BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Schools should have the right to search students lockers

Obviously it was not specified because the term was meant to be left blank. At this point, if you waste another round arguing an off-topic point you will essentially forfeit this debate. " Lockers act as private property of the student. " This is incorrect. The school used funds from it's budget to provide the students with appropriate recourses to succeed. If the resources are being misused by a student, then the school has every right to seize their property. I as a High school student understand this, and universally accept it. I understand that if I choose to keep a firearm, or cocaine in my locker, then I forfeit the right to have a locker. It's that simple. "The amendment strictly prohibits people from searching through property without due cause. " Due cause such as reasonable suspicion, which was outlined earlier. "someone is seen putting drugs into a locker that is reason enough to search, " You have formally accepted my side of the argument, and forfeited your views on your own side. You also apparently were unable to find the supreme court case that I asked for previously. I will assume that is because such a case does not exist. The United States Supreme Court has consistently upheld that student have the right to privacy, but in order to create a safe learning environment, some rights may have to be forfeited. See Tinker v. Des Moines, New Jersey v. TLO, Veronia v. Acton, and there are so many more. Thanks
Schools should have the right to search students lockers

That was not specified in round 1, and I am going to base my argument off the pretense. Having the right to search lockers should be generally applied as it was not stated. 1) Lockers act as private property of the student. Meaning in regards to US laws and regulations, the school is handing that student the locker to keep his private material in. This can translate to that of renting out a store house. It is someone elses property but it is loaned out for a specific purpose of storage. This is prohibited by the fourth amendment under unreasonable search and seizure . ( http://www.law.cornell.edu... ) The amendment strictly prohibits people from searching through property without due cause. Meaning I concur that if someone is seen putting drugs into a locker that is reason enough to search, but searching for the purpose of searching as the resolution states, is a direct violation of the Constitution. If someone agrees to let me store stuff in a locker and gives me permission to keep my private stuff in there, they should not be allowed to go into it with due cause. I agree if there is due cause they should be allowed to enter it but not without it as that is a direct violation of basic rights .
Schools should have the right to search students lockers

We are referring to search as any type of search. This is a non-specific. This includes having a serious reason, such as a drug do sniffing drugs, or to less serious reasonable suspicion, such as a student putting a suspicious object into said locker. Now, I'll begin by quoting the 4th amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Because lockers are school property, they do not fall under a students 4th amendment rights. This would be completely different if were talking about searching a backpack. For the next argument, I would like you to find a supreme court case that upheld the fact that schools cannot search a student locker, please let me know. Thank you
Schools should have the right to search students lockers

=Why i won this debate = My adversary asserts that schools should have the rights to search students lockers. As you can see from the title and his own argument this applies to an on balance standard. In his own words, he asserts that this is not the students property and that the school and just search it because they want too. This would apply to all types of searches This affirms what I was stating. That this justifies *any* type of search. I am defending the conclusion that not *any* type of search is justified, and just those with reasonable suspicion. Just walking up to a student and searching their locker for the purpose of searching it is, violating their right to privacy and property. That means that not all searches are warranted My adversaries only defense is find a case that the supreme court rules in favor of the child, which there is no need to. This point is a non sequitur as what is ruled, does not equate to whether *it should * be done. Should be is a question of ethics and principle, which violating someones right to privacy is a direct contradiction of. =Conclusion= My entire argument was dropped as his only assertion was the supreme court case which was not an argument. My point stands that schools lend out lockers to students as *their property*, even if the school owns it. They are allowing the student to use it as their own property and searching it without reasonable intent is a violation of their constitutional rights.
Schools should have the right to search students lockers

You are the one who is attempting to alter the debate. As i previously stated, i intentionally left the topic vague so both sides would have something to talk about. When you accepted the debate, you agreed on the vague topic. It is not your job to decide a new topic. After explaining this, I stand behind my argument. If a student is abusing his privileges, he voluntarily forfeits his privileges. The debate overall is questioning. A schools ability to search a students property. I have proven that here are situations where a school should. My opponent has failed to show that no matter the situation. In my quotes, i actually thank you for citing them because there were several arguments you dropped. You never found a supreme court case, because it doesn't exist. You didn't give an acceptable argument my second quote, however i expect you to now that I've brought it up. As the voter, i would like you to seriously consider the amount of dropped arguments my opponent had. He seems to believe that schools shouldn't have the right to search their own property. Lockers are school property, so why shouldn't a school have the right to search. Finally, you falsely mislabeled my argument. That is not what my argument is about. Not even slightly. With all the dropped arguments and this accusation, i am led to believe you never read my argument, you most likely skimmed.
Sin does not exist because there is no proven god that exists

Actually if you read your bible morality is forced upon you, Or you die. Its that simple. Here's a morality test for you. Let's see how well you do? All of these 6 questions clearly require a "no" answer. If in any possible way you state "yes", Then you are as completely immoral as your god. Now if you state "no", Then you disobey your god. So which is proper? Btw, Since you were stupid enough to mention "the 10 commandments, 4 of the 10 commandments are here and require your death if not obeyed. Btw, If you say "yes" to any of the 6 questions, Then don't even bother with another argument as you will prove that you are completely bankrupt and immoral, A true racist pig, And do not belong here among humanity and rightly deserve to paint smiley faces on black holes for the rest of your life. Ready imbecile? According to your god you should be put to death if you blaspheme. Do you think that's a good idea? Y____? N____? Leviticus 24:16, According to your god you should be put to death if you work on the sabbath. Do you think that's a good idea? Y____? N____? Exodus 31:14, And Numbers 15: 32-36, According to your god you should be put to death if you curse at your parents. Do you think that's a good idea? Y____? N____? Exodus 21:17, Leviticus 20:9, Mark 7:10, Matthew 15:4, According to your god you should be put to death if you commit adultery. Do you think that's a good idea? Y____? N____? Leviticus 20:10. That's directly from your 10 commandments. Here are some other things that YOUR god thinks you should be put to death for. . . According to your god you should be put to death if you are a homosexual? Do you think that's a good idea? Y___? N____? Leviticus 20:13, According to your god you should be put to death if you do not worship him. Do you think that's a good idea? Y____? N____? Deuteronomy 13: 9-10 and Deuteronomy 17: 2-5.
Sin does not exist because there is no proven god that exists

Believe in yourself and not the corrupted totally insane bumbling babbling baby brained bible looking over your shoulder with every move you make with something as ludicrous as "sin". You are far too good for that! Now you go right ahead and prove that sin exists in this world because it doesn't. How can it when you cannot prove that the prime motivator god exists? Without a god, There's no sin. Here's another thought. . . This unproven "god" is supposed to be about love, Kindness, Care, Peace, Harmony, Etc etc etc and yet pretty much all of the bible preaches other than faith is its contradictory "sin". Go figure. Here's something else. . . Sin is contradictory and hypocritical in your bible. Thus sin does not exist. Does every man sin? Yes. There is no man who does not sin (I Kings 8:46; see also 2 Chronicles 6:36; Proverbs 20:9; Ecclesiastes 7:20; and I John 1:810) No. True Christians cannot possibly sin, Because they are the children of God. Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is a child of God. . (I John 5:1). We should be called children of God; and so we are (I John 3: 1). He who loves is born of God (I John 4:7). No one born of God commits sin; for Gods nature abides in him, And he cannot sin because he is born of God (I John 3:9). But, Then again, Yes! If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves, And the truth is not in us (I John 1:8) Matt Dillahunty "What is sin and why should I care about it? I understand why I should live an ethical life and treating people in certain ways, We have secular foundations for moral systems. But sin from the christian perspective is a crime against god or god"s nature itself - right? If god makes the rules and you violate it, That"s a sin. Well what if god makes a rule that you should kill your child, Does that make it good? Caller " Yeah that"s where I do things that are not aligned in what the bible says. " Matt "Yeah. But are they good things? Do you have good reasons to have that the things you are doing are not immoral? Like do you have an example? Like don"t confess to a crime or anything. For example, The bible is opposed to homosexuality. Do you think there"s something immoral about those who are homosexuals? " Caller "Uh there"s none that I can think of. " Matt "Yeah me neither. And so if the bible"s opposed to it add the bible is the word of god, And the Koran is opposed to it as well and the Koran is supposed to be the word of god as well, And there are two holy books and let them argue over who god is and what god thinks and until they can come up with a sound secular justification for homosexuality being immoral then I don"t need to pay their views any money because its just an opinion at that point. " One other stipulation/ Rule: dsjpk5 and timmyjames are both disqualified from all voting procedures.
we don't know anything with absolution

I'll start with your second statement, 'that an object can be a rock'. I proved this false in my first argument, because it is possible that we have never had a sample of what is actually a rock, so we have no way of knowing if it is actually possible for a rock to exist. On your rebuttal to my shrodingers rock idea, we don't know that atoms act in that way, because it relies on being unobserved. Because we can't observe an unobserved rock hooked up to such a device, we don't have any way to prove or disprove the idea, so it is merely a possibility. I haven't proven the rock will behave that away, just proven it might. Furthermore, imagine a scenario where two people are both examining the same object. One of these people sees, say, a potato, while the other sees a rock. Both do a series of tests and both believe that they show that the object is in fact what they think it is. It is likely that one of the two is imagining that object that they see, but it's impossible to prove witch. even if they where to bring in a third party who also sees a rock, it is still possible that both of them are imagining the rock, while that object is actually a potato. They would have no way to prove it either is or is not a rock.
we don't know anything with absolution

Although Pro has disproved my statement from round 2, he has not shown that it is unknowable/uncertain. Thus, we know with absolution that the following statement is false: "an object either is a rock or is not a rock." An equivalent statement known to be true is as follows: it is possible for an object to be neither a rock nor not a rock. Also, that an object can be a rock is known to be true.
we don't know anything with absolution

A rock would be both a rock under circumstances similar to that of Schr"dinger cat. Say that the rock was in a box with a cesium atom and a disintegration device. When the atom decayed, then the disintegration device would turn the rock into a pile of ash. Therefore, the object would be, according to quantum uncertainty, be both a rock and a pile of ash at the same time, refuting your idea that al objects are either a thing or not that thing.
we don't know anything with absolution

First of all, the beginning of your statement, 'if a rock is a rock', means, if I understand it correctly, either a) your assuming that a rock is in fact a rock, so a rock must be a rock, or b) that in a situation where a rock is a rock, then a rock is a rock. In the first version, the statement is redundant and is based entirely on an assumption. Even if you believe it is a rock, and you have no evidence suggesting it is not a rock and plenty of evidence suggesting it is, that isn't enough to actually prove conclusively that it's a rock. It could, however unlikely, be an advanced piece of alien technology designed to perfectly represent a rock. If the second is the right interpretation, then you're basing your argument on the hypothetical situation that a rock would ever actually be a rock. perhaps every object that humans have considered to be rocks are completely different things, with explanations along the lines of the alien technology. If that where true, then 'if a rock is a rock' would be an impossible statement. But perhaps you could take it farther, and say 'if a rock where to actually be a rock, then a rock would be a rock.' the problem with this is that it has no proof behind it, because you have no way of knowing if a rock can ever truly be a rock.
we don't know anything with absolution

This is just a slightly changed version of a debate I did already. The idea is that I can prove how any statement you can give me might be untrue. I don't need to disprove your statement, but simply show how it could be false. The challenger gives a statement in round 1, and I'll try to prove it possibly not true. you can come up with a new statement the later rounds, or refute my argument. the only rule is you can't chose the debate topic sentence topic, or any variation of it, for your sentence.
we don't know anything with absolution

"Believing and being rights simultaneously is not the same as knowing. " Actually, it kind of is. Knowledge is "the fact or condition of being aware of something. " If one is aware and convinced of a truth, then one has knowledge of that truth. . http://www.merriam-webster.com.... "Anyway, you can't prove you believe a rock is a rock, you could be lying. " Empirically, humans believe in things with absolution. Indeed, many who profess to believe in God are not lying and actually do believe in God. "Also, everyone might be wrong about everything ever, making this invalid. " True, however, it is more likely than not that someone knows something is true with absolution that happens to be true. Indeed, the chance of everyone being wrong about everything ever is infinitesimally small.
we don't know anything with absolution

I'll interpret this as a victory for me, because according to the description that I gave in round one, my task was to show how something might be false, which I did do, according to your concedences (concedes?). In response to what you said, if you believed a rock is a rock, and your right, you won't have known a rock is a rock with absolute certainty. You will have believed it with absolute certainty, and have been correct. Believing and being rights simultaneously is not the same as knowing. Anyway, you can't prove you believe a rock is a rock, you could be lying. Also, everyone might be wrong about everything ever, making this invalid. So, if that was your conclusion, and your surrender, then you don't have to address these arguments. But obviously you should say something to finish the debate.
we don't know anything with absolution

I concede that Pro has successfully rebutted my statements from round 4. Furthermore, I concede that if the intent of the debate is to show that Pro can show how any specific statement might be false, Pro wins. However, if the intent is to show that "we don't know anything with absolution," then being able to disprove any statement does not prove that "we don't know anything with absolution." In fact, I can prove although we don't know (and arguably are incapable of knowing/proving) that we know any specific thing with absolution, we do in fact know specific things with absolution. For example, I believe that a rock is a rock. Although we think that I cannot logically know this, our logic does not preclude the possibility that I am correct, even though my belief may not be justifiable given what little we know. Since humans are not logical beings, they do hold many unjustifiable, absolute beliefs in (or against) God, etc. It follows that given the uncountable number of (irrational) beliefs/superstitions that people hold, all of them possibly correct and possibly incorrect, at least some will end up being correct. Although only God or a higher power may know that these beliefs actually are correct, and although we will still think that we don't know anything with absolution, we will in fact be certain of certain absolute truths, unjustifiably, illogically. In conclusion, I and many others choose to believe that a rock is rock. Although I agree that logically, we cannot be certain of this fact, I nonetheless continue to believe that a rock is a rock. If I am correct, then I will have known a truth with absolute certainty, but will not have known that I knew a truth with absolute certainty. Because I believe in a great many things, with absolute certainty, it follows that that which I am certain of includes several truths.
ObamaCare (Affordable Healthcare Act) needs to be repealed

Thank you Corm_on_the_Cob for accenting my debate, now to business.A1: ObamaCare is building a disastrous part-time economyThe country is in 7% unemployment,[1] many citizens are looking for full-time jobs, ObamCare is making it even worse. ObamaCare is placing expensive regulations on businesses with 50 or more workers, part time working is reaching new highs. [2]A2: ObamaCare is growing the cost of heathcare.ObamaCare is not so affordable, Ohio is expecting insurance premiums to jump by 41%.[3] Georgia is expecting their insurance costs to increase by 198%.[4]A3: ObamaCare is forcing Americans to lose their health insurance. Do you remember when Obama said that we could keep our current heath plan? Well not anymore. ObamaCare is making some employers terminate their health coverage,[5] some other insurance companies are just leaving markets.[6]A4: ObamaCare is killing jobs. We really need jobs in this economy, ObamaCare creating so many problems.[7] ObamaCare taxes are hurting small businesses.[8]A5: ObamaCare continues to get delayed. Crucial parts of ObamaCare countinues to get delayed.[9] Delays are costing taxpayers more money.[10]People know that this law is costing, so why don't we try and pass a complete heath law?A6: ObamaCare is not popular.ObamaCare is not so popular with the masses,[11] even democrats don't like the bill.[12]A7: Website TrainwreckThe ObamaCare website has been a complete trainwreck.[13] Souces:1. http://www.tradingeconomics.com...2. http://www.nrcc.org...3. http://www.politico.com...4. http://freebeacon.com...5. http://www.chron.com...6. http://www.nrcc.org...7. http://www.nrcc.org...8. http://www.mcall.com...9. http://www.nrcc.org...10. http://nation.time.com...11. http://www.nrcc.org...12. http://blog.chron.com...13. http://www.thenewamerican.com... “I’m a 30-yr-old healthy, non-smoking female. In the last 3 years, my health care coverage has gone from $76/month to $102/month…for the exact same coverage: $5000 deductible and no benefits except preventative care. In the meantime, I discover that the option for covering myself under a maternity plan (my husband and I are both self-employed and cover ourselves individually) has skyrocketed in the last two years–to where my insurance agent recommended against getting maternity coverage. And now, my exact same Anthem plan will be raised by 20% this month to $120. $240 MORE per year for absolutely no change in my plan.” - Mary Rose N.
technology helps people to communicate

Though technology has no doubt increased the speed of communication, it has ultimately hindered our ability and more importantly our confidence to communicate. Typing messages on a keyboard is easy. But what happens when you have to have an actual conversation in person? What was once a fear of public speaking has transformed into a fear of verbal communication. The individuals have become so adapted to speaking through their keyboard that they are unaccustomed to using their verbal skills. I"m sure we've all encountered at least once in our life someone who was extremely friendly online, but actually rather shy in person. Since we rely so wholly on electronic modes of speaking, the thought of communicating with someone face-to-face is actually rather frightening. Instead, we prefer to hide behind a computer screen and instant message as it makes us feel more confident and less socially awkward. So I think technology is just making thins situation worse and worse.
technology helps people to communicate

Technology allows us to stay connected to everyone we know, ones we don't, and some that we don't expect to interact with again. One of the strongest ways technologies have shaped relational development and interpersonal communication is how people in long-distance relationships can stay in touch and continue to be in a relationship, be it friends or romantic. Facebook has provided a method to stay in touch with friends from home as we experience different things at different colleges across the country. When we do interact in a face-to-face manner during holiday breaks, we're able to talk about pictures posted of one another, and share in real-time those experiences when we're not with them.
technology helps people to communicate

One of the major drawbacks of technology is its inability to convey emotion. Often e-mails, texts and instant messages are rather cut and dry, with extremely short messages and agronomic jargon. However, some argue that though text messages are not the best way to convey emotion, this is not an issue. Technology is designed to be fast, and being abrupt and lacking emotion are the side effects of this speed. Still, it"s important to remember that emotion remains to be a vital part of communication, and it cannot be overlooked. Yes, there are the benefits of speedy technology, but the limitations of impersonality need to be acknowledged as well. Technology works to make up for this in the form of emoticons.