day in and day out. During those interactions, there is the occasional disagreement or argument between two people. This disagreements are often not mute, but can involve shouting or even violence when shouting doesn't work [see video]. Now, many confrontations of disagreement do not escalate this far, but one thing that they have in common is that they usually involve communication of some kind. While there likely is some degree of disagreement between mimes and mutes (many mutes view mimes in the same way that blacks view whites in blackface), these are few and far enough between to understand that they are not the average man. I'll limit at this so that my opponent has at least a little to work off of and they can now post an argument. Thank you. http://www.youtube.com...
All students should take cooking classes

Should all students be required to take cooking classes? While fundamentally, I can agree that cooking classes could benefit all students futures, I have a problem with it: Cooking classes are useful some ways: Learning to cook, prepare food, become a chef, etc. Many people will take no use of such cooking classes, Personal and Culinary Services majors only make up around 0.5% of degrees out of college as reported by the National Center for Education statistics division. Of course, these cooking classes in high school would help students be able to serve themselves, but nowadays, everything is on the internet and you can practically search and find out how to make a nice meal on Youtube. Fast food and quick food is becoming increasingly more popular and healthy, due to government standards and laws requiring organic, clean food/meat to be made in such restaurants, creating easier and cheaper opportunities for these students to get food. Again, I respect the fact that on a moral basis, cooking classes would help the future generation to learn to cook, but other options are easier and more efficient.
All students should take cooking classes

Every student should take cooking classes because if they don't they might not be able to take care of themselves they might just rely on their parents or someone else to cook for them. If someone doesn"t get cooking lessons and they"re married their companion might want them to cook for a while or just that once but they will not know how to cook. Cooking lesson aren"t even that expensive, some come in schools, but you could get a family member to teach you how to cook and then you could teach another family member how to cook so the family can all live on their own and take care of themselves.
Anarcho-Syndicalism

First of all, you need some government. As a Libertarian, I'm not saying we should have a big complicated mess of red tape. In fact, just the opposite. But human beings can be evil (I'm not saying I have no faith in people to be moral, just, and trustworthy, just that some of them are), and can make things worse. As James Madison said, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." But the sad truth is, human kind is not (and probably never will) perfect enough for no government, at least not yet. As a mater of fact, the word "human" is also a definition for being "imperfect," and so shall remain.
Anarcho-Syndicalism

Anarchism (A general outlook) 1. The belief that all forms of government are oppressive and therefore undesirable. 2. The desire to therefore create a "Utopia" based on free human cooperation in which all members of the "Utopia" are equal without laws, class, prejudice, militarism or hierarchy or the need there of. 3. Recognizing that a autonomous community is the embodiment of this "Utopia" based on empirical examples which have manifested through out the course of history. "Anarchism is no patent solution for all human problems, no Utopia of a perfect social order, as it has so often been called, since on principle it rejects all absolute schemes and concepts. It does not believe in any absolute truth, or in definite final goals for human development, but in an unlimited perfectibility of social arrangements and human living conditions, which are always straining after higher forms of expression, and to which for this reason one can assign no definite terminus nor set any fixed goal". -Rudolf Rocker In a sense, Anarcho-Syndicalism is a belief that advocates changing what you can, where you can, while emulating anarchist Utopian values.
Anarcho-Syndicalism

I am not wasting your time here. A Utopia with no laws would be great, but it's just unattainable at this moment, and most likely never. As I said before, if some men weren't evil, this would be attainable. Oh, and one more thing: If I supported ANY anarchist ideology, I would support anarcho-capitalism, because capitalism WORKS, and it has been proven. If you want to add anything, add it to your comments, and I will see what you have to say.
Anarcho-Syndicalism

Karl Marx did come to realize that communism was a mistake and he was right. Throughout the years, aside from the suppression of dissent and in some cases, mass genocide caused by them, communists have been one of the biggest anti-revolutionary forces in history but that's another issue. Care to give me a reason as to why my ideology is wrong? Are you buying time to get the final word in so I can't refute? I hate to let this debate go to waste...
Anarcho-Syndicalism

I see the point you're making and it's an obviously very valid one. However I'm not advocating an immediate nor gradual (though it would be nice) ascension into global Anarchism. I'm advocating an ideology that believes that the emulation of Utopian anarchist morales through constant activism will bring us closer to that utopia. It's more or less a method of activism. It's been defined as the truest form of Marxism as Karl Marx himself once said that socialism and communism are but mere stages towards humanity's purest form which would be a world without hierarchy. This is why the Anarcho-Syndicalist flag is red and black. The red(representing socialism) is on top and the Black (representing Anarchism on the bottom). It's supposed to represent the gradual transition into a better world. So what I'm getting at is this is a theory/method of activism as such what are the cons of said method?
students should not be penalizaed for missing classes

My opponent did not make the distinction that he is in a developing country. This completely changes the views on the debate. Kids skip school, so they should get penalized. But it doesn't mean kid skip school to do bad things, so kids shpuld not be penalized. Skipping school is the bad thing. It means you are leaving the school premises without the school knowing. so students still have to find job by their own. Finding a job doesn't mean they don't have to show up to school. People could be a part time student and a part time chef or something like that. College is shaped around a certain person's schedule, then they should have no excuse as to why they can't come to school. Many school want to save money, so they hired some unqualified teachers that paid low salary. Some of these teachers still have in many schools. Just because a teacher can't teach doesn't mean that give you the authority to leave class. Sometimes, telling the teachers the flaws in a learning style will improve the education of others more than you think. Costs school tax doesn't affect to the school's destiny. When student enrolled, they have to pay the full course. Even he or she doesn't come to study, but the school get money already. Nothing that Costs school tax will affect the school. In the US, grade school is paid by taxes. My teacher told me that you can't have too many unexcused absences because, if you do, the school will lose funding, which will result in budget cuts. You don't pay for your tuition, unless if you go to a private school. Also, if a football player wanted to learn, then he will devote his time to school, but if he doesn't then why should they keep him at the school. If he doesn't come to school because he is practicing football, that shows people your priorities. Yoou have put football over education. Thanks for this good debate. My opponent was supposed to prove that in every situation, it is still wrong to punish a child for unexcused absences. I am supposed to prove that in any, not all, situation, that it is still right to punish people for missing school. I can understand why my opponent says his arguments, but at the end of the day, we all must realize that there is a consequence for every action we commit, wether it is good or bad. We must notice that it is not wise to not punish someone for doing something against the rules that they could have prevented from happening.
students should not be penalizaed for missing classes

When you have shown your ideas about this, I have one thing in mind. You are in developed world, while i am in developing country. The system is very different from each other. The kind system that you have been mentioned is not valid in developing country like mine. Students need to study only 4 hours a day in their state school not a full day, so they have time to work. Many business company are also hired them and pay them money. School doesn't have much money to support the poor students as you said. The school has not much scholarship for more than 100 students per school. In our world, students is responsible for their own problems and things. The school can help some of their things, but not all not the family financial problems, so students still have to find job by their own. Footballer should not be in college? They can't have right to get others education beside their talent to play football??? They may want to learn other subjects in college, but not all. so they still miss some classes. I talk in general, not always in college. Many school want to save money, so they hired some unqualified teachers that paid low salary. Some of these teachers still have in many schools. Anyway, your arguments are not always correct. Kid skip school, so they should be penalized. But it doesn't always mean kid skip school to do bad things, so kids should not be penalized. We can give them advice not penalized them. Costs school tax doesn't affect to the school's destiny. When student enrolled, they have to pay the full course. Even he or she doesn't come to study, but the school get money already. Nothing that Costs school tax will affect the school. I still believe 'Students should not be penalized for missing classes'. Finally, i am very happy and i feel interested with the arguments that we have made in this debate. I thank you again for The_Master that spent time debating with me. I hope we will have more chances discussing about other motions again.
students should not be penalizaed for missing classes

When I accepted this debate, I thought you were talking about high school students and not college students. You did not make that discretion when making the rules. However, I will still debate. Rebuttals Future Work Career- If a college student goes to school, they normally go to school as a full time student, meaning they go to school all day. When you work full time, you will get penalized for not showing up to work, meaning you won't get paid. Same thing here. If a student (who goes to school full time), doesn't go to school, then should they not get penalized? No, they should get penalized. There are certain punishments that need to be issued for certain actions. Family Diffuclty- Someone shouldn't be in college if they can't afford it. That is not the school's issue. There could be 2,000 students with that same issue. Should they help all students that have those problems? In fact, colleges make it easier for college students to work and provide. They provide financial aid and they also allow people to schedule classes to the student's schedule. So there is no excuse for them to not be at school. Talented students- Your example is not too good. If a man wants to learn, then he will learn. He will make it obligatory to learn. A football player that just wants to play football shouldn't be in college. He should be practicing. Qualified teachers- If a teacher wants to teach at a public institution, they must have a master's degree and a teacher certification. Because they are teaching, it is safe to assume that they have a teacher's certififcation and that makes them qualified to teach. If a student doesn't want to go to a class because of the teacher, then they should just withdraw from the class to not receive any penalty. These might sound convincing but it is not that hard to realize that there must be a penalty for every action we do. Arguments Kids skipping school- Some kids might skip school. They are removing themselves from the learning environment intentionally. Because of that, they should be penalized. Costs school tax dollars- Because I thought my opponent was debating high schoolers, I will keep that subject. When kids don't come to school, the school loses fundings. When the school loses funding, then that will makke it harder for the school to stay open. Teachers will get paid less and certain programs offered might be removed.
students should not be penalizaed for missing classes

This is the first time that i am here for debate. I hope this debate is going smoothly. I would say: students should not be penalized for missing classes. Con would say: student should be penalized for missing classes. I am really happy to start this debate. Rule: R1: - Con acceptance R2: - Pro show arguments - Con refute Pro's arguments and show his arguments R3: - Pro refute Con's arguments and make conclusion - Con: finally delivery
Traditional schooling is better than online schooling

I think that traditional schooling is obsolete and archaic. I went through a public brick and mortar school k-12 also had the experience of continuing education through a local( and very expensive) university and an accredited online school of design. I couldn't help but notice that this new style of learning filled in all the potholes and roadblocks that I repeatedly faced while trying to learn at a physical school. Traditional school was full of one distraction after the other- have to wake up and wait for bus. It took over an hour from when I got to the bus stop to when the bell rang and I could finally get to learning( a HUGE waste of time waiting along side with other kids that may or may not even have had any interest in learning). To continue breaking up the learning process; students had to get all their stuff back together, leave that room they were in to swim through a sea of other kids, visit a locker to pick books to get to the next room every hour to learn different subject matter every hour. If your school was anything like mine- in between class was pandemonium and took me out of any learning mode. Why not just have the teachers get up and move to the next room? At these establishments you are limited to their schedules and availability. Which leads me to my next point- bullies. It is important to learn social behavior, pecking order and coping skills for physically dealing with other people- but not in a schoolhouse that should be teaching anything else. There are plenty of after school clubs and programs set up to compete with each other to sort all of that out (i.e. football, soccer, girls/boys clubs and endless others). Online communities are preferred and just as easy if not easier to collaberate with peers. You are no longer limited to drawing from just what they have available in the classroom. The internet is a much deeper and better suited well to draw from because it doesn't have these limitations. Finally, after spending another hour of wasted life getting back home, I had at least two hours of schoolwork to do there. I would argue that if the goal was to get kids thinking outside of school, bring learning into the home and lean on the parents- we should keep it there primarily. I understand that my personal experience with public school is different(super long bus rides, dodging bullies, worrying about who the most popular person was or who had the best clothes and many other stresses that don't help learning) than everyone else but I am sure we can all agree that what we have been doing needs to be re-evaluated as a whole.
Darwinian Evolution is a Weak Theory

Couple things. I want to point out that nobody here is a "Darwinist" whatever that means and nobody here believes in "Darwinian evolution" I don't know where you're getting these words from. Second, Gene mutation is an established theory and you're the one claiming it to be weak, Therefore, You have taken on a burden of proof in doing this topic. With all that said, I want to talk about complexity. You seem to have the standard creationist view that evolution necessarily has to increase the complexity of things. This shows that you lack an understanding of evolution. Life forms become more complex on there own through gene mutation. These mutations can add proteins to an organism's genetic make up and that's all the proof I need for any type of complexity. Natural selection doesn't increase complexity, It increases survivability. Complex doesn't always equal survival. Judging by your last statement, I'm not sure if you intend to present evidence of your claim, But I suggest you do so. Since evolution is a well established scientific theory, You don't get to come in here and finger wag without evidence. Lets look over the evidence you provided so far for your claim. "Darwinian evolution is a weak theory because it lacks a mechanism for actual evolution, Meaning an increase in complexity or information. Natural Selection works fine to filter out the best genes that exist, But it doesn't explain how new genes come about. " So this is just a bold assertion, Can you logically support this claim? This is also begging the question when you talk about new genes. Nobody said new genes had to be made except for you. This is because, Once again, You don't understand evolution. There are only four building blocks for a gene. There is never a "new" gene. That is just a fantasy that you came up with in your head. What really happens is that the same four building blocks that we've used since the dawn of time are the same ones we use now and the "complexity" that you see is just bigger combinations of those same 4 building blocks. So I don't have to show you a "new" gene because such a thing was never claimed to exist. That was the only evidence that you've provided for your entire debate. The only other thing you've said so fair is that evolution is a "mystery" which isn't evidence, But rather your personal incredulity. If you don't provide some actual evidence for you claim that genes have to make "new genes" then this whole debate is moot because that's literally your only real critique. Your floor.