BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Students and Laptops in High School

Greetings to my opponent and many thanks for offering this debate. I shall be taking the position of students not being allowed to carry Laptops on a high school campus. Out of fear that I may be entertaining the classic DDO "two sentence trap", I shall keep this first round brief by providing one contention: ====================================================== CONTENTION: Laptops encourage students to participate in non academic activities | ====================================================== I have here a very credible source indicating the the above claim is true: http://www.nytimes.com... Indeed, even as a college student, I have attended a great deal of lectures, only to notice the great deal of students who'd be playing World of Warcraft during class or frequenting facebook/myspace. The temptation to goof off is simply too high, which is confirmed through study on this matter. Rather than allow our lowly rated education system to continue plummeting, it would be most reasonable to deny the privilege of laptops. I'm sure that any benefit which they may supposedly provide can easily be remedied by having computer labs and simply increasing lecture efficiency (which I shall explain next wrong). I shall leave at that for now and shall elaborate on anything above if needed next round.
Students and Laptops in High School

As the the topic states this will be a discussion on whether or not students should be allowed to carry laptops at school. Definitions: All definition(s) are from http://www.m-w.com...... Laptop - a portable microcomputer having its main components (as processor, keyboard, and display screen) integrated into a single unit capable of battery-powered operation If you see anything that should be defined please feel free. There is a 3,000 character limit. I will be taking the position of being for the ability to carry the laptops thus my opponent shall not want them. If you do not meet the requirements, feel free to send me a message and I will unlock it or start another with you if it is already taken.
Students and Laptops in High School

============= FORFEIT? ?? ? | ============= NOTE: My opponent as opted to copy and paste statements from another debate. Interestingly enough, these statements were provided by none other than someone who was opposing the resolution: . http://www.debate.org... Take a good look at lostabyss words in of that debate and tell me if the following paragraph doesn't sound familiar: =========================================================================== QUOTE from Round 1: Laptops would make it incredibly easy to cheat on multiple things. From just being able to help a friend caguht sleeping in class, to giving answers for homework in pretty much any class. Technology is very helpful for the quick exchange of ideas, meaning when people writing "notes" and sending answers when asked in class. Sure it's small and doesn't really affect tests, but it could impede actual learning, and in that way make test scores worse. Well, actually, after a generous smart kid takes a test and perhaps writes the answers on his arm, he could simply type it up and send a mass E-mail to a group of peers. Possibly making money no the deal. Then, there is the porn issue. i see your "oh but there are blocks and firewalls" remark coming, so i'll answer in advance. personal laptops will give free reign over many things in the system, and probably wont even be connected in any way to the school servers except for possible wifi installations. But that can be easily bypassed with a cellphone tower connection card. " =========================================================================== The character limit prevents me from pasting the rest, but I can assure you that a quick read will show that all my opponent has done is copy/paste from her previous debate; she pasted the argument provided by her opponent who opposed this resolution. I'm not sure what my opponent's goal here is, but this is certainly not the kind of conduct we need on debate. org. Thus, for GREAT JUSTICE, I ask that you at very least vote my opponent down both on convincing arguments (since she has essentially conceded to my argument) as well as for conduct (for forfeiting as well as merely pasting an argument from another debate that does nothing more than oppose her own) when voting. Thanks for the debate (at least when this could have actually been considered a debate).
Students and Laptops in High School

Laptops would make it incredibly easy to cheat on multiple things. From just being able to help a friend caught sleeping in class, to giving answers for homework in pretty much any class. Technology is very helpful for the quick exchange of ideas, meaning when people writing "notes" and sending answers when asked in class. Sure it's small and doesn't really affect tests, but it could impede actual learning, and in that way make test scores worse. Well, actually, after a generous smart kid takes a test and perhaps writes the answers on his arm, he could simply type it up and send a mass E-mail to a group of peers. Possibly making money no the deal. Then, there is the porn issue. I see your "oh but there are blocks and firewalls" remark coming, so I'll answer in advance. personal laptops will give free reign over many things in the system, and probably wont even be connected in any way to the school servers except for possible wifi installations. But that can be easily bypassed with a cellphone tower connection card. It is true: "if a teenager wants to access something they are going to find anyway to get to it." With the Internet we are becoming more resourceful, more knowledgeable, and more skilled in the areas we want. All it really takes is knowing what you want, a decent search ability, and then the time to practice, read, and watch any information on the subject. I don't know it to be true, but there have been claims of hacking into the school with but a PSP. An account I know to be true, is that of a script kitty breaking in with a thumb drive of programs. A site that one could go to for these things is hackthissite.org its a site that promotes learning the skills on your own with logical thinking and gaining an intimate knowledge of computers and security. They will occasionally post their own small articles, or you can find tutorials on the forums for back doors, reverse engineering, and decryption. It only takes one student to learn these skills and hand out the Key to many others. If we are talking personal laptops, just having the word out that they are allowed will encourage students to invest in one of their own. If the laptops are provided then why would the Wifi be locked? There would probably be some kind of wireless LAN set up that perhaps had some filters on it for certain words or other things. At least then they could control the unlocked wifi. TAKE THAT
Students and Laptops in High School

RE: "But with proper school monitoring and the correct filtration systems and the willingness of the school administration to enforce it, laptops in schools could be in the near future." What my opponent is insisting is by far easier said than done. If these problems with laptops usage in high schools could so easily be solved, it's clear the school administrations cited in my source would have simply taken the time to act upon my opponent's advice. Clearly, the sheer amount of EXTRA school monitoring, filtration systems (whatever that means) and school administration work needed to maintain control over student laptop usage would be a tremendous burden to adhere to. Ladies and gentleman, we must once again take into consideration the fact that our education system (which, may I remind you, is ranked poorly in comparison to other education systems around the world) is struggling to advance and that the necessity to improve upon the means by which students are actually educated is far greater than whatever benefit could be provided by allowing laptops. It is far more reasonable that the amount of effort which my opponent insist be placed towards laptops (which, incidentally, she has yet to provide even a single warrant for) be put towards student education. Furthermore, I would like to point out that my opponent has not responded to my alternative (which in no way deters student education or redirects administration resources AND allows students to reap the benefits of having computers) which is to simply adhere to the current system and allow students to simply use the school's computer labs. School owned computers are far easier to monitor/control than student laptops. RE:"but if school administrators were to enforce the rules laid down by the school the students are likely to follow them." Who says they weren't already enforcing the rules? I'm sure a student being exposed for hacking into the school' database wouldn't end well for said student. The problem is that it can often be discern the identity of these would-be hackers. If computer usage were simply limited to school owned computers, the process of catching trouble makers would be easier. ========= CONTENTION: Laptops have been shown not to improve academic achievements ========= I sort of alluded to this in the previous round, but never actually came out and stated it. Just to avoid confusion .. . To quote one of the key lines suggesting this: "After seven years, there was literally no evidence it had any impact on student achievement — none," said Mark Lawson, the school board president here in Liverpool, one of the first districts in New York State to experiment with putting technology directly into students' hands." BOTTOM LINE: We have good reason to believe that allowing laptops does not improve education, but only harms it. Keep in mind that PRO has provided us with no reason as to why laptops should be allowed.
Students and Laptops in High School

I thank Logical-Master for being willing to debate this topic. As he said having the school issued laptops has caused for less students to pay attention to the lecture and more likely to frequent sites like Myspace and Facebook. But with proper school monitoring and the correct filtration systems and the willingness of the school administration to enforce it, laptops in schools could be in the near future. I realize that as your source stated students can and most likely will find ways to get around systems, some people think that is why they were invented, but if school administrators were to enforce the rules laid down by the school the students are likely to follow them. I shall leave it to my opponent.
Building Israeli Settlements on Recognized Palestinian Territory

My basic case: As Pro, I will be arguing *against* the statement--which is that 'building settlements on Palestinian territory (I. E the West Bank and Gaza) is illegal and should be strictly punished. ' Con will have to prove that:-this is *definitely* Palestinian territory, according to both national and international law. -that settlements are presently being constructed in Gaza (as they state. )-that in the case of building settlements, it is something that constitutes 'a form of oppression. ' -that (in the case) of building settlements, it justifies violent behaviour from Palestinian people and is the root cause of the ongoing conflict. -that, assuming there's settlements within Palestinian territory (again, Pro has to show this), they should be removed. Con will also have to explain precisely what kind of punishment they think is appropriate and/or necessary against Israel.
The government takes too much responsibility for people's actions.

Now to the issues. Second I live in America in the lower middle class with very limited health care. I would give anything to have the comfort of knowing if something happens I can get the medical care I need. You should be grateful that you have that. "I believe the government is a system that tends to simply makes certain peoples' hard efforts. .. and convert them into a cushioning device for those who, knowing that they will be cushioned, or simply don't care about the consequences of their actions, decide it's the government's responsibility/fault for their actions. " From what I can tell from research about your government everyone pays for their share of this plan in taxes and what's wrong with that? Though some people may mess up and simply don't care because they know there's a safety net there are a lot more people who get into medical or other troubles and it's not their fault. There are many people who can't afford help and need this plan to live. Are you saying you would deny someone medical treatment because they have less money than you? "This means taxes ascertained from people, instead of going into ways of making society more progressive ( culture,education,etc), goes into helping people for their own actions" In my book getting rid of sickness and disease counts as making society more progressive. Allowing everyone not just those with money to feel better is more progressive. And as for helping people sick because of whatever stupid things they did is a good thing as well. If their in there for overdosing on drugs or addiction to drugs and you help them instead of allowing them to go back onto the streets not only are you probably saving a life you could be taking a few more drug attics of the streets. "The government should make it clear that if you do the aforementioned action (or anything else illegal) you will be denied treatment on the grounds that what you do is your own responsibility and to help you would be wasting money from taxpayers" This is the most ignorant thing I have ever heard or in this case read. First you must consider the backlash from the masses when they hear that you have denied even the most basic help. Even in America we treat people who come in for overdose we may complain about the money wasted on them but we would never deny treatment. That is the equivalent of murder if someone is about to die even if it's their own stupid fault we help that's being human. "I don't understand why the government has decided to take responsibility for people to such a degree when it obviously hinders society" Well I do the way I see it a healthy country is a happy country, and a happy country is a prosperous and successful country. And further more the government does have a responsibility to take care of it's people that's one of the reasons they were even made a government be it a democracy or a monarchy is there to protect, serve and govern its people so that the country runs smoothly and you can't do that with a bunch of sick people running around. Now take the floor Tom9206! !! !! !! ! !
The government takes too much responsibility for people's actions.

Definition - I refer to the government of the UK but the argument may be applied to other governments. I believe the government is a system that tends to simply makes certain peoples' hard efforts (money ascertained from taxes etc.) and convert them into a cushioning device (benefits/healthcare etc.) for those who, knowing that they will be cushioned, or simply don't care about the consequences of their actions, decide it's the government's responsibility/fault for their actions. This means taxes ascertained from people, instead of going into ways of making society more progressive ( culture,education,etc), goes into helping people for their own actions eg. the NHS treats all casualties, those engaging in illegal activities like drug use are treated despite what they have done. The government should make it clear that if you do the aforementioned action (or anything else illegal) you will be denied treatment on the grounds that what you do is your own responsibility and to help you would be wasting money from taxpayers, who may not want to help you anyway, that could be going into the improvement of society. I don't understand why the government has decided to take responsibility for people to such a degree when it obviously hinders society, of course the ultimate resolution to this would for government to dissolve; then everybody would have responsibility for their own actions. However that outcome is unlikely,
death penalty should be abolish

all the crimes are differently not all the comitted crimes can check by the dna so that's why sometimes suffer innocent people. in addition don't you think about public works instead of giving them death penalty?the most important thing of giving them public works is government will have a benefit. For example some countries work on this system and by this they get benefit from prisoners.wHy do we have to kill them when they can do such kind of things??thereby we wii not lose our humanity too.
death penalty should be abolish

Think about all of the people clogging up the prisons. That's way more than the death penalty clogging up trials. Besides, now adays with all of the DNA testing, it's unlikely that a person that is innocent will end up suffering the death penalty. Life is a privelige and if you abuse it, you deserve to suffer the consequences. The consequences for ending another's life shouldn't be continuing to live, it should be suffering the same thing that they inflicted on another. And in most murder cases the death penalty is much more humane than the actual murder itself.
death penalty should be abolish

Yes, I know that in our world exist a very dangerous and violent killers and it's awful but I think that the best punishment for them it is a life sentence because the death penalty for them is the easiest solution to get away from the problems that they have done. I believe that life without freedom is the worst thing because they can not enjoy with life. also you wrote something about escape i think that it's not easy to do. but if it wil happen it's better than death of unguilty person. in our world was such situations where suffered innocent people. I advice you to watch the speech of Bryan Stevenson on ted.com "We need to talk about injustice"
The exodus of Jews from Egypt described in the Bible more than likely occurred as described

I, CON, claim that the exodus of the Jewish people from Egypt as described in the Bible more than likely did not occur. My opponent, cagystorm, has repeatedly claimed the the Bible is a historically accurate book, and even goes on to claim that religious and secular scholars alike are in agreement as to it's historicity. I've chosen this particular event as it would have an incredibly high likelihood of having archeological, documentary, and cultural evidence to suggest that it occurred. My opponent must provide evidence beyond biblical narrative to demonstrate the validity of the Bible via alternative sources.
single gendered schools do more then harm.

When it comes down to it, a single gender school is harmful for many of the same reasons as a single ethnicity school or a single color school. For the creation of a more tolerant, understanding society, it is critical that we expose students to diversity at a young age. Single gender schools, like single ethnicity or color schools prevent our children from acquiring the necessary experience to grow up into open minded and enlightened adults. Another point to consider is what about the gay/lesbian students? In addition to providing students with experience interacting with a diversity of cultures and personalities, as you would find in a multi gender, multi color academic establishment, a school should also thrive to create an environment that allows students to find Their Own cliques and network of like minded friends. Taking from my own experience, while in high school, I had a broad network of "associates" (people who I knew) and a small tight network of "friends" (people who I love, admire, and appreciate for their constant companionship and support). There are many students, including, but not limited to gays and lesbians, who find that their close social network requires members of the technically opposite gender. Single gender schools deprive these students of the opportunity of self discovery and the making of true friends. And for all the reasons above mentioned, singel gender schools do indeed cause more than harm.
single gendered schools do more then harm.

During adolescence, some higher level organisms engage in social interaction with other members to learn proper behavior necessary when they reach adulthood. Humans are one example of such a higher level organism. Why are single gender schools harmful? For one, they deny human adolescents the opportunity to learn male-female social interaction. As I'm sure we're all aware, it is generally an unwise course of action for a male to interact with a female in the same way he would generally interact with a male. In fact, some would say talking about hos and bitches to a female just might fall under the category of downright stupid. By having a co-ed environment, males have no choice But to learn how to socially interact, at least tolerably, with females. Secondly, just as there are no Whites only or Blacks only schools, there should be no single gender schools. Environments which encompass only one category of people are breeding grounds for stereotypes, intolerance, and in this case, chauvinism. Without exposure to female students, the development of pejorative unfounded stereotypes is inevitable, and such heavy exposure will also harm the male students. Third, they make students gay. Men
required threshhold of faith required for Christians to be saved is not clear

con has not really rebutted that the two examples i gave didn't have faith. the sure seemed to me to have faith. what about each one of these indivindually that i listed earlier? "that he is your savior, that you are a sinner, that he is lord, tha he rose from the dead, that he was incarnated, that he is God, that he is the son of God, that you believe you are saved (plenty of christians say you must believe you are saved, or you aren't saved), substitutionary atonement v 'christus victor' etc etc." so if someone believes that Jesus was incarnated, and that's it, that persoh has faith and will be saved? if someone believes they are saved with faith and that's it is that enough? they have faith that they are a sinner and that's it? the verse that con gave at the end is starting to show what kind of faith saves... believing in him who God sent. but what about all hte other things listed above? what combnatios of those are sufficient? "believe in" itself is pretty vague, shouldn't it be more like 'trust in' or 'rely on'? and once we get this hashed out for what it should be, what is the minimum for someone who doesn't match it to a T? con is looking for a quick and easy answer but all probing of his answer doesn't do justice to what it really means to be saved. con hasn't really given an adequate answer