BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
music in school

Understood what is considered music (personal device). Even with headphones, students are able to play music loudly, and can "produce sounds up to 120 decibels, equivalent to a sound level at a rock concert." [1] Not that all will, but they could. Texting - Students might not, but they could. Appropriate Music - It doesn't matter if the parents control what their children listen to. It is possible for them to play disruptive music, and since the teacher can't control what is listened to, they need to ban it altogether. Pro has yet to provide sound evidence for music in a classroom setting. Sources: [1] - http://www.osteopathic.org...
music in school

When I said "listen to music in class" I was referring to music on a personal device, I also with headphones so music would not come as a disruption to class, I must admit I did a poor job of making that clear in my 1st statement. In response to "One must look at what this would entail. Some will play music to loudly, some will play inappropriate music, some will be playing music but really just texting." 1st ex; I apologize for not making it clear that I was referring to students who would be using headphones. 2nd ex; I am putting forth my opinion; I believe it should be up to the parents what music their children listen to on a personal device. 3rd ex; music isn't constant screen time unlike texting, it would be apparent if a child were.
music in school

Accepted. Only 750 characters, so I'll be quick. No definitions given, so I will provide them Music - Any form of personal music (phones, iPods, etc) School - Within the classroom R1) "I understand that ... to hear lectures" Argues for my point, shows music would be a disadvantage to classroom learning. R2) "shouldn't they have ... to listen to music?" One must look at what this would entail. Some will play music too loudly, some will play inappropriate music, some will be "playing music" but really just texting. P1) Things will be allowed if it is always beneficial in the classroom. P2) Music is not always beneficial in the classroom. C1) Music should not be allowed in the classroom. Finally, BoP falls on Pro. Sources next round.
College is better than high school.

Well from the lack of response I'll take it that this debate is over. It was truly a good time. I shall leave you with just a few parting words. High school is a better time for all. College is a level of education that is not for many, as well as a hole in your wallet. High school was a safer time where you took what was given to and you complained. .. High school allows time for people to grow and mature and unfortunately many in college have yet to mature. As I complete my freshman year of college I can say I enjoyed myself, but I can't help but picture where I would be if I were still in high school. Thank you for your time of this debate.
College is better than high school.

Yes, both schools being discussed are colleges. But our debate is merely, college is better than high school. You're qualifying your support with support based on individual institutions. It is completely fine to use personal experience, because that is simply what our debate is based on. I believe,and do correct me if I'm wrong, that we are not debating institution to institution or in this case SJC to SCCC. Your support, in reference to the adviser, proves my point of efficiency. At college it is very difficult to keep the same adviser and meet your adviser,you also prove what a hassle it is to get classes approved and what pressures are put on you from switching majors, conflicts and issues. In high school you are given a guidance councilor, here he or she will advise you on what they think would put you in the best position for college. Here although you may not believe it if you're grades are good enough you can go into many different types of classes such as, College level courses, different types of histories and sciences. I also believe that in high school you are given a fair opportunity to be apart of many different things. Where college many things occur at the same time. In high school you can play numerous sports, be apart of several clubs, and have time for extra helps. Yes college is the time of newly found independence's, but some miss the security, especially when it comes to academics. In college you rarely are offered the option of extra help. High school teachers were required to have extra help.
College is better than high school.

How is it that, Suffolk Community is irrelevant? That is a college correct? And I am discussing how college is better than high school. So wouldn't't I use the two colleges I been to as first-hand accounts? College allows you to choose an area of specific study, whereas high everyone must study the same things. You do not really have a say is your class selection in high except for maybe the two extra-curricular classes you may take. Or if you chose to take the BOCES route then you would have actual career training. Not everyone has the same adviser for all four years of college. Many students like myself cannot afford the four private school so they take the cheaper route and go to community college then their prestigious private college. Students that do attend the same college for all four years still may not have the same adviser because of multiple reasons. Majors change, conflict of issues, or even the person retires just to name a few. So now say all those things happen to you. Now you must switch your adviser three times in four years. So you meet with this person twice a year, for about ten minutes each time. So that is 20 minutes per year that you have to see this person. You are supposed to build this great report with them? Not everyone has those social skills to do so.
College is better than high school.

If you want to talk about relevance, I find it very easy to say that your entire argument was completely irrelevant. Suffolk Community College has no business being apart of this argument, nor does any other college for that matter. To touch on an earlier statement, in high school you are still given the freedom of choosing your own classes. But once more I will agree on something you said, approval from a person. You are given an adviser and I would have to agree that I do not enjoy going to an adviser have them say yes to my classes. But again I do like the fact that they can keep you on track for graduation. They help you decide what classes would be best for you. And to say you don't know that person is odd because a system set up by the college is that you are given adviser that you work with for the next four years. You learn to know who they are and form a relationship with them, making it an all around easier process.
College is better than high school.

Well first going to jail is irrelevant, I just compared it because your inside and you're told exactly what to do. You having a problem with the registration here at SJC then you must be a child still missing high school. The registration here at SJC is so easy and they still baby you. Suffolk Community College has a better registrar all around. You are given more freedom in the classes you pick and the fact that you do not need approval from some person who doesn't even know you.
College is better than high school.

A very interesting arguement indeed. As much as I am enjoying College, I beleive high school was a better time for most. To jump right into your argument, lets begin with "glorified jail". Have you ever been to jail... do you know what it's like? I myself have not been and I find it a bit of an exaggeration to draw the similarities between jail and High School. Also I believe it is far easier to have someone tell me what classes to take rather than messing it up myself. A problem I have been having at this current time of registration is that i fear of taking wrong classes or classes that will not go towards my major or minor.
College is better than high school.

College is a better than high school because of the freedom you have in college. High school is a glorified jail. You are trapped inside all day. College you are allowed to make your own schedule and choose all your own classes. High school you are told what classes you must take and in what time slot you must take it. College also allows you to escape the town you reside in. Some people go away to college. This is even better because you see more of the world. College is a better experience than high school in all ways.
Video Games Are Harmful to Kids

You bring up the point that violent video games are dangerous for developing minds. This is true that they can leave impressions on the youth in society. But you can"t put the blame solely on the video game and the company that produces it. The blame rests on the parent. Theses popular violent videogames and rated M for mature for a reason. In order to even purchase these games you need to be seventeen years old and by then the kid is most likely in their senior year of high school. Parent s need to make the decision if they want their kids playing these games. But in most cases the parent doesn"t even know what the game is about. They purchase the game to basically shut their kid up. Being a gamer for a long time I have witnessed scenarios where immature kids are playing games that are made for a mature audience that won"t overreact with violence. I have heard kids that are seven playing these games and I agree that it is inappropriate for them to be on them. It is a choice that their parents made and I don"t support it. I have also witnessed kids in line for the release of a mature game. They acted like brats and most likely don"t fully understand what a war actually is. When you say "video games essentially reward for violent behavior", they do but they don"t. Sure you receive in game rewards to encourage you to play the more often, but it"s not like these rewards transfer over to real life. The games don"t condone violent behavior outside in the real world. They simply give you an advantage to entice you to spend more time playing. Saying they reduce empathy all depends on the maturity level. As stated earlier you are expected to be seventeen when you are playing so it is expected that you will have understanding that it is a simulation and not to be taken to heart. Little kids don"t have this real life understanding, and may even blur the lines between reality and their own imaginary world. "None of the medical doctors interviewed in the article argue that the increasing numbers of ADHD diagnoses actually represent the spreading of a disease. On the contrary, the doctors point to a purely iatrogenic cause for the epidemic: "slipshod" diagnoses, use of drugs for "enhancement" of the abilities of children who are otherwise healthy, parental pressure on doctors to drug their kids to improve school performance, and "an alarming rate of misuse of the diagnosis."( Marilyn Wedge ) This is an exert from an article about ADHD stating that there is not necessarily a spread in the disease but rather an over diagnosed and exploited pole. Parents feel that the drug will help their kid perform better in school. This is far from the truth, if the child is falsely diagnosed the drug may even hold the child back from their full potential in academics. The reason doctor are prescribing the drugs to these kids is because of pressure from parents who feel that there has to be something wrong with their child for them not to do well in school. I'm out of room: (
Video Games Are Harmful to Kids

You rightly point out that low test scores are not solely the result of gaming. I also appreciate your argument for moderation, as well as your inclusion of educational types of video games. However, the popularity of violent video games underscores how potentially dangerous this type of gaming is, especially on developing minds. According to Psychology Today, such video games essentially reward for violent behavior, are potentially addicting and reduces empathy while at the same time decreasing the capacity for mature decision making. These are serious consequences. The forming of 'game brains' means less social engagement, shorter attention spans (consider the rise of adhd and add) and less active play (consider, as well the rising obesity rates). While video games can't be the sole blame for such problems, they are certainly contributing factors. Regulation is required, to say the least.
Video Games Are Harmful to Kids

It is true that some people take video games to the extreme and let them rule their lives. They can cause a person to become lazy and uninterested in bland subjects that are necessary in life. But video games are not the only cause of this. There are plenty of other reasons other countries have higher test scores. One such reason is in America some kids just don"t really care about education. In this sense they go to school but they could care less what their grade is. This can be argued to be directly related to video games but not necessarily. Some kids feel that since they are not the smartest that is not worth trying. While others just try hard but they can"t wrap their brains around what they are doing wrong. This leads me to my second point, the lack of a better public school system. This is another reason America is falling behind the other countries. According to the Washington post, "The United States has edged up its score over the years, and it's in the top 13 educational systems in the world, but Americans are still consistently outranked by the same handful of countries." Other countries are modernizing with the times and keeping their educational systems at the top of their list while in America there are far greater worries such as Obama care and the 8 trillion dollars that the Pentagon has lost. Going back to video games and education there are plenty of games out there whose whole goal is to educate. Such games are luminosity, all history channel games, clue finders games, zoombinis and any trivia games. Granted these are not per say fun for the masses the point is they are an option for kids to choose. I know as a child I spent plenty of my afternoons playing clue finders or zoombinis. They combined education with a story line that at a young age influenced me and subliminally taught me critical thinking skills. Now-a-days I will agree that there is a lack of these fun educational games for high school students. Video games like I said before are for fun and should not be taken to the extreme. They are not meant to corrupt kids and hold them back mentally but to be a way to spend free time. Pentagon article-http://www.theverge.com...
Video Games Are Harmful to Kids

Video games are positive when it comes to stimulating a child"s brain cells. They teach skills such as multitasking and problem solving. Granted some video games are mature in nature and appear to have negative effects but they are mature for a reason and are not necessarily suitable for young kids. Video games are also known to help a person"s hand eye coordination and their reflex skills in quick time situations. I am biased when it comes to this subject because I have played video games for many years and I get countless entertainment and joy out of them. They also bring out a social being in people who would otherwise be classified as an outcast in normal physical interactions.
Video Games Are Harmful to Kids

Well i might as well just post what else I had prepared since I already wrote it. Now on to the point about the rise in obesity, undoubtedly there is a strong link between video games and the rise in childhood obesity. I cannot argue against this but I can point out that this is only a contributing factor and not solely to blame. Young kids look up to adult figures such as their parents when it comes to simple choices. If a kid"s parents are fat then they will see this and think that it is ok to just continuously eat. This is not ok because it may present them with health problems further down the road. I personally can vouch that this actually happens. My aunt and uncle are well over the healthy weight limit and their actions of continuously eating unhealthy are rubbing off on their kids. When my cousins were young they were skinny but I have seen them change over the years. They are heavier then the healthy zone for their age and it puts them in danger of health problems in the future. Another factor for the rise in obesity is that as Americans we will eat fast food at least once a week and this is an unhealthy habit filled with transfats and grease. "In the United States, where health officials have termed obesity an epidemic, more than 50 percent of the adult population could be obese by 2030 if current trends continue, a team from Columbia University and Harvard University wrote in a separate paper in the series." (Talea Miller) This study shows that fifty percent of Americans will be overweight in 2030. This statistic cannot be just for people playing video games. This comes from more sever factors. Such as the fact that we are a docile nation and do not need to fight for our food. We don"t need to hunt so we have become lazy and relaxed. Sources http://www.psychologytoday.com... http://www.pbs.org...
Video Games Are Harmful to Kids

Wow -- You sure do make a cogent argument! I happily concede. As a mother of video-game loving boys, I agree that the responsibility does rest on the parent. I may have misgivings about some of the types of games being produced, but the same holds true in many areas -- music, which has a powerful emotional/ psychological impact, certainly falls under that category. I also liked your response regarding ADD/ADHD, a subject of professional interest. Excellent work.
All life has Unalienable Rights

We are now in Round 4, closing statements. I thank my opponent for his perception of Unalienable Rights. I regret to say, I failed in keeping my opponent focus in the physical domain, where most of his rebuttal came from "natural law" based on metaphysical speculation (in part, my opponent's reference to "Maslow's Hierarchy," the "legal-dictionary..." etc.). I understand that is a hard barrier to break when using the scientific method in studying living-system patterns relative to the physical Laws of Nature, the Laws that created all living-systems. Over 200 years ago Thomas Jefferson made the claim that everyone has Unalienable Rights, and these Rights are not man-made, nor can "society GRANT those rights," for we are born with them. Since these Rights are not man-made, Takac took on the challenge to prove Jefferson's claim via the newly discovered Constructal Law. New discoveries in scientific research always face an uphill battle in adding more scope to the current language (expanding the concept of Rights, for example) and inventing new terms. This phase of discovery is rich in debate, a very natural and important phase, as myself and my opponent are now engaged on such frontier. I have learned from my opponent the barriers of metaphysics will be challenging linking the physical Laws of Nature to the primitives of social behavior via the Constructal Law. I hope my opponent finds this subject inviting to the point of exploring the topic in greater detail. These four short rounds only scratch the surface on a simple topic deserving review by the human family. In closing, I wish my opponent a healthy "Life," having enough "Liberty" (aka money), "in the [moral] pursuit of Happiness" relative to his comfort zone. In other words, enjoy your Unalienable Rights and the pleasure when morally embracing your neighbor's Unalienable Rights, during your short vacation from nonexistence.
All life has Unalienable Rights

I am glad that we agree on that. "Takac argues Jefferson's claim of "Rights" are actually life's basic primitives that apply to all life in the following: "All living-systems have Unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of positive-feedback. "" Ok, but this is not an argument. I would like my opponent to explain to me HOW Takac came to that conclusion. "That is, when any living entity comes into existence "Life," it must have freedom ("Liberty") within its domain, in "the pursuit of" survival; otherwise, there is no life. " Saying that it MUST have freedom does not mean that it DOES have freedom and much less that it has an unalienable right to freedom. And I agree that without the desire to survive there would be no life (or, at the very least, it would be extremely short), but that does not say anything about whether or not every living has a RIGHT to life. Desire does not equal right. "Survival is a prerequisite for positive-feedback, where survival is positive-feedback onto itself. " I think there is a mistake in that sentence so I would ask my opponent to correct it so that I can properly address it (on of the two "survival" doesn't seem to fit). "Takac, claims that movement for all "Live" includes "Liberty" that facilitates "the pursuit," of positive-feedback" The fact that living organism express liberty and freedom does not mean that they have an unalienable right to it. "Given freedom, for a finite-sized flow system to persist in time (to live), its configuration must evolve in such a way that provides easier access to the currents that flow through it. " What does this have to do with the topic? The YouTube video is rather pointless; it talks about how things tend to evolve, which is irrelevant to the topic. The same goes for the paragraph about the second law of thermodynamics, since a "tendency" can hardly be considered an "unalienable right". Now, are the rights that my opponent presented (life, freedom and happiness) really "unalienable? An unalienable right is defined as "A right according to natural law, a right that cannot be taken away, denied or transferred" (. http://dictionary.reference.com...). The important part of this definition is "cannot be taken away, denied", because it contradicts reality: When someone is murdered, their right to life is taken away. When someone is imprisoned, their right to freedom (and happiness) is taken away. The fact that our rights CAN be taken away negates the notion that they are unalienable. Society grants these rights and promises to protect them precisely because they are alienable. I await my opponent's response.
All life has Unalienable Rights

I have never really debated this subject so I'm looking forward to learn new things. I would like to point out that my opponent states that ALL LIFE has undeniable rights, which includes animals, insects, plants and bacteria. It would have been easy to say "humans" have unalienable rights or "we" have unalienable rights, but my opponent chose "all life" so I believe I'm not playing on semantics when I assert that he is indeed referring to "all living things". I am eager to see how my opponent is going to argue for the existence of unalienable rights while staying "in the realm physical science", considering that rights are not physical things. Obviously, since my opponent is claiming that unalienable rights actually do exist, he has the burden of proof. Plus I would never claim to be able to prove that unalienable rights in fact do NOT exist, especially if I'm limited to physical science. I am not familiar with the books that my opponent has presented, but I won't mind if he uses arguments that he found in these books, and I would actually encourage him to do so. In my opponent's next round, I would like him to present a complete list of rights that he considers to be unalienable, so that I can better comprehend his position. I am looking forward to learning new things and having fun!