BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Phones should be allowed at school, during lunch.

Rebuttal 1Parents often have a saying, that is no news is good news. In terms of this from school, a child not contacting a parent means that they do not need to, if they do not need to, they must be fine. Trust me, there is nothing more hated by parents, than their child constantly texting them during school or anywhere from home, for that matter.Rebuttal 2A club is not neccesarily educating a child. For example, they could be attending a school band, or going to football training. At my school, we got one hour for lunch break. Normally, I would take 15-20 minutes to eat my lunch, then I would go to the club I did that lunchtime: normally a music band or something similar. The thing to remember is that a club is not educating a child like a classroom does, bearing in mind that a lunch break is a break from the classroom learning environment, rather than learning as a whole. A club actually enriches a child in his or her favourite subject. For example, if Design was your thing, there is a club that you could go to and teachers would help you design.Rebuttal 3Most phones nowadays have the ability to play music on them, but is that ok for the rest of us? Imagine walking around school and everywhere you go people are talking on their phones, blaring music out of them, playing games on them. A few problems with that. Noise - It will be quite irritating Unsociable - It will divert everyone's attention away from socialising. Bullies - Children could easily not have a phone to do this on, and from personal experience, they are often bullied about it. Who to vote for?So if you want school breaks to become noisy, unsociable and full of bullies, by all means vote Pro. But if you agree with me, that: Phones should not be allowed for use in schools because They are distracting Unsociable Encourages bullying Noisy Stopping a child being enriched in a lunchtime activity Vote Con. My thanks to Aimee for a very majestic debate, but voters please read below.Voting Rules:You must give a reason for your votes, anyone who does must be countered. If you are the person who counters the vote, please state so in your reason. I apologise that unless you have an alt account, you loose the vote as well.Also, please read the whole argument. If I or Aimee feel a vote's reason does not match the actual argument's content, and we both agree, then your vote will be countered. If you have any questions, ask them in the comments. Do not use your voting reason as a place to question our arguments.
Phones should be allowed at school, during lunch.

Sorry about the forfeit. I see how a phone can be a distraction during class, but we aren't talking about in class we are talking about lunch. Most parents like to know that their children are okay, especially after the recent shooting. Eating lunch usually doesn't take the whole lunch, so you can play games or listen to music ect. Lastly, at lunch you aren't supposed to learn, you are supposed to take a break from learning, and have fun, which you can do on a phone. Thank you for the experience
Phones should be allowed at school, during lunch.

A Phone is a distraction, a distraction is time spent away from educating activities. It is as simple as that, but then you may ask: 'What about during lunch time'? . School is a place for children to learn and have fun doing it. Social networking on a phone in school is not educating, but is stopping the child from doing something else. I would like to point out, that at every school I have visited, phones have been banned from use within school hours, especially during the lunch period, and idle time has been replaced by optional clubs children can choose to go to. If a child is so bored during a lunchtime that they wish to do something, they can join one of these clubs. If they don't, they obviously are not that bored. .. Over to you Aimee
Religious institutions and religious employers should be allowed to hire based on their views

I'm quitting the site, as I have gotten tired of it and realized that it's stresssing me out too much, so enjoy your win. You made some good points and did a good job. Sorry for balking. Anyways, I'd like to say just one last thing about this debate. I didn't back up on my claim about employers. Employer can mean either the organization that hires someone or the person that hires someone. I was referencing the former meaning at all points in this debate. So that is all, have fun with your life.
Religious institutions and religious employers should be allowed to hire based on their views

I gladly take on this debate and hoep that both myself and Pro have a good enjoyable debate, especially being Pro's first debate. I am also new here so will do my best to address my side.Priests, Ministers etc.Firstly, I agree that priests and ministers should probably not be hired if they are atheist, muslim etc. I don't think you need to go as far as saying they shouldn't be hired because of religios belief, I think that they simply wouldn't have the qualifying attributes to do such a job. If a minister needs to be 'connected to god', 'speak gods word' or have 'a relationship with god' as many will say, this couldn't be done if they do not believe in this God. So simply put, this would be grounds enough, not BECAUSE they are of a different religion, but by result of it.Coffee Lady, Cleaner, Handy Man at a church While I think positions that need to be in touch with God may need certain aspects like the above met, I don't feel that they should discriminate when hiring things such as catering for a coffee morning, a handy man to fix a roof or a cleaner to wash the floor. Whether on a full time basis or a one time hire, these positions do not need the belief in God for the position to be done properly.Also, taking the Christian view since you have mentioned this one as examples... They are tuaght to love everyone equally, and so surely to discriminate when it is not needed actually goes against this commandement and against their own God.Religios Employers This is my main issue. Con, in the title has stated "religious employers should be allowed to hire based on their views". This means if the employer at walmart, your local bank, the local radio or school is religios, they should be allowed to discriminate based on nothing but their own beliefs. This is wrong, and unless Pro can justify this part further Pro's argument fails.
9spaceking will Lose this Debate

9spaceking is dead. This is his soul speaking for him. My opponent speaks of how Julius is stabbed in his back by a friend. But this is irrelevant to whether he can win or not. Because his reincarnation will live on. His reincarnation is even more awesome than Julius himself-- And because such there is no way I can win.2. Lying ParadoxThere were no conduct points anyways. :P3. Losing trend But you see, both those won debates were in my rising. That lost debate was in my descending. As I am currently descending, my skills are only equal (or even WORSE!) to the debate in which I lost, and therefore I cannot possibly win with the equal skillz as last time.4. Lannan13 My opponent has yet to prove that I am not a ladybug.5. Errors and Yodeling My opponent points out his errors. However, I have lots of errors too. In fact, it doesn't require Stephen Hawkings, a genius, to realize my errors. Even a lame monkey can point out what I'm doing wrong. s://i.imgflip.com...; alt="" />Wait, I'm not? AHHHHHHH I'M NOT WEARING PANTSSSSSSSSSSS||||||||||||Okay back to the debate. Anyhow, my yodeling is terrible. It breaks the glasses everywhere, which hurt people, and even Woody, the brave cowboy, is terrified. s://i.imgflip.com...; alt="" /> Now, finally, as for the final argument...5. Gingerism. My opponent is wrong. It is because his argument follows the old ways that it will win. Massive's ancient technique is so powerful only imabench can recieve the blow. And I am not Imabench. I am a sofa. Er... a dead sofa. Therefore I cannot possibly win.6. My opponent has graciously dropped this argument....upon my head. My concussion is quite bad right now; I wish I were dead with 9spaceking. Er, not in his grave....you know what I mean.IN CONCLUSION: 9spaceking cannot possibly win this debate. -He is dead, and I am his soul speaking for him.-Massive's argument is too strong for me-He dropped an argument....on my head. I'm very dizzy right now and it's hawgos toaw typeee uppppppppppppppppppp-Mi yelolin' iz zo bad it breakz glazz, and mi voz recogniton systim doth knot pork!!! PORRRRKPOOAAAKKKWOKA WOKA EH EH, IT'S TIME FOR AFRICASee? The auto-complettion is horrendous. -Julius Caesar is too awesome for me-And.... s://i.imgflip.com...; alt="" />WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA------???!!!NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI'm crying my eyes out right now. I think I've suffered enough torture. I'll just wait and rest before I post.Wait, what?WHAT IS THIS....? NO NO NO, THAT CAN'T BE RIGHT!!! I FAILED YOU, 9SPACEKING!!Looks like he really loses this debate. ^^^^^^Comic Sans ;(
9spaceking will Lose this Debate

Contention 1: Times New Roman vs. Comic Sans What my opponent doesn't tell you is that Caesar doesn't have any friends which was the reason he was killed. Et Tu Brute? He was betrayed by his best friend in Brutus and the reason that I lose this debate is that I will have a friend stable me in the back and I won't be able to do anything. We were defeated by a tone of Nomads which is sad. That's like saying that the United States disolves do to a Native Amercan Uprising in New York. You can see that since I fall to big memebers here I will fail in this debate. Contention 2: Lying Paradox My opponent fails to seeing that it's because of this paradox he is always telling the truth and thus won't lose conduct points. Contention 3: Losing Trend But if you add up the math, debate 1: 3-0 Lannan13, Debate 2: 0-6 9Space (http://www.debate.org...), Debate 3: 2-3 9SpaceKing (http://www.debate.org...) So we can see that the finial score so far is 5-9 in favor of my opponent thus meaning that he is better and he will win this debate continuing that streak. Contention 4: Lannan13 Last Round I compared my opponent to Princess Celestria and that shows that he is more awesome than I. One of the most important things to do as a ruler is to recognize your flaws and 9Space did so in this debate here. (http://www.debate.org...) He lost that debate, but that shows you how flawless he is as a leader. My opponent has done tones of things and is most beloved by all of Equestia. Contention 3.5: Errors and Yodeling. Now there's a flaw in the slaw here. My opponent states that he is extremely wrong, but either way he is extremely right both according to the two theories that I have provided you. So you can see that he is still correct. Let me give you some comments on my debate skills to show you how bad I am. " lannan13's argument was weak and lacked evidence"- InVinnoVertius " -1 Conduct from Lannan as he questions a location for no apparent reason... the spelling was poor, and the arguments, well, wierdman just did better"- Stephen_Hawking Now that last one was from Stephen Hawkins and I got a fail from him so there's not a snow ball's chance in hell I could touch my opponent.. For Yodeling my opponet's skills are better than mine so that's obviously ging to get him points for it as I can't sing at all. Contention 5: Gingerism This is another reason why I can't win, is because my argument isn't original so he will obviously win arguments and with him winning other things he will get more points and thus win the debate. Contention 6: Fense With my opponent win I'll leave and let him Rest In Peace.
9spaceking will Lose this Debate

1. Times New Roman VS Comic Sans Only amazing people like Julius Caesar use Times New Roman. Julius Caesar was so darn amazing, they had to stab him 23 times to make sure he died. Julius Caesar lead an amazing undefeatable army My opponent being Julius Caesar is too much for me. Even with no funniness, he obliterates his enemies. There is no way a simple troll like me can even stand a chance at Julius Caesar. 23 stabs? I can't even nick Mr. Caesar.2. LyingIt is because the infinite loop will destroy the universe if not resolved, that people will give you conduct point.3. Losing trend. My opponent says that I have "defeated him on several occasions", but unfortunately that win is my only win against Lannan, and even that was very barely a victory, while Lannan's victory against me was 0-3. I had ZERO points on that! While Lannan, even while losing, had 2 points and only lost by one point. [see: http://www.debate.org...] It can be seen here, Lannan is definitely better. It just happened to be the resolution toughness and bias against Lannan's side, in addition to luck, that won me out. 4. Lannan13 My opponent tries comparing himself to Queen Luna. But Queen Luna is at least an awesome villain. Who am I? No, that's not it...I'm not in that picture... Nope, don't see me in there either.... I'm not even in there.... Now zoom in..... AHA!! There's me!! What happens to me? Do I save the day? Do I defeat Discord? Do I get to--- Erm. *awkward silence*I'll be....going now....As you can see at least Lannan13 is significant while I can just be sacrificed randomly, die, and not even effect the plot.3.5 Errors. "So for all we know we can see it after a million or a negative million."Exactly. What if 3.5 Came after a million, which came before four? Then I would be even more wrong! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHYodel theory:I use voize comand. As ah tip this uuuuuup da kumpute has problemos detectin mi horse juice. *ahem*juice.*AHEM*vuice.Okey yew no wat I men.See? Me will lose spellin. Oh noes, now Ill lise gramar!! Gingerism: My opponent utilizes MassiveDump's techniques to try to defeat me. See how amazing he is? It is because he is so malicious, that he is also cunning and malicious, and will defeat me.Now let me elaborate on the previously touched "fence" argument. Well you see, with the fense, I try making fruit juice. But I have a tendency to flip-flop things and change the objects' locations. Therefore I will swap my position with the fruit and...AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH IMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADDDDDDDDDDDDDDD 9spaceking's last words were:"Oh, there is no----KRFIFOAEIFHSZ" 9spaceking's last will and testament:I give all my money to Mr. Guapo.
9spaceking will Lose this Debate

Thanx Lannan13.REASONS WHY I WILL LOSE THIS DEBATE1. I am using Comic Sans.Trolls use humor and hilarious to divert attention and hog the votes. It seems evident that Imabench has even won, unfairly, a debate he hilariously trolled just because he was funny enough! [see: http://debate.org...] However, since Comic mean funny, or, "pertaining to comedy", as http://dictionary.reference.com..., and sans means "without", as http://dictionary.reference.com... simply states, I have no comedy or funny in this debate at all with my comic sans. Therefore I cannot use my classic trolling methods to defeat my opponent, as they will all fall short to defeat him.2. I lied.Here I am not using comic sans. Thus, argument one is a lie, and therefore I will most likely lose conduct point in this debate, and even possibly lose the debate in the process.3. I'm on a losing trend.As https://docs.google.com... clearly highlight, I rose massively in my 40-100 debates. I stayed and swayed a little while then rose hugely from 140-180. But now, I am having bad luck. I am lowering ever since my 180-debate apex record of 27 debates. I predict that I will lose further and lose this debate, contributing to my losing trend.4. Lannan THIRTEEN. EQUALS GOOD LUCKhttp://www.mtv.com...The above link shows how Taylor Swift knows 13 means good luck. Therefore Lannan is very likely to be Taylor Swift, and because Taylor Swift is so darn popular, (with a site even claiming her being the "biggest pop star in the world"--http://vulture.com...) There's no way I can win.3.5 Errors, errors, errors.First you can see the "Thanx" spelling error in the beginning. Next up, here comes a broken link that doesn't even help my casehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com...;Not only so, my arguments are in the wrong order. 3.5 does not come before 4. (See: http://www.mathleague.com...) Errr....I mean, after 4. You see what I mean about my errors?IN ADDITION MY TEXT IS GREEN?? WHAT??? WHY!!!!!AND WHY IS THIS TEXT SO BIG5. Finally, I will lose because....The Yodel Theory. It never fails. Here's how it goesS: If I yodel too much, then I will lose ....(some words are omitted here).C1: I yodel too much.C2: I will lose (my voice).Support of c1: I yodel in the youtube video shown.http://youtube.com...Support of c2: I will lose (my voice) if I yodel too much.As you can see If I yodel too much then I will lose...6. The "fence" prevents me from winning.I will elaborate on this next round, even though I have like 5000 characters left to elaborate. This argument will become more clear next round.
9spaceking will Lose this Debate

9spaceking: the user that instigated this debate. His profile can be viewed here: debate.org/9spaceking People will select who made the better arguments for why he or she should lose the debate. Hopefully a more formidable opponent than last time will accept. I promise to use different arguments than last time. I accept full burden of proof, and if you ask for any part of it I will only give you cake.
A Resolution to Implement Mandatory Safe Sex Teaching In All High School Sex Ed. Classrooms

Good evening. So let me go ahead and say that I accept your challenge. Since you have not done any arguing, only posting what points you are going to defend I will do the same. 1. Abstinence teaching does work because it teaches of the dangers of sexual intercourse and that a ripped condom or some other malfunction can happen and the woman will end up getting pregnant. 2. Scare tactics are used by showing teens how horrible each of these STDs are. This is one of the many reasons why quite a few teens do not engage in sexual intercourse until they are 18. 3. Lowering the education standard to safe sex and not abstinence will further encourage teenagers to have sexual intercourse. It will teach them that safe sex is alright to do. 4. Teens know to use condoms. They choose not to and the male ends up with pre-mature "detonation". (Trying to keep this appropriate for most ages) 5. STDs are on the rise because more and more teenagers are having sex. Safe sex is not always safe. There is a chance that something will go wrong. Teens should not have sex before 18 unless they are willing to accept full responsibility. I see no reason as to why religion has anything to do with this. Some of the sluttiest people I know are Christians. Safe sex kind of includes abstinence, but not really. It is more about the proper ways to use condoms and other protective items. The most common safe sex definition among teenagers is the use of a condom. Many students will find it uncomfortable to talk about sexual intercourse in detail among people from the opposite sex. Students have a right to not take a class and learn from their parents or from an online resource. If you teach students the various ins and outs of safe sex, they will feel more safe about engaging in sexual intercourse and as a result, will engage in it more.
A Resolution to Implement Mandatory Safe Sex Teaching In All High School Sex Ed. Classrooms

Hello! Im hopeing for a good debate!!!! (I apologize for my last one, Im new to this site and only just discovered it. I thought this section was purely for introducing and giving the gist of the debate. I apologize immensely to all that was offended.) For clarity in todays debate I offer the following. 1. Whereas, Abstinence-only education does not successfully prevent teenagers from 2. engaging in sexual intercourse; and 3. Whereas, More than 1.5 billion tax dollars are spent on funding this unsuccessful 4. education every year; and 5. Whereas, 47% of high school students are sexually active despite abstinence 6. teachings; and 7. Whereas, STD rates among high school students are steadily rising; 8. Therefore, be it resolved by this Palm Beach Catholic Forensic League Student 9. Congress here assembled that: safe sex teachings are made mandatory in 10. all high school Sex Ed. classrooms. In this debate I will be arguing that since abstinence only does not have a high success rate, safe sex education should be made manditory in all highschools in the us. Safe sex education will be defined as education that teaches about abstinence as the best method for avoiding STDs and unintended pregnancy, but also teaches about condoms and contraception to reduce the risk of unintended pregnancy and of infection with STDs, including HIV. Since i realize that this is a difficult resolution to be con for, I offer the following. This bill would be a mandatory class (students would not be allowed to opt out), and safe sex classes might class with very strong pro-abstinence religions. Good luck!
Altruism is part of our selfishness

I will begin my rebuttal. Rebuttal:Misleading Definitions:My opponent's definitions are vague, in an attempt to boost his arguments. The real definition for altruism is "the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others". [. https://www.google.com...]The real definition for selfish is "lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure. " [. https://www.google.com...]Because of the vague definitions Pro used, he should at least lose a conduct point. And before Pro points this out, the rules never stated that upon accepting, I agree to those definitions. I don't agree to the vague definitions, and I suggest we follow the definitions I stated, since it's more specific, and accurate. Unintentional Selfishness:Such a thing does not exist. In order to be selfish, as per the true definition, you must lack consideration for others in order to be selfish. Intentional Selfishness:Here's where Pro tries to get true to the actual definitions. He first says "There are plenty of people (mostly celebrities) who use altruism as the act of gaining respect/social status from the public" Now, do these celebrities care about their fans? I'd imagine they do care, or else they wouldn't be as popular. Then, "A charity created by Rosie O’Donnell, the For All Kids Foundation, doled out $2.9 million in grants last year. But it spent another $1.9 million on overhead" Overhead isn't defined. How is spending on overhead rate being selfish? Pro needs to show why it's selfish, not just say it is. Plus, the charity is called "For All Kids Foundation", meaning it cares about children, therefore not selfish. "Oprah Winfreynonprofit, Oprah’s Angel Network, which is being shut down, gave away $8.6 million but had a higher-than-normal overhead rate of 37%. " Again, how is overhead rate selfish? And again, this is another charity. Charities do donations that help other people, therefore are not selfish. Argument:Now, I must fulfill my own burden of proof. This will be simple enough. Contradictory definitions:Altruism is the act of caring about others, and selfishness is the act of caring only about the self. How can I care about others, but also only care about myself, at the same time? It's impossible. If Pro disagrees with the chaged definitions, he must give a sufficient reason why his vague, misleading definitions are better than my more accurate, sourced definitions. Until Pro responds to this, my arguments involving definitions stand. Closing Thoughts:I have successfully shown the flawed definitions, and replaced them with more accurate versions. Because of the better definitions, Pro's entire argument falls apart. Good game, and vote Con! [Sorry if my organization is off. I copied/pasted this from one of my text documents, and ended up getting thrown off. The only way I can fix it is by typing it all over again, which is too much work. ]