BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cell phones should be allowed in schools preferably elementary and middle schools.

I accept this challenge, and look forward to a good debate. If cell phones are present at school, there is a high likelihood that cell phones will be used at school, regardless of rules. According to Pew Research Center[1], 58% of cell-owning teens at schools that ban phones have sent a text message during class, and 43% of all teens who take their phones to school say they text in class at least once a day or more. The usage of cell phones in school leads to many problems, as I will go into next. The usage of cell phones at school increases cheating. According to a report done by Common Sense Media[2], 35% of students with cell phones have admitted to cheating at least once with them. The report also suggests that students do not even realize that they are cheating when they use their cell phones during examinations. 23% of students do not believe that accessing stored notes on a cell phone during an examination is considered cheating. 20% of students believe that sending text messages to friends about answers during tests is not considered cheating. Since the usage of cell phones causes an increasing in cheating at schools, whether students realize it or not, cell phones should not be allowed at schools. Cell phones in school pose as distractions for students. In the modern age of smartphones, where phones have internet access, text messaging capabilities, music, games, etc., having cell phones in school can distract students from learning.[3] Cell phones ring in class, and it causes disruptions that may prevent students from learning. If students are distracted by technology, they will not be able to perform as well. According to President Barack Obama, with the development of technology, "information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation"[4]. Since permitting cell phones in school causes students to use their cell phones in school, and the usage of cell phones in school causes cheating and distractions, cell phones should be allowed in schools. [1] http://pewresearch.org... [2] http://www.commonsensemedia.org... [3] http://www.facultyfocus.com... [4] http://www.guardian.co.uk...
Transgenders are valid

Semantic shift has little effect on the information of fact. And that fact is men inseminate, Women gestate. You can call this process whatever you want, But the function is still the same. You're incorrect in stating that the derivatives no longer mean the same thing--that was never my argument, I. E. Their meanings were the same; hence, I referred to them as "derivations" not "synonyms. " But by every definition, Man still means "adult male, " and woman still means "adult female. " As for your statement, "There is no need for there to be [gender-based] divisions of labor in order to survive. Physical labor is not as hard as it used to be, And no where near as necessary, " this may only be true if your focus remains on the Industrialized West, And even then your statement would not be true since gender roles still tend to be manifest all around the Earth. (This is most glaring when it comes to public goods like military service and firefighting, Where women demand the standards be changed because they cannot meet the standards which suit most men. ) Furthermore, Your argument defeats itself. If there's no need for "gender roles, " then there's no need for norms or even differentiation outside capacity to reproduce. Gender would be rendered an aspect of humanity which exists just to exist. How, Then, Would someone with Gender Dysphoria be able to identify the characteristics which differentiate men and women? Outside of reproduction, Which characteristics can they assume that aren't, As you put it, "unnecessary"? Note: I don't believe anyone is being made to do anything as it concerns themselves as individuals. However, If they wish for someone else to call them something which goes against the customs with which they were raised, Not to mention it defies fact, The question is, "why I should I call you something factually and customarily incorrect? "
Transgenders are valid

Before I begin with my argument I would like to apologize if my response isn't correct. In all honesty, I have very limited experience with debate and I am using this as a way to strengthen my skills. On to the argument. According to the World Health Organization, "Gender refers to the socially constructed characteristics of women and men, Such as norms, Roles, And relationships of and between groups of women and men. It varies from society to society and can be changed. " Words meaning can change drastically over time in the evolution of words known as semantic shift. While man and woman may have started out as derivatives of male and female, They no longer mean the same thing. You said that "It [gender roles] was and still is a constellation of behaviors manifested through gender (or sex) based divisions of labor in order to survive. " Again humans evolve, While this may have been true at one point in time it is not now. At the current rate of those with gender dysphoria (an estimated. 58%), The human species is not in danger of not having sufficient amount of offspring. There is no need for there to be divisions of labor in order to survive. Physical labor is not as hard as it used to be and nowhere near as necessary. All jobs can be done just as well by an able body female, As they can by an able body man. So at this point in time, There is no need for gender roles. So why should we make people conform to an unneeded system? Why can't a person who feels they fit the characteristics of a woman better than a man be called a woman? Or vice versa?
Transgenders are valid

Transgenderism is logically inconsistent, Or inconsequent--whichever one prefers. Transgenderism attempts to assign a physical attribute like sex to identity, Which is an abstract philosophical concept. How does one "identify" as a man or woman without being conscripted to the aspects which dictate the differentiation. The terms "men" and "women" are derivations of "males" and "females, " which designate roles in reproduction. A man "identifying" as a woman, For example, Doesn't change this. He never bore, Doesn't bear, Nor will ever bear the parts to reproduce as a female. So physically speaking, We can dispense with the pretense that the rubric by we which determine sex is the subjective evaluation, Manifest or not, Of one's self-image. Thus, Logically invalid. So then it becomes an issue of custom. Will custom ever reflect the "validity" of transgenderism? The answer to that, Too, Is no. Customs have always been utilitarian, And established to maximize the utility of each individual of a community in service to biological imperative--reproduction, Resource acquisition, And most important, Survival. Contrary to feminist and SJW philosophy, Gender roles or "gender identity" weren't social inventions concocted by men to exploit women. It was and still is a constellation of behaviors manifested through gender (or sex) based divisions of labor in order to survive. Transgenderism doesn't contribute to the survival of any community; in fact, It stifles it insofar as the capacity in which gender dysphoria is expressed results in genital mutilation. Hence, It's customarily invalid. I'll put a pause to my argument here, And I'll wait for your response.
Transgenders are valid

Transgender is an adjective "of, Relating to or being a person whose gender identity differs from the sex the person had or was identified as having at birth" (Merriam Webster, 2018). There is a large debate over whether those identifying as trans are valid or not. It is of my opinion that they are. I ask that you use religious arguments as little as possible. I respect that your religion or someone else's may be absolutely against transgenders but that does not determine their validity.
People convicted of pedophilic crimes ought to be treated and not incarcerated in all instances.

1.Pedophilia is the sexual attraction to children who have not yet reached puberty. 2.A pedophilic crime is when a person has been convicted for acting based on his or her sexual attraction to children. 3.If people convicted of pedophilic crimes are treated and not incarcerated in all instances, then their pedophilic behavior can be prevented. 4.Treatment is the administration or application of remedies to a patient for an illness, disorder or injury. 5.If a person has an illness, disorder or injury then he or she should be treated, if treatment is available. 6.Pedophilia has been diagnosed as a disorder. 7.This disorder is associated with mental, emotional and/or behavioral problems. 8.Treatment is available to reduce or prevent the expression of pedophilic behavior. 9.If the pedophilic behavior is prevented then he or she will not commit pedophilic crimes. 10.Not committing pedophilic crimes is good. 11.Treatment is good for the individual since their disorder will be treated for the benefit for his or her own health. 12.Negative consequences of treatment such as not always curing pedophilic behavior, being costly and resulting in partial loss of identity are acceptable in light of the benefits resulting from treatment. 13.Incarceration is the state of being confined in a prison. 14.If people convicted of pedophilic crimes are not treated and incarcerated in all instances, then their health conditions will most likely worsen. 15.Incarceration will prevent treatment for the inmate. 16.If treatment is prevented then he or she will continue their pedophilic behavior. 17.Continuing pedophilic behavior is bad. 18.Furthermore, incarceration can make these individuals worsen. 19.Issues with prisons such as overpopulation, prison violence and the damaging impact on the families of the inmates may only worsen the health of the pedophiles. 20.It may cause further mental, physical and emotional distress as a result. 21.This is not good because instead of treating a condition, incarceration worsens it or gives rise to more health issues. 22.Positive consequences of incarceration such as deterrence, preventing victim revenge and keeping society relatively safe are not acceptable in light of deteriorating the health of the individual. 23.More acceptable benefits result from treatment than from incarceration. ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 24.Therefore, people convicted of pedophilic crimes ought to be treated and not incarcerated in all instances.
People convicted of pedophilic crimes ought to be treated and not incarcerated in all instances.

1.Christina has claimed if a person is convicted of a pedophilic crime then he or she ought to be treated and not incarcerated because pedophilia is a disorder and disorders can be treated. 2.Her claim also states that this disorder is associated with mental, emotional, and/or behavioral problems. 3.With treatment as an only option we run the risk of letting pedophiles go through society as suppressors just merely repressing their feelings toward the children. 4.We are gambling with society by just treating them and putting them back into to society where we run the risk of the pedophilic crime being committed again. 5.Treating a pedophilic individual will create a lot of relapsing where they will have to continue over and over again to go through treatment because the root cause won"t ever be cured. 6.Incarceration will put an end to the pedophilic crime. 7.No pedophilias on the streets and no pedophilic crime will occur. 8.With treatment there"s no telling whether the criminal likes children or not anymore because a sexual orientation can"t be cured. 9.Therefore Pedophilic crime continues to happen. 10.In due course; incarceration serves a better purpose than treatment. _______________ Thus, any persons convicted of a pedophilic crime should be incarcerated in all instances, and not treated.
People convicted of pedophilic crimes ought to be treated and not incarcerated in all instances.

1.People claim if a person is convicted of a pedophilic crime then he or she ought to be incarcerated and not treated because it is a better alternative to treatment. 2.The claim goes further by stating that treatment does not always cure pedophilic behavior so when the offender is released after treatment he or she will pose a threat to the children. 3.There is a risk that the person will commit a pedophilic crime again. 4.Incarceration prevents this by imprisoning the offender, making it impossible for the person to commit a pedophilic crime. 5.Incarceration physically prevents the offender from re-offense, but it does nothing to prevent pedophilic behavior from reoccurring. 6.Treatment offers an opportunity to reduce pedophilic behavior. 7.By treating the patient"s emotional, mental or physical difficulties then there is a chance at curing the individual. 8.If the person is cured then upon release then he or she will not engage in pedophilic behavior. 9.So it is more likely for the person to commit a pedophilic crime again after incarceration, since incarceration only serves to physically disable the pedophilic behavior. 10.Incarceration keeps the individual away from society so he or she would not commit pedophilic crimes, but once the person is released there is no barrier preventing re-offense. 11.The disorder remains. 12.Treatment, even if it doesn"t always cure a person, attempts to prevent future pedophilic behavior. 13.Ultimately treatment serves a better purpose at preventing pedophilic behavior permanently. 14.Therefore, treating persons convicted of a pedophilic crime is a better alternative to incarceration.
People convicted of pedophilic crimes ought to be treated and not incarcerated in all instances.

Sexual orientation refers to the sex of those to whom one is sexually and romantically attracted. If we accept "bestiality" as a sex concept where people want to have sex with animals then why we can"t accept "pedophilia" as a sex concept where these people want to have sex relationships if those individuals who have yet to see puberty. In Christina"s Premise 2 she acknowledges that the crime consist of a person acting on their sexual attraction to children; but to a pedophilic this is all they are attracted to so why can"t it be said that a being a pedophilia is a sexual orientation. Therefore as you see you can"t cure a gay and make them straight just as you can"t treat a pedophilic to not like children. All the treatment is going to do is help him/her manage those urges, but they will still want them. The arguments goes in further stating that the disorder is associated with mental, and emotional, and/or behavioral problems however the define Christiana stated in Premise 2 doesn"t state that the crime occurs based on the following issues associated with this "disorder."
People convicted of pedophilic crimes ought to be treated and not incarcerated in all instances.

The claim is that Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and if it is a sexual orientation then its not treatable. The claim assumes that sexual orientation is a way of life not a disorder. The claim goes further by stating Pedophilia is a sexual orientation like heterosexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality. Sexual orientation is a person"s sexual identity in relation to the gender to which they are attracted to; it is the state of being a heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual. This claim deviates from the issue. The problem with pedophilia is not that the person is sexually attracted to men or women, it"s that the person is sexually attracted to boys and/or girls. Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation, meaning it is not the attraction to a male or female, it is a disorder of sexual preference. It is a disorder of sexual preference because pedophilic behavior causes harm, unlike sexual orientation. Pedophilia may put children at risk because they are not in the age of corresponding to the sexual attraction of pedophiliacs. It is why pedophiliac behavior should be prevented. Treatment can help prevent it.
People convicted of pedophilic crimes ought to be treated and not incarcerated in all instances.

Reading an article, "A Disorder, Not a Crime," in the New York States: "that while treatment cannot eliminate a pedophile"s sexual interests" but can help him manage the urges." Going back to my original Premise 5, although the article is about explaining pedophilia, as a disorder it still says the urges of "sexual interests" will still be there.
People convicted of pedophilic crimes ought to be treated and not incarcerated in all instances.

There is controversy that Pedophilia is not treatable because it is not a disorder. Premise 7 states that Pedophilia has been associated with mental, emotional and/or behavioral problems. If this is the case then there can be no denying that it is some type of illness. Studies have shown that pedophiles often have low self-esteem, poor social skills or have an impaired self-concept. Pedophiles have flawed personalities and these issues can be resolved. If it is a disorder then there may be a treatment to change or prevent such behavior. There are programs that have reduced pedophilic behavior and this proves that pedophilia is something that can be treated.
People convicted of pedophilic crimes ought to be treated and not incarcerated in all instances.

1.Pedophilia is the sexual attraction to children who have not yet reached puberty. 2.Pedophiliac crime is when a person has been convicted for acting based on his or her sexual attraction to children. 3.If people convicted of pedophilic crimes they should be incarcerated in all instances, then society and the children won"t be affected by their pedophilic behavior. 4.Incarceration is the state of being confined in a prison. 5.Pedophilia has been diagnosed as a sexual orientation. 6.Sexual orientation is a sexual interest that is instinctive and unalterable. 7.It is impossible to treat a sexual orientation, which in this case is a sexual preference that pedophiles have towards children. 8.Allowing treatment for these pedophiles will only prevent them from acting out on their wants, needs, and desires won"t prevent them from wanting the children. 9.In those cases society is gambling whether they will commit the pedophilic crime again. 10.Not having pedophilic criminals in the society is good. 11.Incarceration is good for those pedophiliacs because their sexual preferences cannot be cured. 12.Other negative consequences of incarcerated and not treating pedophiles is that the root cause isn"t treated, not all of them act on their thoughts, and people who think they are pedophiles won"t reach out for help without a fear of getting locked up are all acceptable in the light of locking away all Pedophiles. 13.Treatment refers to the application of remedies to a patient for a disease. 14.Since pedophilia is a sexual orientation, like being gay or bi-sexual, and not a disease it can"t be cured. 15.If people convicted of pedophilic crimes are incarcerated in all instances, then the society will be free of the pedophiliacs. 16.Treatment will be a waste of time because the minds of Pedophiliacs have an unusual wiring in their brains structure that programs them to want children, in a sexual way. 17.Incarcerating Pedophiliacs will confine them in prison and keep them from harming the children in society. 18.Positive consequences of treatment are that they can stop the pedophiliacs from acting on their behavior, it will relieve the prisons from over population are not acceptable in light of having a chance to harm the children in society. 19.Pedophiles should be incarcerated and not be treated, in all instances.
We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians

All Australians have somehow benefitted from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The Aboriginals cultivated our land, in ways different from white man. They were taught to preserve, never to destroy .They learnt to live with the land, not to live off it. That"s something worth acknowledging. They taught the British colonies to hunt using their native hunting tools such as the wooden spear and the boomerang to collect food. David Unaipon, Indigenous inventor, who designed the pre sketch of the World War 2 helicopters based on the principles of the boomerang. Today, without his genius invention, the helicopter would not be as advanced as it now. Adam Goodes, along with his talent towards football, holding 2 Brownlow Medals and 2014"s Australian of the Year, he is actively involved in many Aboriginal sport and community programs, working with troubled teens. These Aboriginal people have changed the way Australia is today, the least they can do is commemorate a date to them.
We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians

As you previously stated the pity of the Australia Day controversy is that it needn't have happened. We have formally apologised to stolen generations, we've spent billions as a country to try to lift Aborigines out of poverty, we hold welcome-to-the-country ceremonies and pay respects to Aboriginal elders at government and sporting events to show our good hearts and we recognise Aborigines as a race with prior claim to this country. Through these actions our history has been rewritten and today many Aborigines are happy to call themselves Australian's and celebrate this day, therefore your point is invalid.
We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians

The date does not reflect our achievments. In fact, it shows our immaturity towards the our history and Aboriginal people. In 1808, Australian made the controversial call of naming the 26th of January, Australia Day. Although this is important to white man, we have omitted the native founders of the Australian land. Not everyone celebrates Australia Day with happiness as it should be. While most Australians celebrate Australia Day with a BBQ or by the beach, the Aborigines are mourning the loss of their loved ones who passed away in their fight for freedom and human rights. To many people, the 26th of January is know as Australia Day but to Aboriginals, its commonly know as "Invasion Day", "Day of Mourning", "Survival Day" or, since 2006, "Aboriginal Sovereignty Day." Many claim that "on Australia Day we come together as a nation to celebrate what's great about Australia. In fact, the invasion of the white people on tore apart the nation of Indigenous Aboriginals.
We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians

I believe Australia day should stay on January 26th because it is one of the most unique national days in the world that celebrates the anniversary of the arrival of the first fleet of criminals to Australia in 1788. Although it celebrates the anniversary, the real meaning reflects contemporary Australia, our diverse society and landscape, our remarkable achievements and our bright future. It also is an opportunity to reflect on our nation's history, and what's great about Australia and being Australian.