BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
student should have tablet or laptop,for class,not textbooks

While tech can be great, it also has its weaknesses. For one, its not available in all schools due to the funding needed to find 700+ tablets and/or computers. And if everyone cant have them, then who gets them is the question. Two, while tech makes things easier, that"s not always for the best. According to plagiarism.org, In the US alone, 59% of high school students admitted to cheating on an assessment or paper in 2014, and 39% admitted doing it more than once. With the increase in tech availability, Summarized by the United States Department of Education, the numbers rose to 62% and 43% for both stats in 2015. The correlation proves that technology can be and is being abused in school environments. No matter how many restrictions and rules you put out there, there will always be ways to circumvent them. Addressing your point on backpack size, that is a simple fix that doesn't need any introduction of technology. Introduce lockers, which I"d like to point out nearly all schools have, and extend the passing periods to motivate students to utilize their lockers. To compensate for the loss of education time, simply extend the school day to match the passing period extension, which should be no more than 20 minutes or so. Third, I think its safe to say tech is a pretty big liability for school work. Cloud networks have been known to crash, and internet access can be lost, deleting progress on, say, an essay. If the work is stored internally on a drive, devices are fragile, and if that device is damaged or destroyed, you just lost all your work for school. Sure, get a case you might say. But who will buy those? The school? Certainly not. The students? Maybe, but there are sure to be those who lose them. And talk about theft. There will be students and outside factors who will steal and vandalize such devices for personal gain, and that can cost the student or the school a fairly hefty expense if it occurs multiple times. Besides, schools should be spending their funding on getting better classes and staff, increasing educational standards and scores, not gimmicks that do more harm than good.
student should have tablet or laptop,for class,not textbooks

People can type better on tablets, handwriting would not matter. Better prepared for life. Textbooks can get worn out. Can't lose homework. Pads take up less space. Saves paper and Ink cartridges. No pencil sharpening. 1000's of apps. Dictionary on board. It would be a lot less space taking than desktop computers.Textbooks are really bad. They get worn out faster than you think!!! And notebook computers would be better. No more wasting pencils, lead for mechanical pencils. It will just be better with notebook computers instead of textbooks. Textbooks kinda get on my nerves and notebook comoputers don't. I hate textbooks!!!It's only logical Textbooks cost a LOT more than a laptop (200-750). Not to mention the textbooks get outdated and have to be replaced, and weight difference of textbooks to a simple four pound laptop. Doctors say only 15% of one's body weight should be on their back. High school students have 20-25%
student should have tablet or laptop,for class,not textbooks

Every year, students in school develop back problems due to carrying the overbearing weight of school textbooks in their book bags. The heavy, lagging weight of a backpack often causes long-term health issues and back pain for students. Aside from notebooks and binders, students also have to carry pencils, pens, and spare paper. The average high school student"s backpack weights between ten and twenty-five pounds, while the average laptop weights between three and eight pounds. A study directed by Brandon Macias of UCSD"s Department of Orthopedic Surgery decided that students often carry backpack loads of twenty-two percent of their body weight when it is only recommended to carry fifteen at most. While laptops are still expensive, ranging from 250-700 dollars each, the price of a single laptop compared to the cost of multiple textbooks is considerably less on the school district"s wallet. Textbooks usually cost around a hundred dollars or more, yet the information gets outdated quickly and schools have to dig out more cash to purchase up-to-date textbooks. With laptops, textbook publishers and teachers would be able to edit and update the information more easily on electronic copies of text. Teachers would be able to select certain pages of workbooks to use online, instead of buying whole workbooks that we only use half of.
Vegetarianism is a bad excuse to not eat meat

Now for my defense and final remarks. Defense 1 Like most of us know that meat spoils and then goes to waste "Unopened packages of lunchmeat or hot dogs can be kept refrigerated for up to two weeks if they are within their expiration date."[1] but unlike other products that isn't meat, they don't spoil. The meat industry would have to resort to selling their products at cheap prices if the demand went lower than supply, and all the unsold meat would go to waste, so it would still go to waste. It's all about the dollar and if the meat industries are still making money they will continue to make the same amount of meat in hope for more demand would come in. Defense 2 The grain fed to the animals have growth hormones, so it wouldn't be good to any human. Grain doesn't offer the same nutrients that meat would offer, so it would be worse if the left over resources that were intended for the live stock to be fed by humans. In short term the farmers or the businessmen would have bought the grain and gave it growth hormones so it would be waste then, and long term the grains wouldn't offer the same nutrients as meat would. Defense 3 Although Iron and Protein can be supplemented with certain vegetables or fruits, but meat contains more protein then any other fruit or vegetable. Meat is easier to obtain then the special fruit or vegetable, so these fruits or vegetables would be more expensive and that would cause people lose more money and it would lead to more debt, and on and on. Instead of buying expensive fruits or vegetables to get the protein or iron, they could buy the meat and not let it go to waste. Defense 4 There is waste for being a vegetarian, and the waste is meat. Not buying meat will allow it to go to waste, and they are not changing anything, the meat industry will still make meat, and if the vegetarians wont buy meat then it will go to waste. Short term to a vegetarian not buying meat, more meat will go to waste, long term more meat will go to waste. There are more people who will eat meat then there are vegetarians, so the meat industry will see these people coming and and they will try to predict the new high demand so they will make more meat, but if the demand goes lower than it should, then the supply of meat goes down due to spoil. Some vegetarians are extreme activists and they would try anything to stop the production of meat, so they stop eating meat, but that won't change anything because of the new people coming in that will most likely not be vegetarians and then the meat industry tries to predict the new demand and continue to make the same amount of meat. Now for my final remarks. There are new people coming into this world, and the chance of they being vegetarians is very slim to none, so the meat industries sees this and tries to predict this and make a high amount of supply, but if a vegetarian doesn't buy meat then it will go to waste. Vegetarianism is a bad excuse to not eat meat because they cause waste, they don't change anything, and it is all in their heads. Vote Pro! [1] = http://www.brighthub.com...
Vegetarianism is a bad excuse to not eat meat

Rebuttal #1It's basic economics. In a free market production is determined by supply and demand. If less people eat meat businessmen will respond by making less than they otherwise would, and so raising less livestock over time.Saying vegetarianism is wasteful because they aren't using the meat is like saying abstention from any given product is wasteful because the individual is choosing not to buy the product and put it to use. If that really was wasteful we'd be in trouble, because as much as we consume each individual still does not buy even a majority of available products in the economy.Rebuttal #2If one more person is vegetarian it tilts the market towards it being more productive to use that grain and other resources for other purposes such as bread for humans, so there is no waste. See my point on #1 about the market.Rebuttal #3Iron and Protein can easily be supplemented in health food stores. Some would prefer not to do this, but that's a personal decision.Rebuttal #4There is no waste being made by vegetarianism. Whether or not vegetarianism is big enough to make any real changes to the economy it is not wasting anything, because the market takes care of changes in people's preferences. Furthermore, not every vegetarian cares about the slaughter houses. Some vegetarians are apolitical and simply do not like eating meat.Saying vegetarianism is a bad excuse to not eat meat is like saying disliking onions is a bad excuse to not eat onions. A person's personal preferences regarding food are never a "bad excuse" to not eat it, because our personal tastes are subjective.
Vegetarianism is a bad excuse to not eat meat

Now to the case attacking round. =Religion attack= A: I do agree that some religions do make their "followers" vegetarian's but why would some one of that religion be offered meat? If a person of that religion doesn't get offered meat, then it wouldn't be an excuse. B: Some people are not as devoted to their religion, if a person was of the religion that you have to be a vegetarian and not that good at that religion, then the reason wouldn't be that good. C: There are many other religions that aren't vegetarians, so it becomes invalid. =Personal Feelings/Psychology attack= A: I go back to the, "why would they get offered meat?" if they have these feelings then they would stay away from places who have meat. =Taste Buds attack= A: I agree that some people don't like the taste of meat, but meat there is a bunch of different kinds of meat that come in many different flavors, so the chance of some one not liking due to taste is slim to none. =Dietary Needs attack= A: Substitutes to meat for the health benefits, could be hard to find, so that means that they would be expensive, but meat is cheap because it is easy to obtain. B: There is more risk for not eating meat, because meat contains a lot of protein and iron and other things needed for daily life. C: Most athletes need to eat meat to help build up their muscles, so to achieve their athletic they eat meat. D: Recommended is not required, so people who are told it is recommended to not eat meat, doesn't mean that they have to stop eating meat. =Food Safety attack= A: poor sanitation goes for any kind of food, meat or vegetables, it is required to keep what ever you consume to be clean. B: Fruits and Vegetables must have certain preparations, especially in developing countries, if some one doesn't wash a fruit or vegetable then it could spread a disease. C: How do you think that people ate meat if they didn't have any stoves or microwaves? Yet they lived by eating meat. It is possible to eat meat without the modern appliances. =Political Concerns attack= A: The livestock at these meat industries are treated "like kings" in a sense. They get fed and treated after because the people who run the meat industries care about the money that their products get them. B: Most of the meat that is consumed in America are made in America. America has certain laws that the meat industries must follow. I still stand by that vegetarianism is a bad excuse to not eat meat. Please Vote Pro. I am excited for round 4.
Vegetarianism is a bad excuse to not eat meat

A few reasons why vegetarianism is not just a "bad excuse to not eat meat".ReligionSome religions such as many Hindu sects, and Jainism require vegetarianism. Religion is a matter of personal belief. Some people derive great meaning and purpose from religion. A person who is a vegetarian because of their religion does not just have a "bad excuse to not eat meat".Personal Feelings/PsychologyEverybody has their personal feelings about things. A person might think eating intestines or liver or dog is disgusting. Why? It just really comes down to how the person feels. Some people might see meat and think of the animal getting slaughtered while eating it. I don't, but some people might and if I did I probably would be a vegetarian. Some people's personal feelings might be such that they have a psychological need to be a vegetarian and trying not to be would hurt their psychological health.Taste BudsEverybody has different taste buds. Some people might just find that they don't like the taste of meat.Dietary NeedsA planned vegetarian diet can have some health benefits. There is less risk of problems associated with the consumption of meat. Protein can be substituted with soy, beans, and nuts. Many vegetarians also drink milk and eat eggs. It is not necessary to be a vegan in order to be a vegetarian. Some people might even adopt a vegetarian diet to help them in achieving something, such as athletics.http://www.nomeatathlete.com...In some cases vegetarianism is recommended for medical treatment, such as with some cases of rheumatoid arthritis.http://www.pcrm.org...Food SafetySome underdeveloped countries have poor sanitation and the people are too poor to affoard modern appliances to keep food clean. Keeping meat sanitary and free of infection may be difficult and there may be many diseases such as E. Coli that a person could catch. In fact that's still an occassional problem in developed countries, although it is easier for us to take measures to make sure it is ok if we cook it. If a person is legitimately concerned about getting infected that's a good reason to be a vegetarian.Political ConcernsPeople have their own political beliefs that may play into the decision. A person might not even think meat should be illegal, but consider the way the meat industry is run today to be a travesty based on how livestock is treated while alive or based on where the meat might be coming from, such as countries with exploitative labor practices. Whether or not they are right people are entitled to their own opinions.
Vegetarianism is a bad excuse to not eat meat

No questions, then lets get this party started! A few definitions. Vegetarian: "a person who does not eat or does not believe in eating meat, fish, fowl, or, in some cases, any food derived from animals, as eggs or cheese, but subsists on vegetables, fruits, nuts, grain, etc." [1] Meat: "the flesh of animals as used for food."[1] First of all, why are some people vegetarians? some people think its because they are doing the animal a favor, but they are hurting the animal by not eating it. Now to my 4 points 1. The meat is already there. 2. It's a huge waste. 3. It is healthy to not be a vegetarian. 4. Not eating meat wont change anything but make waste. 1. The meat is already there. The basic outline of how a cow becomes a hamburger, a cow is raised and then when it gets big they kill it and turn it into ground beef and then it gets packed and sold. One reasons why vegetarians choose to be a vegetarian is because they think they killed the animal by eating it, so in an attempt to save it they choose not to eat it. It is common sense that the vegetarian didn't kill the cow and that cow that they admired not to eat will go to waste if they don't eat it. 2. It's a huge waste. It's a huge waste to say no to eating meat. Some vegetarians think that not eating meat will preserve the animal, but it would make the animal die for nothing. Lots of grains, and other resources are needed to raise animals to slaughter them to make meat, if they don't get eaten all of those resources go to waste. 3.It is healthy to not be a vegetarian. Meat contain a lot of needed nutrients such as iron. Meat is very easy to get and it contains protein and iron. Not eating meat can lead to unhealthiness due to not getting enough iron or protein or any other important nutrient in meat. 4. Not eating meat wont change anything but make waste. Some vegetarians think that not eating meat will make it so that the slaughter houses will stop making meat. Not eating meat will not change anything, but make some meat go to waste. That is my case on why vegetarianism is a bad excuse to not eat meat. Vote Pro! [1] = Dictionary.com (just search the words)
Fallacies are not valid arguments

I will now conclude: Fallacy once again is an erroneous reasoning that has the appearance of soundness, so you can't really defend they're validity as an argument, although you can deduce information from them and the fact that they have been said. That would completely deny the validity of fallacies in any reason-based debate. But let me ask you, are we reasonable enough to make such a debate? There are many obstacles in our way to that debate: Cognitive dissonance, apophenia, fallacies. Even the structures of debates themselves somehow induces debaters to go against reason just to defend a point. Nothing looks like it's going to help us achieve that reason-based debate. Even now, debates seem like an irrational verbal fight between two debaters. Is there anything that can ever help us have a reason-based debate? Well, maybe metacognition is our answer. Metacognition is our way out of non-valid arguments, those who are (after all) based on fallacy.
Fallacies are not valid arguments

Fallacies were made to gain authority, or that's what the argumentative theory of reasoning says. http://www.nytimes.com...; Wow, when you think about the real truth of fallacies, they become humbling rather than ego-boosters. It's awesome what metacognition can do. Even though debates seem like a high-society sport (sport for smartypants) it actually is a way to boost your ego and self-confidence through lies that are justified with fallacy. We are rational beings, yes, but only partially. So if we want real valid arguments we must think about our own mental processes, that is, metacognition. http://en.wikipedia.org... Fallacies are still not valid arguments in a reason-based debate, but are they valid arguments in a normal traditional debate? Well, as long as you don't get caught, you can freely use them, in fact the main goal of debates is winning, so there's no need to actually be rational. Just be convincing.
Fallacies are not valid arguments

The argument was meant to discuss the validity of fallacies in a reason-based discussion, that is, show if a fallacy uses valid reasoning, thus defying the very definition of fallacy. Again: a fallacy is an erroneous reasoning that has the appearance of soundness. The problem here is the fact that fallacies mostly appear to give excuses, to soothe the mind by making sense of mismatched ideas, which is called in Psychology as "cognitive dissonance". Check this webpage for more information: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance In a discussion, especially in those in which the main purpose is winning (Such as this debate), fallacies emerge because the main point is not to reach truth, it is to WIN, to convince. So we find two main points: 1.- The conscious/unconscious urge to win 2.- The need to make consonance What is the result? Fallacy (among other strategies) So, fallacies can"t be seen as logical, reason-based arguments to make a point because they are meant to be convincing, not true.
Fallacies are not valid arguments

The Encyclopedia Britannica defines argument as: reasons that support a conclusion, sometimes formulated so that the conclusion is deduced from premises. You don"t say: .- "Pro is a dik and you should ignore everything he is saying" .- Therefore Bobturner can use a logical fallacy To justify that Bobturner can indeed use a logical fallacy, it would need to be formulated like: 1-Robturner said "Pro is a dik and you should ignore everything he is saying." 2.-"Pro is a dik and you should ignore everything he is saying" is a fallacious argument. 3-Therefore Bobturner can use a logical fallacy. But these statements (1 and 2) are not fallacies, they are true facts. As it is defined in the Encyclopedia Britannica, a fallacy is an erroneous reasoning that has the appearance of soundness. Whether you can infer true information from that or not doesn"t make it a valid logical argument but a thing to be exposed to the logical argument itself and then, infer information. I"ll try to clarify this: You don"t actually use the fallacy as an argument, you introduce it as a part of a bigger argument. This is the argument: "Pro is a dik and you should ignore everything he is saying" is a fallacious argument. Is this a fallacy? I think not. The topic is "Fallacies are not valid arguments", not "Fallacies cannot be used for valid arguments". Obviously, you can deduce information from fallacies, but as you can see above, it"s not the fallacy what makes the statement (3) true, but the fact that Bobturner SAID the fallacy. So, Con in this case used (ironically) a fallacious argument to defend fallacies as valid arguments. Again, as it is defined in the Encyclopedia Britannica, a fallacy is an erroneous reasoning that has the appearance of soundness.
Fallacies are not valid arguments

I'll negate the resolution simply. Here's my ad-hominem fallacy. Note that I'm saying this only to make a point. "Pro is a dik and you should ignore everything he is saying. " This is actually both an ad-hom and a "poisoning the well" fallacy. Now, how can this fallacy be used as a valid argument? Simple. It could be a valid argument to prove the resolution "Bobturner can use a logical fallacy. " The fallacy and the use thereof serve as my contention.
the person I'm debating is ridiculously gorgeous

You cannot prove it. The only way you could possibly prove this is through a picture. The only pictures of me that people could access would be the ones I put as my profile picture. However, this picture is only 14.27 KB in size and it is 200x150 pixels in dimensions. This is not enough to be sure that the person depicted is gorgeous. You also can't know that the person you are debating is the same as the one in the picture.
Series 1 Episode 6 : *RETAKE* The government should give out benefits (Welfare-state type debate)

Hi. This is an awesome debate. First, I support welfare for the poor. If someone can afford to pay for stuff, they should. If they are poor however, they should be able to get help. My medications cost a few thousand dollars a month, and I cannot afford them without help. I am more than willing to work and plan on finding a job as soon as I can, but until then, I feel that I should be able to get them because I will die without them.
The mobile phone do more good than harm.

Greetings opponent. I would like to thank you for accepting this debate, if you do not, nevermind. I wish you good luck for the debate. Rules: 1. Sources could be stated but there shall not be 100% copying of the sources in the debate. 2. No forfeiture. 3. No personal insults. For this round, I shall not begin any arguments first as I would like to hear from my opponent first. Good luck!