BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mobile phones in school should be banned

I welcome my opponent to Debate.org. I argue that students should not be permitted to use cellular telephones in public schools during school hours. I would like to note that I am not arguing against faculty, teachers, or staff having or using cellphones, if the need arises, nor against students possessing cellphones in their lockers for use after hours or in emergencies.All key words are assumed to have their normal meanings.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1. Cellphones distract students from the lessons.Given the the purpose of school is to educate the students, anything that disrupts learning is counterproductive. Most cellphones are capable of sending and receiving text messages; most phones have games on them. Smartphones are mini gaming consoles, with thousands of games available to download. Most cellphones now double as mp3 players, allowing students to take their music into class with them and listen through earbuds.I hope that I don't have to establish the widespread use of cellphones in class, sending texts, playing games, looking up answers, listening to music. It is common knowledge that these practices are ubiquitous. The quality of the education that these students are ignoring is not the question here; the point is that by engaging in these other activities the students are missing out on their main opportunity to gain a good education.Few people would argue to allow students the use of jukeboxes or gameboys in class, or to allow students to ignore the teacher and talk among themselves; this is exactly what allowing cellphones in class permits.2. Cellphones with cameras and/or internet connection aid students in cheating on exams and quizzes.Any cellphone with an internet connection permits the student to look up answers for quizzes and tests. Cellphones with cameras give the cheater an easy and discreet way of photographing exams so other students can crib off his answers. Given the purpose of testing is to prove the students grasp of the subject, these shortcuts to good grades are destructive and counterproductive. Cheating is already a large enough problem without allowing the students such powerful tools for bypassing the whole point of school. If students can merely look up the answers whenever they need them, grades lose their power as an incentive to study. Cellphones rob students of a powerful motivator to work at their education, and give them the means to slip by without working. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~For emergency purposes, for communication with parents, and for whatever harmless entertainment or communication over the lunch hour the students may use them for, cellphones are useful tools. They are harmful to education during class, however, and should not be permitted in the classroom.I return this debate to my opponent.-C
Mobile phones in school should be banned

Hello,As far I am student of high school this issue touches me a lot. I am glad I can bring this topic here.Rules1) Need to be done by 30.6 because I am leaving then2) Semantics allowed3) Pro supports that mobile phones should be bannedcon that shouldn't4) three rounds only:1. round= pro states his arguments2. round=con refute=>rebuttals3. round=rebuttals, ending5)48 hours time to argue6) 8000 characters7)Winner is determined by quality, development of arguments and forming of arguments, semantic etc.¨I hope everything has been said. I am looking forward for brave opponent.Thank you very muchBublifuk
The Current Tension in the East China Sea Islands Dispute is Japan/US fault.

In this Debate I Will argue that the current dispute over the Diaoyu/Senkaku/Diaoyutai island is the fault of the Japanese government with the indirect/direct support the United States of America. . I'm not arguing wither the islands sovereignty belong to Mainland China, Japan or Taiwan but rather the raising tension in the East China Sea is the fault of the Japanese government with the indirect/direct support the United States of America.
Obama Began His Presidency With an Apology Tour

I am offering this debate proposal to Roy Latham, a debater whose skills I frequently admire, before making it available to anyone else. In a recent debate, I offered a criticism of an argument that he repeated several times in the course of that contest. This argument relied on the following statement being true: “President Obama began his presidency with an apology tour.” Obviously, I disagree, and would like to continue this discussion with Roy Latham, or perhaps RyuuKyuzo. I will adopt the position of "Con," since I want to challenge the premise that “President Obama began his term with an apology tour.” I ask that Pro defend the premise, by demonstrating how Obama actually did embark on an "apology tour" over this timeframe. I am willing to be fairly relaxed concerning any rules for this debate, and am willing to honor any agreements made in the comments section. My only real requests of my partner is that we set aside the final round for summaries of our best arguments - as a convenience to readers who may wish to vote on our performances. I feel that such summaries allow readers to more easily digest our arguments quickly, and allow them to understand our emphasis. I also ask that all definitons come from standard dictionaries. I will use the Google Online Dictionary. Pro may begin arguments at once, in R1, if they so choose; this is a short debate at only three rounds. I don't expect to need more than two rounds for my presentation. I hate having drops counted as concessions. My point in presenting this challenge to Mr. Latham is that I have been accused of vote-rigging. I feel that this is a good way to defend my scoring decisions (such accusations bother me; I am an insufferable diva), and an opportunity for Mr. Latham to expand upon his argument.
The Military Commissions Act of 2006 should be repealed.

I disagree for a very simple reason. We should be able to protect ourselves from any and all peoples we feel are a threat to us. Now I would submit that this power must be used with discretion but, as it does violate the constitution (no rights are extended to foreigners in the constitution) I cannot find a problem from that aspect. Morally this would fall under the US defending itself so there we are allowed to morally take such measures as necessary to defend our selves. So once again I do think this power should be taken seriously however, I also think that unless serious abuse of this power can be shown the law should stay in effect.
The Military Commissions Act of 2006 should be repealed.

The Military Commissions Act (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov...) is unconstitutional, unethical, and unnecessary. Under this act, the government can declare any alien, including someone who has lived in the United States for years, an "unlawful enemy combatant." Furthermore, this act prevents "alien unlawful combatants" from invoking the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights! Instead the act lists a lesser version of some of these conventions. For example, in the Military Commissions Act, while torture and cruel and inhuman treatment are considered "grave breaches" of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, degrading and humiliating treatment are not. And if the abuse was committed before the act was passed, it must be "prolonged" to be considered cruel and inhumane. The rules for evidence to be used in trials are also unfair. Evidence cannot be excluded from trial because of a lack of warrant or other authorization. Hearsay evidence can be admissible. Statements made in which the degree of coercion is disputed are admissible if they have sufficient probative value. In other words, coerced statements are admissible if they can be used as proof. Even worse is the evidence that is not admissible. Classified evidence can be deleted from documents and the defendant given "an adequate substitute" for classified information. Evidence in which "the sources, methods, or activities by which the United States acquired the evidence" is classified can be admitted into evidence, possibly with an unclassified summary of the sources, methods, or activities by which the evidence was acquired. If the sources, methods, or activities used to obtain the evidence are classified, how can it be known whether they are legal? The Military Commissions Act also prevents detainees from challenging the legality of their detainment through habeas corpus. Although the act does have an appeals process, it is not habeas corpus. It also prevents aliens from challenging their detentions in court, even after they have been released. In other words, victims of torture or abuse can never sue for what happened to them. It can be argued that terrorists do not deserve rights. Even if this is true, this act applies not just to terrorists but to alleged terrorists. Some of the prisoners held in Guantanamo have already been found not to be dangerous, and released. One justification of The Military Commissions Act is that it is necessary because the ordinary criminal justice system is not equipped to deal with terrorists. However, the Justice Department has a perfect record of convicting al Qaeda and affiliated terrorists. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is an unnecessary piece of legislation that takes away human rights for no purpose whatsoever, and it should be repealed.
The Military Commissions Act of 2006 should be repealed.

First let me apologize for not addressing your argument about International Law. The Geneva Convention excludes from the rights granted to common soldiers. So this Law does not violate International Law but rather make that law US law as well! Second I am sorry about not being clear when i cited the defintion of combatants it is the law that rules the military tribunals you spoke of. This is why this Law cannot be used against a US citizen. Third in response to your citing of the Center for Constitutional Rights in round two. I would like to point that they used the dictionary definition instead of the legal one. And while this might not seem like such a big deal it really is so let me explain. While the legal definition defines "hostilities" as "effected or attempts to effect great physical harm to the US, its citizens, or its interests" and therefore makes wearing T-shirts and being a concerned Lawyer safe again since neither does "great physical harm". finally my opponent continues to bring up "innocent people" and thier suffering so let me respond. But first please understand that am not trying to be cold towards their plight. I do not like the fact that our legal system is flawed and that people are constantly being found innocent after spending years in prison. But I do not advocate tossing our entire Criminal Law System out the window. Instead I advocate making it constantly better. The same applies here, I don't want to through out a useful tool in stopping those who seem to think they are at war with us. I agree that it is a terrible thing that some people have been falsely accused. However I would rather fix this act, which has been a powerful tool against terrorist, rather than toss the whole thing out the window.
The Military Commissions Act of 2006 should be repealed.

I agree with you that no law is perfect, and if this law really was necessary then maybe it would be better just to fix the wholes, but as I pointed out, not only are there many horrible problems with the Military Commissions Act but it also doesn't help anything. There is no practical reason to try people under military tribunal instead of in the civilian courts, which is in fact illegal anyway. As for whether an enemy combatant can be a citizen, the actual wording of the act is: ‘‘In this chapter: ‘‘(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.—(A) The term ‘unlawful enemy combatant' means— ‘‘(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or ‘‘(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense. In other words, that anyone who has been part of or supported hostilities against the united states (with no specifics as to what hostilities are) OR anyone who the government says is an unlawful enemy combatant- and if you think the government would never accuse an innocent person, remember the McCarthy era- is an unlawful enemy combatant. NO reference to citizenship. As to a serious abuse of power being shown, does it really matter whether someone is purposely abusing the law for their own gain or the law is just so bad that even when used correctly, it is abusive? Either way innocent people suffer. And you didn't respond to my argument about why other countries should follow international law of we don't.
The Military Commissions Act of 2006 should be repealed.

First I would like to point out how the leap to imprisoning lawyers for terrorist is not possible. The word "combatant" was for a reason, because it is defined under US law as "a foreigner who effects or attempts to affect great physical harm to the US, its citizens, or its interests" so just a lawyer who defends suspected terrorists is not in danger from this Act. By the way neither are US citizens since combatant status also requires you to be a foreigner. Second in response to my statement about "abuse of power" you pointed out that the power has been misused in Guatamalo Bay. I was aware of this but you misunderstood what I meant so let me clarify. I said serious abuse of power as someone using this power for their own personal gain. I know that no matter what the law will be imperfect however we should try to fix the holes instead of tearing down the whole seawall.
The Military Commissions Act of 2006 should be repealed.

Your argument is that we should be able to protect ourselves by any means necessary. However, as I pointed out, the MCA is NOT necessary. Additionally, the exact wording is that anyone who "has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its cobelligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant," or anyone else who "has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant" is an "unlawful enemy combatant". This does not specify U.S. citizens, and actually can apply to U.S. citizens, such as for example, anti-war protesters or even lawyers for suspected terrorists. The part that does apply only to non-U.S. citizens is the suspension of habeas corpus. And the wording is so broad that the US government can detain any non-US citizen anywhere, and they don't have the chance to challenge their detention in court. A report by the Center for Constitutional Rights states that "Examples of people who could be detained indefinitely with no access to a court include: A foreign tourist wearing an anti-Bush t-shirt at the Statue of Liberty or a protester at an immigration rally who has lived in the U.S. since she was six months old and is a lawful, permanent resident." You also said that you think its okay unless serious abuses of this power can be shown. Serious abuses of this power HAVE been shown! The Military Commissions Act is what allows the U.S. government to detain suspects indefinitely in Guantanamo Bay. And while you may consider this necessary to defend ourselves, keep in mind that some detainees in Guantanamo Bay have ALREADY been shown to be innocent, and even then not released. Also, if we want to protect ourselves, we should give other countries a reason to follow international law and treat our soldiers humanely if they are captured. But if we say the Geneva Conventions don't apply to us, why should anyone else follow them?
Moral Permissibility is acceptability, not obligation.

I feel like this might be a bad decision, but I'll take this.I will let you know that I will be running different positions and that you have the burden to prove two things:1. Moral Permissibility is acceptability2. Moral Premissiblity is not obligationI think that since the comments indicate that this topic might be a little bit biased to your side, I think you can agree to that.
Ending the War on Drugs Would Discriminate Against Sensitive Personalities

This is a reverse debate. Con will take the side of an insensitive personality who is not vulnerable to addiction. Pro will take the side of a sensitive personality who is vulnerable to addiction. It is indisputably assumed that Con and Pro agree that the War on Drugs should end. For Con to win, Con must humiliate Pro into admitting to be a second class citizen. That is Pro must deal with fellow citizens using drugs in society despite how sensitive personalities cannot use drugs without becoming addicted. This means sensitive personalities must pay biased taxes and adhere to a biased rule of law. For Pro to win, Pro must stand up for oneself and prove that equal social status still exists. That is despite how Pro cannot use drugs without becoming addicted, tax policy and the rule of law still respect who Pro is. This is even though taxes will be used to accommodate drug users, and drug users will be equally policed over. First round is acceptance. Final round is rebuttal only.
Bible Contradictions

You were not arguing that the Midrash could be wrong, you were arguing that the Bible has contradictions. The Midrash, which contains exegetical discourses as well as homiletical teachings, can help us resolve some of these apparent contradictions. I haven't checked the Midrash thoroughly here, but if I am not mistaken; it does not talk too much about this particular apparent contradiction. This is possibly because the rabbis did not detect any apparent contradiction, and you're digging for one for the sake of arguments. Nevertheless, the Midrash has other things to tell us about this part of the Torah, like the 7 days, etc. All of your arguments reflect off of the Documentary Hypothesis, so why shouldn't my arguments reflect off of the Midrash? And are we really going to let this debate become a grammar war? I think we have better things to talk about, like other apparent contradictions which you can bring up. But still, it would be improper to leave my response at that.You are arguing that the root word בוא (transliteration: bo) combined with the prepositional word אֶל (transliteration: el) denotes "went into/going into/came into"... But this is false. Bo means come, and el means to or into. It can also mean come to, not only come into. In fact, I can even give you a scriptural verse which uses it in this context. "Veyad Hashem hayita eli ba'erev lifnei bo hapalit vayiftach et pi ad bo eli baboker vayipatach pi velo ne'elamti od""Now the hand of the Lord had been upon me in the evening before the coming of the fugitive and He opened my mouth before [his] coming to me in the morning, and my mouth was opened and I was no longer mute"Will you translate that verse as "coming into me"? Our first verse (7:7) can be translated as "coming to", and our second verse can be translated as "coming into" with the context that I provided above from the Midrash. If you want to translate them both as "coming into" - go ahead. The least you can do, however, is admit that there is not necessarily a contradiction. There's a famous and very relevant Midrash which relates,When Moses wrote the Torah and came to the verse "Let us make Man", which is in the plural and implies ח"ו there is more than one Creator, he said: "Sovereign of the Universe! Why do you thus furnish a pretext for heretics to maintain that there is a plurality of divinities?" "Write!" G-d replied. "Whoever wishes to err will err..." That is, one who sincerely seeks the truth will see it; one who looks for an excuse to blaspheme will find it. (Chumash, Stone Edition).
Bible Contradictions

My opponent is using the Midrash that his fundamentalist interpretation allows for. This, however, does not negate my arguments. Quite frankly, my opponent is using circular reasoning "My holy text says X is true, so X must be true." The Midrash can be wrong, and that is what I am arguing. I doubt you'd give a Christian the same leeway to let the New Testament interpret the Torah without providing evidence.My concentration for this round, as I think will be the concentration for the next two rounds: Genesis 7:7 and whether it truly means "went into." My opponent misunderstood my argument. My argument for "go into" in verse 7 was NOT that the preposition "el" went strictly "into." Instead, I was arguing that the root word "בּוֹא" was used both in 7:7 in 7:11. Combined with a prepositional el, this certainly denotes a coming into.I want to keep this brief so the reader's can get a very, very blunt look at this without the fluff of other needless point:1. My opponent is using circular reasoning by saying his holy texts' interpretation of his holy texts is 100% correct without discussion.2. The word for "into" that I was discussing was not the "el" preposition that my opponent described. It was a combination of root-word bo and el that creates the denotation of entering... and it's used in both Genesis 7:7 and 7:11.