BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should Technology Be Allowed In School

I'm not talking about outside of school. I'm talking about in school. In school technology is better then a textbook. I have never seen ONE textbook that had more information then a laptop. The use of technology will make learning easier because of all the learning games, websites and articles. Let me ask you a question. Would you rather have someone post something bad about you on the internet or say something bad about you at school in front of everybody. Cyber bullying isn't the problem, I'm talking about how people learn and your going off topic. I want you to name one time when a textbook had more information then a laptop.
Should Technology Be Allowed In School

whether it is optional or not is irrelevant; technology outside of school ( laptops, mobile phones, consoles etc) are getting out of hand. Obviously in this day and age there is no point saying we shouldn't use it, but with the technology that surrounds the majority students outside of school, it would be bad to exasperate the situation by exposing students to more technology. I agree with you saying that "games will be blocked" but it's not the fact that students will play games - it's the fact that technology is not as good as books and does not help your ability to think. Not only can they cause addictions and diminish health but too much technology can cause distractions in the classroom luring students away from what they should be doing. On numerous occasions, I have seen students access websites that are completely irrelevant to what they should be doing. Technology can also take children away from the real world; socializing can be affected and students have the tendency to focus and concentrate less in the classroom. Social networks eg facebook, twitter and instagram can be used to bully, and to expand on the lack of socializing, I believe that there are less kids going outside and participating in sport. Also out of curiosity let me ask you this question: As a parent, what would you rather, your child attending eg basketball club or playing games at lunch at school? ( thinking logically). It's not just about benefiting students in school, you have to look at the effects in moderation. Yes technology may benefit a student, but in my opinion I think that the time given to students to use the technology should be restricted and monitored. Additionally, sports and clubs should be accentuated in oppose to computers. You cannot just look at technology from one perspective; granted they can be good for studying but you must look at the other side of the coin. Technology can be bad for health and can be the place for cuber bullying. It is a very bad thing if used inappropriately.
Atheists have everything to lose and nothing to gain

No problem Deb. I"m having a very interesting discussion with some other debaters in the comments section. I appreciate their input tremendously. I am going to paste some of what was said there to illustrate an argument that I call the Accountability Argument. I do this just for the sake of stating my position in this round. If I believe in the God of the Bible and die, then I will not be held accountable for disbelief and will be rewarded by gaining a life everlasting with God. Nothing to worry about. If I believe in the God of the Bible and die, and he did not exist, then I will not be held accountable for disbelief or anything else because I will cease to exist. I have nothing to worry about. If the atheist die, and the God of the Bible exists, then he or she will be held accountable for disbelief and will be judged accordingly. Something to worry about. If the atheist die and there is NO god, then the atheist will cease to exist and will not be held accountable for anything. Nothing to worry about. If I believe in the God of the Bible and die, then I will not be held accountable for disbelief and will be rewarded by gaining a life everlasting with God. If I believe in the God of the Bible and die and rejected Buddhism, then I will not be held accountable for disbelief or anything else because I will re-incarnate. I have nothing to worry about. If a Buddhist dies, and the God of the Bible exists, then he or she will be held accountable for disbelief in the God and will be judged accordingly. Something to worry about. If a Buddhist die, and the God of the Bible do not exist, then he or she will re-incarnate and will not be held accountable for anything. Nothing to worry about. In each case a belief in the God of the Bible presents the best probabilities not to be held accountable and face judgement.
Atheists have everything to lose and nothing to gain

Atheists have a 50/50 percent chance not to be held accountable for not believing in God. Christians cannot be held accountable at all for believing in God. The odds favor the Christian believing in God. My position is as follows: If I believe in God and it turns out God did not exist then I don"t have to face any accountability for my disbelief. If I am right that the Christian God does exist then eternal awards awaits me when I die and still do not have to face any accountability and do not have to face any judgment. If the atheist is right he or she will not have to face any accountability for not believing in God. But should the atheist be wrong he/she will be held accountable and will have to face judgment accordingly. It is therefore my resolution that that it is better to believe in the Christian god than not to believe in Him.
Atheists have everything to lose and nothing to gain

The argument I present seems similar to what is known as Pascal's wager but it is not the same as Pascal's wager. The accountability argument is based on contrasting many different views held by many different religions and different people. It does not matter if the view about the God in question is correct or not because the argument leaves open the option that I might be wrong and therefore the other person is correct and will therefore not be held accountable. Therefore the "which God argument" against Pascal"s wager does not work against the accountability argument. There is uncertainty in death and you cannot, as an atheist, verify that you will cease to exist, just like everyone else cannot verify their particular beliefs until they die. The argument weighs the probabilities to see which view IN THE END is more favorable. A general description is that "Pascal argues that a rational person should LIVE (emphasis mine) as though God exists and seek to believe in God"". https://en.wikipedia.org.... Pascal's wager was about the odds of serving God based on whether he existed or not. Although Pascal was a Christian he spoke in general terms and made general references and said that everyone MUST wager. The Accountability argument is more specific and focused on examining beliefs rather than how to live. The accountability can also be used to contrast religions and even religious views within groups claiming the same origins to determine which view is more favorable. For example: Jehovah"s Witnesses says that death means one will cease to exit. Nothing to worry about when you die and were not a Jehovah "s Witness. If the Bible is correct, when the Jehovah"s Witness die, he or she will be judged because they rejected Jesus as God who is our Savior. Something to worry about. Instead of betting on the tree (the wager) you seek to know the tree by its fruits.
Death Penalty

The death penalty not only can prevent a murderer from going free eventually, but it can also possibly save innocent lives. Stated by James A. Ardaiz in an article, "A number of independent empirical studies have reached the conclusion that the existence and imposition of the death penalty results in a statistically demonstrable reduction in murders. And that means human beings are alive today instead of dead as a result of a law." The death of the convicted murderers has been proven by independent studies to reduce the amount of murders in our country. Our death penalty needs to be kept in place because it keeps innocent people safe and rids the world of a convicted murderer. Ardaiz, James A. "Retribution Is Not Only a Need of Society; It Is a Right to Those..." Los Angeles Times. 28 Oct 2012: A.35. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 16 Oct 2013.
Death Penalty

There are people who try and understand the eighth amendment and I believe that the people who wrote the eighth amendment were actually trying to say that there should be some restrictions on unusual and cruel punishment, but not get rid of the death penalty all together. In the article The Death Penalty: Dilemma: Opening , this statement was quoted, "In the first Perspective, Dr. Joseph Melusky argues that the language of the Eighth Amendment places limits on, but does not prohibit, capital punishment. Some form of the death penalty, he observes, has always been considered acceptable for especially heinous crimes." There are people in this world who are smart people like doctors and such who also believe that the cruel and unusual punishment does not extend to taking all of the death penalty away but restricting some forms of the death. "The Death Penalty: Dilemma: Opening." Issues: Understanding Controversy and Society. ABC-CLIO, 2013. Web. 25 Oct. 2013.
Death Penalty

"Ultimately, the moral question surrounding capital punishment in America has less to do with whether those convicted of violent crime deserve to die than with whether state and federal governments deserve to kill those whom it has imprisoned." Death is... an unusually severe punishment, i feel there is credible evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than long terms of imprisonment. altjough I do feel the death penilty should remain for thoes crimes that are just so hanious and for those people who pose a threat to the community. Visit ProCon.org To find more On this subject
Death Penalty

Since the 1980s, there has been an increasing trend in abolishing the death penalty, typically stemming from a human rights perspective. Despite its abolishment, 74 countries continue to use the death penalty as a legitimate and deterring method of criminal justice. We should find different ways of punishing these people other than put them to death. I dont beleive in allowing these people to re join society but i feel they sould be iccolated and forced to pay for there wrong doings. "abolishment of the death penalty." Issues: Understanding Controversy and Society. ABC-CLIO, 2013. Web. 22 Oct. 2013
Death Penalty

The death penalty is not just in place to serve justice or give closure; the death penalty is also used to keep people safe from the murderers. This is best represented in this quote, by Michael Kronenwetter, "According to the death penalty's proponents, at the most basic level, the execution of dangerous criminals can be seen as a simple matter of self-defense, because, at the very least, death stops executed criminals from ever repeating their crimes." The death penalty is a way of making the world a safer place and it is arguably a self-defense claim. People who have committed a murder do scare others in society, the thought that this murderer could be able to kill again is a great reason to sentence them to death. Kronenwetter, Michael. "Death Penalty and Crime Rates: Need To Know." Issues: Understanding Controversy and Society. ABC-CLIO, 2013. Web. 22 Oct. 2013.
Death Penalty

Though there are people who say that the death penalty is cruel and unusual, there are the facts that the possibility of the death penalty actually does cross most criminals minds before committing a murder. In an article by Michael Kronenwetter, the facts are clear about the death penalty, "In the early 1970s, the Los Angeles Police Department conducted interviews with 99 criminals who had not carried lethal weapons when they committed their crimes. According to the police, roughly half gave fear of the death penalty as the reason for their decision to reject weapons." The criminals who decided to not carry lethal weapons when they committed their crimes because of the fear of the death penalty. The threat of a possibility of being sentenced to death for crimes that a person commits proves that the death penalty may be cruel and unusual but very affective. Kronenwetter, Michael. "death penalty and crime deterrence." Issues: Understanding Controversy and Society. ABC-CLIO, 2013. Web. 18 Oct. 2013.
Death Penalty

Its easy to say that the death should stay in place... because the normal every day people have never had to make that decision before. lets look at an example, if you were to look at the average convicted felon of a heinous crime most would say send them to death row. But Recently they have been putting more thought into stepping away from using the death penitly for many reasons. When approached from a human rights perspective, opponents emphasize two points. Firstly, that the death penalty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, and secondly, that many people on death row have been exonerated of crimes both before and after their executions. In the United States, the concept of "cruel and unusual punishment" stems from the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. We cant keep making this blanket pardon for the death penitly, I'm not saying we shouldn't have the death penitly all I'm saying is we should try for rehabilitation before sending felon's off to death row. "abolishment of the death penalty." Issues: Understanding Controversy and Society. ABC-CLIO, 2013. Web. 17 Oct. 2013.
Abortion is Morally okay

"Death, or being poor and having to work at McDonald's? Besides this, Adoption is still an option"this is a very obvious solution you seem unwilling to recognize." Adoption and birth is no different. Adoption, also requires money to raise the Child. " but I have an adopted brother with birth defects" In a debate, I can't take your word, and your own life experiences. Although I doubt, there is a chance you are not telling the truth. I can understand what message you are trying to convey, but it should be solely the mother's choice to raise a child with a birth defect. Nothing is wrong if the mother doesn't want to see her child going through the pain of the cruel society tormenting the abnormal child. "because your previous two arguments have been about the child's rights (their right to wealth, and their right to not have birth defects)" Can you quote when I said its the child's right not to have a birth defect? I feel like you must have misunderstood me. It should be up to the mother to make the decision to avoid her child going through the pain of being abnormal. "The responsibility of another human being. Another beating heart. Not a 'blob of flesh,' as you put it. The child is unborn, the child is unable to live without the mother, the child is not grown" Apologies if "blob of flesh" was unprofessional. The child is still intact and part of the mother's body. No, its not a human being yet and your not killing a human being. You are preventing an undeveloped fetus from further developing. If something wrong happens, and the final baby would not have an economically strong family, or if the baby will have a birth defect, it is perfectly moral to prevent the a future child to go through that. Back to you con.
Abortion is Morally okay

First Paragraph: Your statement that it is not ALWAYS morally wrong suggests inherently that it is morally wrong in some circumstances. Second Paragraph: What if the mother was raped...why isn't adoption an option? Someone without the memories of being raped, (which I am in no way trying to downplay) can raise the child that was, by fair means or foul, conceived. Interestingly enough, according to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov..., only 5% of rapes lead to pregnancy, so this, while it's still a terrible occurrence, is few and far between. Third Paragraph: Economic Ability....Um, what would you choose? Death, or being poor and having to work at McDonald's? Besides this, Adoption is still an option...this is a very obvious solution you seem unwilling to recognize. Fourth Paragraph: Birth defects. I don't know about you, but I have an adopted brother with birth defects. And he lives a very very happy life. I understand some can be debilitating, but is it really right for anyone to decide for someone else whether or not they have the right to enjoy the life that they have been given the chance to live? Would you be okay with someone else deciding if you were able to live your life? Obviously not. Finally the last paragraph: Is it the mother's body or the child's. I find your argument contradictory and demeaning to the child. Contradictory, because your previous two arguments have been about the child's rights (their right to wealth, and their right to not have birth defects) Now this one is saying that the mother is the only one who has rights...I'm sorry, when did that happen? But back to the question, is it the mother's body. This is difficult to answer, because yes, she is carrying a great responsibility within her body. The responsibility of another human being. Another beating heart. Not a "blob of flesh," as you put it. The child is unborn, the child is unable to live without the mother, the child is not grown. But that in no way makes the child an object to be thrown in the garbage. Literally. That's all I have to say.
Abortion is Morally okay

The fact that we are aborting the child, doesn't always mean it is morally wrong. What if the mother got raped? She will have to live with her child growing up, living with that thought. Imagine how hard it would be for a mother's child to understand that. Lets say the family is economically unable to have a baby. If the mother choses not the abort the baby, the child will have to live in a poor environment, where basic survival needs are scarce. The baby, would have to live and grow in an environment, where there is a high chance it may die.(Such as places in Africa). Isn't it better to abort the undeveloped child? If the child has a birth defect, its life will be miserable. He/she will not be able to fit in the society. In some cases, it is better for the parents to not see that happening, and the child to experience that. I would like to add, that it is the mother's body. The fetus is not a person yet. It belongs to the mother. The mother should have the right to abort that child, because its the mother's body. The fetus is not fully developed, and its not fully human. Its a blob of tissue. If its life is going to be miserable, its best that you abort it before it becomes a fully functioning person. That raps up my argument for round 1.
Abortion is Morally okay

To my opponent: Please keep this respectful and calm. I don't want to offend anyone, my goal is to understand your position more thoroughly...that said, let's go. My position on abortion is that it is morally wrong. I'd like to start by addressing a few common arguments made by pro-choicers. 1. We're pro-choice, not pro-death. Basically, we're in favor of everyone deciding for themselves rather than there being a strict definition of what you can and can't do. a) I'm not saying you have no choice...I'm just saying your choice is wrong. b) You are in essence saying, if I am correct, that it's okay to end a life. Where is the line drawn. When is it okay to end a life, and when is it not? 2. We're talking about Women's rights here, not the "rights" of an inanimate thing. a) This is what the crux of this argument really is about...is the fetus alive? I'll get to this later. But here's why it's the crux: If the fetus is alive, we're not talking about Women's rights, we're talking about murder. 3. The fetus is not a human yet. (Living Being) a) Why? Why is birth the marker. To me it seems more logical that conception be considered the point of life's beginnings. Why? Simple: Both the egg and the sperm carry 23 chromosomes: an incomplete number. When those two come together, they become 46, enough for a living human. An argument could also be made for the point when the heart begins to beat, but I really really don't want to argue about when life begins, because we'll never agree on that. Here's what we can agree on: b) There are only four option for the living status of a fetus: -1. It's dead and we know it -2. It's alive and we know it -3. It's dead and we don't know it -4. It's alive and we don't know it For the sake of this argument, I'm going to eliminate Numbers 1 and 2. We can argue about proofs of life and death of the fetus...but for now I'm not going to. I'm interested, however, to hear my opponent's thoughts on the subject. So, 1 and 2 are gone. And remaining: Best case scenario, abortion is criminal neglect. What I'm saying is this: Option 1 is the only scenario in which Abortion is okay. There's statistically a 25% chance. And unless my opponent can prove without a shadow of a doubt that the fetus is dead...then we come up with a simple answer: Abortion is either murder (Under option 2 and 4), or it's criminal neglect (under option 3, when we aren't sure but it is dead). Chances are, logically, abortion is murder. The heart is beating...the being is alive. Where's the line? What makes ending the life of an unborn child okay? And why is it that abortion is conducted early on in a pregnancy? Why not later? Are there moral questions then? Why are there not moral questions earlier? Is it just because the child doesn't seem as human then? Are doctors actually questioning what they are doing? These are all questions that I ask my opponent to answer. I leave the floor to any comer. Thanks!
Local production of goods is the best way to stimulate economic growth of developing countries

Typically multinational corporations have to abide by the local laws in each nation they are present in. This can be risky for the corporation due to the possibility that the government might nationalize their enterprise in the area or impose taxes on them while supporting their own local businesses. The UN and WTO are the chief venues through which international trade rules are made and enforced though the UN lacks power and the WTO is not perceived to be legitimate in the eyes of most less developed countries. The need to operate according to each nation's laws when doing business is part of what makes international business so complicated but an example of a large corporation that has proven to be a hindrance rather than a help to each nation it has located plants in is Coca-Cola. Citizen Coke is an excellent read and outlines the idea of modern predatory capitalism very nicely. As far as how to concede the debate, I believe the voters just understand based off of what was written here. It was a pleasure discussing these ideas with you.
Local production of goods is the best way to stimulate economic growth of developing countries

Indeed. Especially since the reach of corporate power has caused traditional boundaries between countries to seemingly disappear, it would be very interesting to visit this topic, as you put it, from a theoretical standpoint of trade, particularly with understanding if there are any regulations to control how much corporations can take from any country. I am very curious to know the governed reality of an entity that functions on a global scale. Is the global level of existence today akin to unexplored frontiers of times past? Are the laws that govern how an entity functions on a global level made by the first entities that reach such a level of existence? If so, then the push for "free trade" policies makes perfect sense. Nothing else would better facilitate the movement of corporate entities among various countries and cultures. Also, what the hell is the U.N. doing concerning all this? So much to research, so much to know. I am starting to feel overwhelmed. Either way, this debate belongs to Con. After you respond it will be over. How do I ensure you receive the credit as winner? I was never good at these formalities.