BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Students should be allowed to be on their phones during school hours.

I am sorry, I think you are misinterpreting my argument, my arguments are based on how the cons of allowing students to be on their phones are not as major as the pros, as I value the freedom of choice and development from freedom of choice, rather then the things that you are stating above. I believe teachers should rather teach their students the cons of being on their phones, rather then just saying "its bad" and taking it away. It is basically the government thinking for them. If society is based too much on government, a lot of people that do not know what is good for them are going to be created, since the government tells them what to do, they are never allowed to think for themselves for their own good. That is how children and adolescence learn. Unfortunately, if free choice is not given to people, and they are only introduced to one way of thinking, (as in "no phones in class") and are told that that is what they should abide by and that is the right thing, people are going to go crazy. Have you seen Adam Kokesh's videos, for example "Obama Supporters Say the Darnest Things" or something like that... It features Adam asking the Obama supporters why they support Obama, and they would say "Because he is black!" "Because he is a good guy!" "Because he has done a lot of things to this country!"They give no reasoning, and the same thing I predict would happen with phones, we would ask students "Why don't you have your phone out in class?" they would say "Because it is not allowed" rather then "Since it would lessen the amount I learn in school, which my father and mother paid a lot of taxes for me to go to, and learn." Do you see the difference between close-minded people and open-minded people? People should be taught why not to have their phones out, not just simply snatch them out their pockets, or hands before they do anything that is not productive. Also, the way I came to this is a video that kids were Tweeting about some sort of a classroom controversy (they did it during lunch and recess) and were expelled from school. This was about a group of 10 students. Expelled... For going on their phones at recess and lunch. The rules now say that kids cant have their phones out at school from 8:15am-3pm (In my school), and that is just way out of line in my opinion. Expelled over Tweeting about something that happened in the classroom. What is your opinion on the arguments stated above?
Students should be allowed to be on their phones during school hours.

Although I was that student who did my homework in the classroom after I finished everything, I do know people who waited until they arrived back at home to do their homework. What's the difference between going on your phone after you're finished with your classwork and leaving the class in college when you feel as though you've learned enough for the day? If you did not have a cellphone to use in class and you are not allowed to pack up your things and leave class in middle/high school, then you have nothing else to do but reflect on the things you have learned. It also allows for the opportunity to possibly lighten a social media or phone addiction slowly when you are forced to find other things to do rather than type away. I agree that people should have choices in their lives, but these rules are not made to ruin students' lives. Like I said in round #1, people forget 40% of what they learned in 20 minutes regardless if that person is distracted or not. If you are technology-less and have nothing else to do but look over your notes or do extra credit at the end of class, you are only bettering your education. Correction: Teachers still take phones even if it is not distracting anyone but the user itself. Not sure what kind of pubic schools you went to, but we used to get detentions if a phone simply vibrated in our pocket. (It's quite alright, I understood the difference of genders, just was speaking for those who wouldn't.)
Students should be allowed to be on their phones during school hours.

Okay, I see most of your arguments are about how phones will distract students and how uneducated students have lesser chance of learning, and yes, phones are a distraction and will make the chance of students learning something less, but lets see another scenario when this crime doesn't have a victim. Last period of the day, you finish all of your classwork, and you mostly do your homework at home. You decide to check your phone for text messages, or just plainly start playing on your phone without distracting anyone.(I define classwork as in worksheets, readings, and listening to the teacher lecture) There is just plainly nothing wrong about this. Again, it is the person's choice to make, is he going to get on his phone, or is he not? He can either read through his notes one more time or get on his phone to text whoever, or go on social media. I believe that people should have maximum choice over their lives, and also, people develop by learning from their mistakes. If a person goes on their phone often in class, and sees that their grade is dropping, and they understand the value of knowledge, they have the decision to put down their phone. If the phone is a distraction, a teacher should take it away. It should be the teacher's choice to take away the phone or not, and a teacher is not going to go around snatching phones if its not distracting anyone. (Sorry could have written more of a response but I didn't notice the clock ticking and have to go for a bit. Also sorry for the confusion with the names I was thinking about "Sam" as a boy name, and I think I didn't notice it is "Sammy" which is a nickname referring to a girl...)
Students should be allowed to be on their phones during school hours.

Although your scenarios are both very possible (disregarding the fact that one might be a little confused in the first story because poor Sammy had clearly switched genders by the middle of it), you are not exactly grasping the point of the rule against phones in the classroom, which you did pick up in the part where you predicted the future arguments. However, on that note, it is not as simple as the unintelligent versus the intelligent. Nobody is unintelligent, but people can be uneducated and having phones in class will cause that to happen. Studies show that a person forgets 40% of what they learned 20-minutes after they have learned it, which would be a third of the usual public school class period of one hour. That already is a problem in itself, but if you factor in having a cell phone in your hand while working on classwork and such, you raise that percentage to an even higher number and it runs the risk of doing so for everybody around that person who is distracted by what's on the screen of that cellphone. If you give every student in school the opportunity to learn something new, something will stick whether it's how to solve e=mc"(squared) or how to tell the difference between a fruit and a vegetable. They will either use that information for something in the future or it will come back to their mind and they will be able to say that they actually learned something. Education and knowledge are two extremely important things in life, it gives people a sense of self-power when you can confidently say you know how to solve a difficult math problem or you know how to properly write a paper in Chicago format. Who would be selfish then? The student who took the attention away from the kids around them because they were on their phone during class, or the teacher who took their student's opportunity to learn something new so they allowed them to stay on their phone because they believed that student didn't have what it takes to be intelligent anyway? Kids who do not understand that knowledge is of great value are influenced by their parents, but are mostly influenced by their surroundings and their generation. In his psychoanalysis practice, Sigmund Freud studied the unconscious mind in all of its glory. A "follow the leader" theory was concluded from said study which states that if one person does something, regardless if there is a rule against it or not, then everybody else will assume that it's now okay to do the same thing. If one kid takes out their cellphone in the middle of class and doesn't finish their work, the other kids will follow in their lead. The sad truth is that the one specific student who took their phone out first most likely witnessed another kid in another class do the same thing and noticed that they did not get caught. Allowing phones in class does not necessarily mean that a child will not grow up to be the next Stephen Hawking, but it will lessen their chances of doing so.
third trimester of pregnancy should be heavily regulated as per abortion

I was referring to table 16 from the CDC statistics: for girls under 15, 5.1% of abortions were late term, 15-19: 2.4%. The older age groups range between 1.1 and 1.4% of abortions late term. The bigger problem is the difficulty of objectively inquiring into the reasons women decide on abortion. I can think of no blind method of collecting data, especially because it is necessary to account for very subjective influences. It is likely physical health is not a major factor in most abortions. Money, fear, and maturity(of the mother) are more prominent factors, but more restrictive legislation is not going to prevent abortions The only effective ways of reducing abortions are to prevent unwanted pregnancies and to give pregnant women more options.
third trimester of pregnancy should be heavily regulated as per abortion

i don't see where you get the stats you claim from that link. could you quote it? given your propensity to make up things as in your first post, i wouldn't be surprised if you're stretching the truth of what you found in your second post. but, with that said, i can't find many statisitics on the internet to back up my claim. i assumed it was true. in fact, all i found was fact backing up yours... http://www.drhern.com... i'll have ot check more from time to time and keep an eye out. as of now, i concede the argument and you win. (other than to say if it's possible to regulate non-health and deformities then it should be, i'm just not sure how much that's poossible)
third trimester of pregnancy should be heavily regulated as per abortion

Wasting money on ineffective legislation is always a problem. What are the traits that define a human being? Intelligence, curiosity, and metacognition? Does a fetus or newborn have all of those traits? There is dispute that it can be called murder, especially when you haven't defined murder with respect to non-human entities. Would it be murder to kill a plant with the intelligence of a human? A human body grown without a brain? The reason I have not referenced any studies concerning third trimester abortion is because there is no reliable data on late term abortion, because 99.2% of abortions are in the first 2 trimesters. What numbers exist show that the demographic most likely to have a late term abortion are girls under 15 years of age(CDC http://www.cdc.gov...). What evidence do you provide that increasing regulation would decrease the number of abortions anyway? I find it hard to believe of all abortions are in countries where the procedure is illegal: Guttmacher, et al. There is no justification for more legislation.
third trimester of pregnancy should be heavily regulated as per abortion

you provide no support for you assertion that most women use abortion as a last resort. there are two and a half abortions per minutes in the US,,, i'd speculate that those are not being done because of a last resort. if we're making exceptions for hte mothers health, then why would you care if she resorts to having them herself? first of all, it'd some some abortions when they will comply with the law... second of all... we don't go around saying people should be able to murder others cause it might bring harm to hte murderer. at that level of pregnancy, htere's no dispute that it's murder when it has little justification. if their "last resort" means they're upset their parents might disown them, that's not enough of a justification to kill someone. as for your funds argument... people can still be educated for it and such. adding more funds to prosecute are not going to change anything.... you're creating a problem where there is none.
third trimester of pregnancy should be heavily regulated as per abortion

Abortion is typically a last resort for women. As such, the legality of a procedure has relatively little bearing on the decision to undergo it. Desperate women are going to get an abortion regardless of legality, if it is the only course they feel is open to them (Restrictive laws do not reduce abortions: http://www.economist.com... ). Legal restriction does have a significant harmful impact on the safety of a procedure. The decision to regulate abortion is the same whether there are moral concerns for the fetus or not. If abortion is wrong, the only concern should be to prevent abortion, not to punish women that have had them. In this circumstance, the most effective methods are preventive birth control(condoms), and informing each pregnant woman who is trying to make a decision of all her potential options, including helping her meet couples looking to adopt children, and informing her of all available support programs available, should she choose to raise the child herself. Restricting abortions is futile and harmful, the funds that would be used to enforce such laws could prevent far more abortions, not to mention suffering caused by illegal/unsafe abortions if it is used to combat the conditions that compel the woman to choose abortion.
third trimester of pregnancy should be heavily regulated as per abortion

both legally and morally, the third trimester of pregnancy should be heavily regulated to prevent abortion. legally.... roe v wade allows regulation, but doe v. bolton in practice has effectively render void that legislative option. "Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, "an abortion is necessary" is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely. We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health." not because that case is bad law, but because it's being applied too liberally. so, to keep with the snpirit of roe v wade, legally, more regulations should exist in the third trimester. also, morally... only things like the health of the mother should allow abortions. maybe a little leniency on some other things, but not much. this is obvious... it's not a baby two seconds out of the birth canal but a baby two seconds before, and murder doesn't happen only out of the birth canal. this is not debatable, to rational people. so, rationally and morally, the third trimester should be heavily regulated.
Infinite water is possible

Dear Mr. Occisionis, You are incorrect with your assumption that water can be infinite. I am actually so astounded that one can be that stupid. I am obviously superior to you in all aspects. I am incredibly smart and can see right through your argument. Your argument actually personally offends my superior intelligence. You thought you could compete with the big players here (me) with this ridiculous argument. Let me remind you (and everyone else), I am way smarter than you. Its a proven fact that I proved because I have the intellectual upper hand. You, Mr. Occisionis, are trying to debate the master of debates. I am appalled at your reasoning for your argument. That sounds like something a teenager would write. I, of course, am above your level and understand what you were trying to convey, even though it is incorrect. My perfect brain knows that you attempted to communicate something, but failed to. Let me remind you, I am way smarter than you. You are wrong. Let me compare this with a simple analogy that your simple mind can understand. Imagine I had 2 oranges. Then I add another 2. I'll give you the answer so you don't have to work it out yourself: you now have 4. If you didn't understand that, maybe you should have paid more attention in class. I am a refined man, I will not shout expletives at you. Unlike many people, I do not get angry at people who are worse than me. I am always polite, as you can see. I never get angry. i am not angry at you. I just feel pity to know that your brain is not quite as high-functioning as mine. To the voters, please keep my professionalism and politeness in your minds and choose me over this pretender. I am obviously the smarter man, as I have stated many times. If you disagree with me, I am sorry that I can't change your opinions as you have too much of a simple mind. Comment your opinions on this debate. Warm regards to you, provideoman123
Infinite water is possible

Mr. Occicnosnicosis, I must thank you for allowing me to debate this mysterious topic. I guess since both our great minds could not come to a conclusion on this debate, it is evident that the topic must be researched. I will use this debate as an underline for my PhD thesis in hydrodynamic physics. I am a man of great prestige, and I must admit you have some prestige as well. I hope your university recognizes you as a worthy student. I was not aware of the university you studied at prior to this debate, but now I look upon it and it's faculty with mild respect. To everyone reading this, before this debate, it was clear that I was in the right. However as the debate progressed, Mr. Ossicionicsis provided strong points to prove his side. Throughout the debate, I was always polite and courteous and always showed respect to my opponent. My stance on this debate was made clear by my arguments that showed deep insight in the topic. I always show consideration towards the readers and make sure that they are aware of my strategically placed words. I hope you consider the science behind this as well. Water cannot actually expand and then contract and make more water. Anyway, back to the morals. Please take into consideration the amount of research both sides have done on the subject. Both me and my opponent provided sources of knowledge that were credible and verifiable. I hope you as a reader enjoyed this debate and took away information from this. If you feel you have learned something of value in this debate, please vote.
Infinite water is possible

Oh ok then I'm sorry for insulting you. I should have checked your credentials before hand. That reminds me of a moment I had a year ago. I was walking to work one day and a man walked by. Naturally, I shouted at him "I am so much smarter than you" in order to let him know who he was dealing with. I thought he was just a normal guy who knew 1/100th of the things I knew. However, he turned around and got mad at me. I never get angry, so I said calmly "WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING AT DUMB GUY". It turns out he had a PhD in Zoology and actually knew more stuff than I thought. So I felt a little bad for insulting a smart man. I was actually smarter than him, but he was polite so that made up for his inferior intelligence.
Infinite water is possible

Everyone knows that I am smarter than you. I don't have one of your fake PhD's to prove my worth. Troll Science is not a real thing. I might as well have a PhD in Physics, as I am actually smarter than most physicists anyway. I am a man of real integrity, that is why I do not claim to have something I don't. You don't know what you're talking about. Water (at least not in this case) is not infinite. Source: https://answers.yahoo.com...
The Nazis of the 1920s-40s were evil.

This debate is getting fairly interesting, so again I'm just going to jump back into refuting.1. Ethnic Cleansing I stated that Hitler and his Nazis believed that they must preserve their master race by murdering the Jews, so as to prevent them from breeding with the Aryans. While if you want to create a "master race" (even though race theory is extremely unethical and wrong), you technically don't HAVE to murder everyone else, this does not change the fact that the Nazis did.My opponent is denying common knowledge and suggesting that "poverty stricken jews were spared". This blatant lying on the side of the Con is enough to give me conduct straight out. Jews, no matter rich or poor, were associated with the upper class in capitalist societies, were universally hated, and were universally executed. There is NO debating this. My opponent is either lying or trolling, either case I get conduct.And no, I ask you to give more accurate sources because your source doesn't exist in any galaxy except this debate. I researched because I was wondering what possible source could support this trolling. 2. Strength over Weakness - The Philosophy of the Nazi PartyFirst of all, there is no proven existence of a god. Second, the philosophy you brought up is not Darwinism. Darwinism strictly refers to the evolution of different classes of organisms, not blacks and whites. While the Nazis didn't follow Darwinism, they followed a similar philosophy that instead used the concept of "Evolution" as a race theory, in which some races are naturally superior to others.I don't care if it was because they were "low on resources". They killed people against their will because they were weak.3. The Secret Police - FascismI did rebut stating that your logic doesn't support your argument. If the US does it, it doesn't mean it isn't evil. I proved that not everyone that was killed was violently opposing the Nazis or randomly killing people. This blatant disrespectful not caring about what I'm saying and suggesting "he repeated himself" goes against the purpose of debate, especially since all I did was introduce new reasoning.Summary:Con failed to refute anything this round. Please extend my past summary.Because my arguments are clearly superior despite the blatant falsifying of sources and misrepresentation of pieces of evidence in his favor, Aff gets Arguments. Because he has used near perfect grammar all the time in comparison with my opponent's often incorrect grammar and spelling, I get S&G. Because he falsified sources, lied, and acted like I was whining complaining that his sources weren't real, I get conduct. Because I used legitimate sources instead of his ridiculous use of falsified evidence and making up books, I get sources.Aff has clearly won this debate.
The Nazis of the 1920s-40s were evil.

Ethnic cleansing Pro claims in order to create a super race you must kill all others. This is wrong! As if you want to create. a super potato we dont need to kill all other potatoes " also want to say that the Nazi's in Germany associated all those that were rich with the Jews, therefore it doesn't matter if they killed rich people because they closely associated Jews with the rich. Not all of the Jews were rich bankers, against most stereotypes. Many were middle class that were slaughtered with everyone else." Wrong. Poverty sicken jews were spared. " do ask that my opponent give me more accurate sources" Ohhb you dont like sources because they prove me right? Conduct and sources go to me. Strength over Weakness- The Philosophy of the Nazi Party All races were created by god however the white race is the choosen ones. This philosophy is a darwinist philosophy. Therefore the nazis didnt have this view. Sometimes the jews were killed for being sick but so dis other nazis. It was only a rare event that happened if they were low on resources or it was life threating and couldn't of been resolved. 3. The Secret Police - Fascism You don't rebut here. you just repeat Summery Pros arfumebts are weak and fully refuted