BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cell phones in school

You are just repeating what I you said when I showed how it doesn't matter. *If after school activities are cancelled, the school will provide a way to contact parents. *Teachers are adults, you are most certainly not. Saying that if they have them, you should have them is a faulty argument. "That's like saying, teachers are allowed to play movies in class on the projector so we should be allowed to as well" or "Teachers don't do homework so we shouldn't have to either." That reasoning makes no sense. They are adults. If they make bad choices and get in enough trouble, they are fired. If you make bad choices, they really can't do anything to you but take your phone away. *I understand that cellphones can be helpful but the majority of kids would use it when they aren't supposed to. As it is, the average kid (highschooler) gets/sends 110 texts in class. *I can look up any word in the dictionary in about 10-20 seconds. On a phone, it takes just that long as you have to pull up the app then type it in. Maybe there is a 1-2 second difference. If you can't use it that well, you obviously aren't super good. When I was in highschool (yes almost everybody had phones including modern ones like iPhone 4S, etc) the kids who knew how to use a dictionary and normal calculator generally did better (generally) cause we were never distracted. Yes, we had phones but it wasn't worth it to use it. It is much more convenient to just have a calculator and dictionary. I don't care if your backpack is heavy. Suck it up. My senior year, I had 2 backpacks jammed with books I carried cause we didn't have lockers and I needed all the books for a single school day. *Your points about the teachers seeing the phone, why? If your phone is off, than it isn't going to help you anyway. You also stated in what we would be debating that in phones should be put away in class, "I would go for phones being aloud in the hall, lunch, and study halls, but during class they have to be put away." You also then conceded that study halls should be phone free so you are breaking your own rules you set before hand. *If kids actually obeyed, they wouldn't have phones in school at all. They already text a lot during the passing periods, etc. There is no point in just helping further that cause. Yet again, lunch time, you can socialize on your own. You don't need phones. Go find a friend and sit with them. If you have friends outside of school, then what you will be texting won't be school related and you thus, shouldn't need to talk to them. Socialize with you friends in person, not on a phone. *As for your last point about them spending less time to try and hide them, that's not true. If you are texting during the halls, it could actually increase because you then get into conversations and it is "so important" to finish that you text throughout the class. Conclusion: Overall, I have shown how phones would not be good in school. I have cited a source helping my case whereas my opponent did not and I have refuted every point that he has made. Thank you for you time.
Cell phones in school

Sorry about the allowed thing. Any ways, as I have said before, phones can allow students to contact parents if there is an emergency go home, sports or other after school activity's get canceled, or if you need to stay after to get help from a teacher on an assignment you are having problems on. In my school ALL the teachers have their phones out doing who knows what. if the teachers are allowed to have them then we should to. when we ask them why there allowed to have their phones they say in case something bad happens, but they have them out when nothing happened. another thing is that if we need to look up a word really quick in class we can just take out our phone and look it up and then put it away, and if your allowed to use calculators in class, most phones have calculators on them. Also with the phones being a distraction during class, all students can show the teacher their phone is off and has to put it were the teacher can always see it, so the teacher knows their not texting someone. Another thing is that if students are allowed to use phones in the hall and at lunch then they will be less likely to text during class, and they will spent less time trying to hide them and actually pay attention.
Cell phones in school

I would like to start by asking that you spell "allowed" as "allowed" not "aloud." Thanks. My OCD is killing me on that. Second, you can easily talk to your friends at lunch or before school. There is no reason to do it AT school. That really doesn't make sense to me. For the halls, like I stated before, you can get to class early and 1. Make sure you are prepared for class 2. Do other school to try and work. The second you let kids actually use cell phones at school (let's be honest, everybody has them anyway), the amount of use they get when they aren't supposed to be used will increase. It's bad enough that schools are letting kids have iPads and Chromebooks without having restrictions as to downloads (ie. no games). If you let kids start to use phones, it will only get worse. By letting kids use phones encourages usage. 65% of kids say that they use phones at schools anyway and about 110 texts are sent during class. Yet again, letting kids use phones in school will increase those numbers. Yes I understand that only 1,013 teens were used but the margin of error is given as only 3.1%. Just because something already occurs doesn't mean it should just be let to happen, or worse, more encouraged. Source: *http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...
Cell phones in school

You do make some good points, but in school you may have no classes with your friends and might not be able to see them in the hall. If your aloud or use your phones in the hall, and during lunch (you made a good point about study hall) you can tell them something funny so you don't forget, you can remind them that this is the day that you need your text book because this is the one time out of the year that you have to bring it to class.
Cell phones in school

Thanks for this debate. I think it should be interesting. To start, cellphones are a distraction to start. I understand you point about plans after school but when you think about it, you should know ahead of time what's going on. If you are sick, your principal/teacher/nurse will let your parents know. There is no reason for you to have to do it. In lunch, it would be better to socialize with friends and eat than to just sit there on cellphones. You should already know what you need to have for the next class. If you don't, you are slacking. That is one of the reasons why you have pens, pencils, and paper. To take notes. Study halls are specifically designed to study. You should be doing actual work in there and not socializing or sitting on your cell phone. In the hall, there is no real reason to have them. Just go to your class or to the bathroom. If you get to class early, get school stuff out to be prepared for class or do other school work, even if it is just starting to read through a chapter in the book for English.
Cell phones in school

Cell phones should be aloud in school, we can as friends what we need for the next class, we can talk to our parents about plans after school like if your suppose ride the bus home, go to a game, or be picked up. Also if your not feeling well you can ask your prints if they will be able to ice you up. I would go for phones being aloud in the hall, lunch, and study halls, but during class they have to be put away.
National Security ought to be valued above the Freedom of the Press

I must say, I have to wonder if my opponent is even reading my arguments. He failed to follow the rules in round 1, and has given one sentence of argumentation that fails to refute anything I say in his "opening argument. " So far, the debate appears to be futile as my opponnent appears to be beyond uninterested, and isn't offering any sort of valid argument. His sole point this last round was the we have the freedom of the press and we should. However, I never went against this. I do believe that we should have it, it simply shouldn't be valued over freedom of the press. Since that's the only argument my opponent presented, I have refuted him entirely and my case still stands. I must say I'm disappointed in the quality of argumentation brought up by my opponent, and I hope that he improves in his future responses. Regardless, I plan to start a new debate with the same topic and the same argument and I hope that someone who will actually allow for a deep and edifying debate will accept.
Holden Caulfield is a role model for the youth of our society

1) He doesnt do that in the book in any way 2) He rants about how he wanted to find the pimp and shoot him, he is very violent 3) the idea that he comforts readers is an opinion 4) He identifies EVERYONE as a phony, basically he hates all of society 5) If he knows who he is then why did he end up in a mental hospital? The Pro admits Holden is not a good role model and I still fail to see how someone who hates society in general and makes bad choices is a role model for young adults.
Holden Caulfield is a role model for the youth of our society

I did not say he was a good role model but yet he is a role model for young adults that can fully extract the meaning from the book. 1)He inspires teenagers to expres there mind in an educated way as he expresse's him self clearlly and direct. 2)He is not aggressive. unlike many other popular role models. 3)Comforts the young readers to love the people they are closeist to- his sister. 4)Truly expressise his true toughts on 'phoneys' who no one likes. 5)knows who he is. genially inspiring guy!
Holden Caulfield is a role model for the youth of our society

Holden Caulfield is far from a role model..... Here are some of his acts in the book "The Catcher in the Rye" 1) He is expelled from school because of very poor grades 2) Has an encounter with a prostitute in a hotel room that leads to him getting punched in the stomach by a pimp 3) Meets with his ex girlfriend and have a great time together 4) meets his ex and calls her a royal pain in the a$$ 5) Ends up in a mental hospital 6) Tells the readers its bad to miss people He is no role model
Holden Caulfield is a role model for the youth of our society

This is my first debate. And im only trying to write on a controversial topic i believe in. Holden Caulfield the character from the revolutionary book 'the catcher in the rye' is a character many of the youth society(like my self) believe in, this is due to the attitude he has towards fake and aggravating people. he does shows some disillusion and contrariety between his arguments but overall he is a revolutionary character many teenagers can relate too. excuse the spelling and punctuation. thanks
Obama is a Liberal

============= I would first like to begin by stating that I have been taking unnecessary criticsm and poor displays of conduct from ReganFan outside of this debate. Here are some examples: . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... He has personally attacked me and has created an obnoxious image for himself. He should really act his age, not his shoe size. ============ Forfeits: I greatly apologize for my second round forfeit. School has just started and I am still trying to catch up. I would just like to mention that essentially, my opponent forfeited the first round of the debate by failing to provide an opening argument and did not provide any argumentation in his third round response. Technically, my opponent has given up two rounds of the debate, whereas I have only forfeited one. Thanks for allowing me to clarify. ============ Arguments: I shall make this short and sweet. My opponent has accepted my definitions of "Liberal" and "liberal. " All I need to do is prove that by those definitions, President Obama qualifies as a Liberal. 1) Politics- Obama is favorable to progress and reform in political affairs by enacting the Stimulus Package and the "Cash for Clunkers Act. " By definition, that qualifies Obama as being liberal in reference to politics. 2) Religion- Obama is favorable to progress and reform in the acceptance of homosexuality in Christianity and in being more open-minded about other religions. By definition, that qualifies Obama as being liberal in reference to policits. Conclusion: By the presented definitions, Obama qualifies as a "Liberal" by being liberal in several instances of political and religious affairs, which fall under the word "liberal" in my round one argument. My argument may have been longer, but ReganFan's tirade outside the debate has made me feel poorly about myself. The resolution is affirmed. I heavily urge a Pro vote. Thank you.
Obama is a Liberal

I shall affirm the resolution, "Obama is a Liberal. " =============== Burden of Proof: I posses the Burden of Proof to affirm the resolution and prove that President Barack Obama is a Liberal. However, as The Instigator, my opponent also contains some of the Burden to negate my contentions and attempt to prove that Obama is not a Liberal. =============== Definitions: Obama- Barack Obama; President of the United States. Liberal- a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion. liberal- favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs. ================ Arguments: During Obama's campaign, he stressed the importance of moving forward and bringing change to America. As current President of the United States, he has done just that. Along with his Stimulus Package, he is creating various reforms (including the Healthcare Bill) in an attempt to better the American public and bring a better impact among world affairs. In political affairs, Barack Obama is favorable to progress or reform. He has instilled various bills and legislation that qualify as being favorable to progress or reform. Several examples of these are the Stimulus Package and the "Cash for Clunkers" Act. Although some may argue that these have not worked out successfully, it is irrelevant to the debate. I have proven that Obama is a Liberal in respect with politics and political standpoints. In religious affairs, Barack Obama is also favorable to progress or reform. He believes that the Bible, along with Christianity, should tolerate homosexuals instead of rejecting them. At several colleges Obama spoke at, he ordered the crosses to be removed from several distinct locations. Although my opponent may feel these are offensive to his religion, they still show that Obama is favorable to reform in religion, giving evidence that Obama is a Liberal in religious affairs. Therefore, I have proven that Obama is a Liberal in respects to political and religious affairs, which are specified by the definitons. I have affirmed the resolution. ===================== Conclusion: My opponent has failed to create an argument. I have successfully proven that Obama is a Liberal by my definitions and contentions. I heavily urge a Pro vote.
Orange Juice is better for you than apple juice

Apple Juice is clearly the superior beverage for 3 main reasons and one minor reason. 1. Drinking apple juice can lower cholesterol levels, decreasing the risk of heart attack. 2. The large amount of potassium in apple juice is good for your bones and can help with arthritis. 3. Fiber from apple juice cleans out your intestines, relieving constipation. 4. It tastes better. There are clearly more benefits that can be gained from drinking apple juice than from orange juice. http://www.zaiqa.com... http://www.drgranny.com...
Humans can kill and eat animals

'as you haven't really expanded your points to contradict mine.' 2000 characters doesn't give a great deal of room for elaboration. I've had to butcher my posts immensely. You begin by arguing that eating meat isn't cruel or unethical because it's a natural part of life. This is an appeal to nature. A lot of what happens in nature is incredibly cruel, and we as humans don't actually need to eat meat unlike the rest of it so we're in a far greater position of responsibility. Predators will sometimes eat animals alive, but they at least they have to. Meanwhile, we kill billions of animals when we basically don't need to. There is no way that treating billions of living animals as a product and putting them on an assembly line is either natural or ethical. 'A meat-centered diet can help with weight loss.' You're arguing that a diet which has been constantly criticized as a direct cause for obesity and numerous health problems is a diet that can help weight loss in comparison to the diet which has been promoted and understood by doctors and nutritionists to be better for weight loss. Furthermore, I fail to see how dead animals can possibly have less fat than vegetables. So, basically what I'm hearing is that those little green vegetables provide less of everything and yet they somehow provide more fat. This argument is simply not credible, especially given that Oxford has incredibly recently banned meat from their menu. I'm absolutely serious. 'There was no difference in overall mortality rates.' If that's the case then clearly eating meat isn't a supposedly better alternative and this proves my point that we can live without having to slaughter countless animals. And lastly, the major difference between a vegetable and an animal is that when you kick one of them they scream. It's false equivalence to try and propose a resource we actually need to survive that can't feel pain is the same as one we don't which doesn't.
Humans can kill and eat animals

Unfortunately it's your word against mine, as you haven't really expanded your points to contradict mine. Eating meat is not cruel or unethical; it is a natural part of the cycle of life. It has been an essential part of human evolution for millions of years. Meat is the most convenient protein source available. In one serving, meat provides all the essential amino acids (the building blocks of protein), as well as essential nutrients such as iron, zinc, and B vitamins. Also, meat provides healthy saturated fats, which enhance the function of the immune and nervous systems. Eating meat provides a better source of iron than a vegetarian diet as well. The body absorbs 15% to 35% of the heme iron in meat, but only absorbs 2% to 20% of the non-heme iron found in vegetarian sources like leafy greens and beans. A meat-centered diet can help with weight loss. It takes fewer calories to get protein from lean meat than it does from vegetarian options. One serving of lean beef contains as much protein as one serving of beans or a veggie burger. However, the lean beef has half the calories of beans, and 50%-75% fewer calories than the veggie burger. Vegetarians do not live longer. This myth stems from the fact that vegetarians tend to be more health conscious overall, eating a more balanced diet, exercising more, and smoking less than the general population. When a peer-reviewed April 2011, 2005 study from the German Cancer Research Center compared health conscious meat eaters with vegetarians, there was no difference in overall mortality rates. In 2001 about 95% of animal products consumed in the United States were produced in the United States. Despite the US consumption of about 27 billion pounds of beef per year, the percentage of forested US land has remained steady at around 33% since 1907. Vegetarianism alleviate world hunger. The 925mn people in chronic hunger are not hungry because people in wealthy countries eat meat, it is because of wealth distribution.
Humans can kill and eat animals

'Why waste the resources that are right in front of us and make us healthier?' Because animal life shouldn't be called 'a resource' and it comes at the price of their immense suffering. For the sake of argument I'm going to assert that what you're saying is absolutely true. Okay, so being a vegan makes bones a teensy, tiny bit less dense. Is that small bonus in endurance, a trait which isn't really either important or relevant in most of our lives a fair trade for the life of another living creature, never-mind the hundreds we'll each individually kill in single life time? Around some point animal suffering probably can be justified, but I don't think a boon this minor really defends it. 'So why change?' Because the mass consumption of animals is a destructive industry which causes a great deal of suffering and is actually harmful to the environment. It was never asked of people to change over night, that was never proposed. It's asked that we at least acknowledge that this slaughter of 60 billion lives is wrong so we can move on to changing this problem. Why change? Because change is what defines us, and because it would be incredibly negligent and selfish not to simply because it requires work. ' We have fought our way to the top of the food chain for 6mn years. Now our tastebuds have evolved to crave the savoury taste of meat. Beef is the most time-wise efficient food for humans' I'm not seeing how a teensy bit more time is worth all the lives being traded. This argument is furthermore undermined if we're talking about fast food, in which vegetarian options can be taken anyway. 'Are planted with genetically modified soy, immune to herbicides. Why add to the torture of the environment?' You're proposing a false equivalence. Soy isn't the best thing, but there's no way that it's worse than eating meat. One bad thing doesn't defend the existence of another which is worse nor on equal grounds. 2000 characters really doesn't give me much to work with.
Humans can kill and eat animals

Thanks very much for responding. I expected the debate to be done by last weekend, so I don't have much time. (BTW love the 'butcher' pun XD) Thus, I have some questions for you. 1. Whilst we talked about the health benefits of eating meat previously, researchers at Oxford University recently followed 35,000 individuals aged 20 to 89 for a period of five years and discovered that vegans are 30% more likely to break a bone than their vegetarian and flesh-eating peers. A subsequent study conducted by Sydney"s Garvan Institute for Medical Research found that vegetarians had bones 5% less dense than meat-eaters. This can be attributed to the fact that many vegetarians and vegans consume very little calcium due to the limitations of their diet. Why waste the resources that are right in front of us and make us healthier? 2. Surely the world would have to make radical changes so that everybody could have 'almond milk' in their cereal, amongst further vegan products. There would be an increased need for manual labour and space and a lot of countries do not have the space nor resources for this, when the services sector is increasing worldwide, and there are fewer people willing to backtrack to a job on a farm. So why change? 3. We have fought our way to the top of the food chain for 6mn years. Now our tastebuds have evolved to crave the savoury taste of meat. Beef is the most time-wise efficient food for humans (see http://vegetarian.procon.org...), so why change? 4. About 90% of US cropland suffers from top soil loss at 13 times the sustainable rate. 92% of US soybeans (a vegetarian staple protein) are planted with genetically modified soy, immune to herbicides. Why add to the torture of the environment? 5. Plants are living organisms too. If animals can't talk to us, plants can't talk to us. Why should we kill plants if we can't kill animals? You can't prove either have souls. Thanks and good luck.