BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cell Phones should be used in school

I will start by stating that the cell phone can have many uses, however replacing school materials is not one of those uses. Addressing my opponent "Cell phones should be aloud to be used in school because they are light weight and cheaper. " Cheaper than what exactly? A cell phone plan can cost anywhere between $30-$500 per month. [1]Cell phones themselves can come free but often require you to sign into a contract with costly monthly bills, and often costly penalties for leaving the company, paying late, or going over the limits as well as other hidden fees you should be aware of first. [2]Cell phones (without discounts) cost between $70-$650 [3]Cell phones have one more additional cost that should be mentioned: replacing them, even with care they often need replaced, especially some of the more popular cell phones, which "wont last three months". [4] "The school could save a lot of money not having to buy over 1000 computers and laptops so everyone has one. "If the school bought every student a cell phone, they would need to deal with overage charges, monthly bills, and buying the cell phones anywhere between 1-6 times in a two year span. While business computers tend to last around 4.4 years. [5]"They are light, the average computer weighs about 20-50 pounds and the average laptop weighs about 6 pounds. "Being lightweight is simply not very important as far as making school decisions, effective, educational, and usefulness all come far above being lightweight, computers fit the bill far better than cell phones. Additional argumentComputers are used for research, storing files, and in some cases, even taking the classes. Cell phones simply cannot perform these factions, and the few that can are far less efficient. Cell phones are good for their purpose, communication, being portable, and being easy to use perhaps doubling as a portable music player; cell phones simply are not currently able to replace the usefulness that computers provide for schools and companies. ConclusionCell phones cost more than computers, they need replaced more often, monthly maintenance and fees are far higher than for computers, and they are no efficient for the purposes that schools often use computers for. Sources[1] . http://www.mobileburn.com... [2] . http://cellphones.about.com...[3] . http://www.t-mobile.com... [4] . http://wolfy.hubpages.com...[5] . http://www.businessnewsdaily.com...
Cell Phones should be used in school

Cell phones should be aloud to be used in school because they are light weight and cheaper. The school could save a lot of money not having to buy over 1000 computers and laptops so everyone has one. They are light, the average computer weighs about 20-50 pounds and the average laptop weighs about 6 pounds. But the average cell phone weighs about 0.440924 pounds! That is light compared to a computer or a laptop. Especially 1000 of them.
Cell Phones should be used in school

Alright I will address the final points that were made before we head into the realm known as the voting period. "Another good reason cell phones should be in school is because they are very fast at stuff. If there was a fire at school and all the school phones burned, would you want to call or text your mom/dad on your cell phone or walk the (sometimes) long way home? They are fast access to the Internet and parents. Sometimes if something private happens and your mom/dad call your school it's not that private anymore. Most of the times you won't talk to them on the phone, the office just gives you a message. That makes it unprivate."If there is a school fire, the teachers, principals, and police have ways of contacting the parents. [Not an argument but I would like to point out that there is a concern over students pulling fire alarms, perhaps to get out of class, and then using cell phones to "call parents" and meet up for illegal activity while everyone is confused and scared. Missing children in that situation would be doubly harmful to the overall environment.]Now if there is a private emergency oftentimes the school will let you out of class to deal with it. [from personal experience, when my mom slipped and broke her knee, I stayed on the school phone for hours with my stepdad under being told "family emergency", until he was able to pick me up from school.] If there is an emergency calls can be sent to the office, minor incidents can wait until after school time."It's also saving paper and ink. Instead of the school making around 1000 planners/agenda books that are around 20-40 pages long, you could have a cell phone to use as an electronic organizer/agenda since most kids don't use their planners/agenda books anyway." Schools could also save paper and ink by using personal log ins to track progress, notes, and dates using the school computers, rather than sending personal agendas, so the point does not address the earlier rounds in which cell phone usage was compared to that of computer/laptop usage for students.In fact it would be far easier to organize such things on a laptop loaned to students, than it would be on most personal cell phones.
Cell Phones should be used in school

Wow you are really good at this, I thought I would be better because I was using this topic for a school ILA project. I guess you are better but this is the last round, anyone's win.Another good reason cell phones should be in school is because they are very fast at stuff. If there was a fire at school and all the school phones burned, would you want to call or text your mom/dad on your cell phone or walk the (sometimes) long way home? They are fast access to the Internet and parents. Sometimes if something private happens and your mom/dad call your school it's not that private anymore. Most of the times you won't talk to them on the phone, the office just gives you a message. That makes it unprivate.It's also saving paper and ink. Instead of the school making around 1000 planners/agenda books that are around 20-40 pages long, you could have a cell phone to use as an electronic organizer/agenda since most kids don't use their planners/agenda books anyway.
does violence in television and movies influence the way children behave

Hold on. I don't know anyone that after telling a story to their 3 year old say: Remember! It's all fiction! I don't want you wandering around believing that if cloudy, it might as well start raining meatballs! I mean lets get serious for a second. The point of all those stories are to teach kids morals and/or amuse them, and not to make them believe that this is how the world works. After telling a story to your kids, i think you are explaining to them the morals that they should get off the story, and not tell them its all fake. Kids know what is true. They don't grow up and believe that the invisible alligator or whichever story you tell them. Yes, they will believe in Santa Claus bringing presents in the house for the kids, but they don't know its all a "game" i suppose i should say between the kid and the parents. And they do grow up to believe in Santa, not because they saw him on TV, but because his parents told him. Yes, his parents. Kids trust parents on almost everything until a certain age. If you teach your kid from an early age that flying donkeys exist, it might have doubts but will believe you, and when asked it will say flying donkeys exist, because his parents told him so. If you think that a kid sits in front of a TV and sees violence and rape and shootings, thinks these things are ok... you either underestimate your kid's intelligence, or the kid needs some help. My father would let me watch a scene from Matrix, and no other scene. The scene did not contain any blood, but it contained shootings and guns. I would watch this when i was 6-7 years old and even younger. It's the scene from Matrix (i don't know which one) that on top of a rooftop people would shoot at each other, do all sorts of moves to avoid the bullets, get hit, and even a helicopter crashing with people in it. You, by your logic, must have grown up to be a violent terrorist with a couple of rocket launchers hidden in by bedroom, working for Al Qaeda. Couldn't be more wrong. I find violence in movies or video games absolutely awesome, and thanks to them i'm not shaking when i see a gun in real life as most people would do. Does this mean i am a Schizophrenic Maniac serial killer hunting for people? No. I have an airsoft pistol. I am not scared to handle it, but i would never ever point the barrel at anything or anyone, as i realize what guns can do in real life. Kids like you or me grow up to understand how reality differs from fiction and fantasy. All kids do. That's my point. Yes, if you handed me a gun to shoot with, thanks to all the violent video games i've played, i will know maybe how to rest it against my shoulder, cock and fire. And i would love to shoot at some hay or paper targets. Never ever at any animal or human. By the way, when your kid says things like that, pretending to be hulk, he is probably role-playing. If not, no insult intended, but please get him checked out. Again no insult, just saying. He is probably role-playing and i find that great and fun way to spend time with your kid, and not be afraid of him growing to become a terrorist.
does violence in television and movies influence the way children behave

monkey see monkey do, has been that way since the start of television.this simple quote just summs up this arguement. and last I checked fantasy & reality wern't the same thing .Does having lots of Monopoly Money make you rich? no. Children imitate what they see, however if the parent(s) stay involved and explain each cartoon (or atleast ever problematic scene) it can be fine. I had to stop letting my four year old watch the hulk cause he kept talking about hurting people when he got older. Common sense kicks in for older kids but each child learns at their own pace. I think it depends on the parents too. If the parents are there to tell the child what's wrong and what's right then there shouldn't be a problem. kids look to there parents so I would say they are more of the influence then anything else. if a child can watch violent movies and know that those things in the movie are wrong and shouldn't do those Things.
does violence in television and movies influence the way children behave

Thank you for the response. Firstly, i am not talking about fantasy or reality. I'm talking about how movies influence a child's behavior. A child may see what happens in violent movies, like people killing each other, or public shootings for example and think it's fine. That was my argument. "I think the violence in TV and movies have a big impact/influence on how kids behave because in certain cartoons after the victim has been beaten up in a few seconds it isn't hurt again making the child believe that violence doesn't hurt anyone and that will encourage them to commit violence" What you said here can be answered by my previous argument in the first round, that you probably did not understand. What you are saying is, and correct me if i'm wrong, although i think your statement is clear enough, that kids watch cartoons with violence, and because the character does not seem beaten up after a fight, children think its fine and don't see violence as a bad thing. Actually, as i said, a kid is able to judge if what it sees is true or fiction, and make it's own decisions on the certain topic. People think that kids are stupid at early age, but they are much more intelligent than we think. Kids can even see violence in certain cartoons and get the message that violence is bad, by actually judging the film and realizing that it is showing an example of violence, and not that violence is fine. "Also there are many studies that prove that there is an increase of likelihood that children who watch violent TV programmes or movies will demonstrate aggressive behaviour towards others." After some research i did on the topic, the results were as i was expecting them to be. The same thing happens to a kid playing violent video games. What the study actually showed is increased blood flow in the parts of the brain that control copycat behaviors. Now, parents and other people see this and say that kids are more susceptible to copying the behavior that violent movies/cartoons present and increasing aggression. Actually though, and every scientist will tell you that increased blood flow in a certain area is a very broad category, that doesn't really translate necessarily to any particular behavior. "Children imitate what they see on television. this is the reason why I think violent TV and movies do influence the way children behave." My previous argument covers that, and i will add 1 more thing. Kids, as i said, are not stupid. They can understand what reality and what fantasy is. If that didn't happen, you would, in theory, walk down a path in a forest with your 6 year-old daughter, and she would be shaking from fear because the bad wolf might appear from the bushes, as it did in red riding hood. Seriously now, don't underestimate the intelligence of children.
does violence in television and movies influence the way children behave

although your argument is very fair it is not really based on the topic question you are basing your post on if the child sees it as a fantasy or a reality. I think the violence in TV and movies have a big impact/influence on how kids behave because in certain cartoons after the victim has been beaten up in a few seconds it isn't hurt again making the child believe that violence doesn't hurt anyone and that will encourage them to commit violence. Also there are many studies that prove that there is an increase of likelihood that children who watch violent TV programmes or movies will demonstrate aggressive behaviour towards others. this is because Children imitate what they see on television. this is the reason why I think violent TV and movies do influence the way children behave.
does violence in television and movies influence the way children behave

This should be a fun one. I think i will begin. Kids, from a young age, learn the difference between fantasy and reality. Children especially when they were very young would often hear stories like the red riding hood or whatever, and are able to realize that it is all a story. Same thing happens with movies. Kids realize that movies are just fiction, and not reality, thus they don't attempt to fly like Clark Ken (i think that's his normal name) does in Superman movies. If you, as an adult, think that what your kids watch in the TV they consider as reality, you are underestimating the intelligence of your own child.
(MiG Tournament) Physical laws must conform to preconceptions of what is logical

This debate is part of round 5 of Man-Is-Good's Debate Tournament.SynopsisRoyLatham and I just finished another tournament debate over the implications of the KCA, which you can reference here:http://www.debate.org...In this debate, we argued over whether or not something that is mathematically possible can be considered to therefore be physically possible as well. The context was over the possibility of an actual infinite.Since Roy and I were again paired up for this tournament, Roy asked if I would be willing to instigate the resolution set before you now. He and I will share the burden of proof for our respective positions. I will be arguing that just because there exist theoretical models that work mathematically, they cannot be considered to represent actual reality if in doing so they would violate logic. Roy will argue the contrary, that logic itself is better embodied in mathematical equations, so if the equations work, then the physics is at least possible.RulesThe debate shall adhere to the following structure:Round 1: Acceptance, Rules, and DefinitionsRound 2: Opening Statements and RebuttalsRound 3: New Arguments and RebuttalsRound 4: Rebuttals and Closing Statements (No new arguments)Arguments and source citations must appear within the four rounds of this debate only. Arguments and citations may not appear in offsite links, other debates, forums, or comments.Dropped arguments are not concessions. Arguments should be seen as whole units from opening to closing statements.
The Majority of Modern Rap is Negatively Influencing the Thoughts of Upcoming Generations

Studies show that violent media does not cause aggression (1). Now rap music is to simply express ideas whether they are good or bad. Rap is an art. The lyrical content is not supposed to be directed in your favor as freedom of speech exists. You can choose to vent on your negative emotions but it's unrelated to the violent content. Improper grammar is found in any genre of music, not just rap. Many forms of music are targeted towards young children and adolescents. In music, it's irrelevant whether or not improper grammar is used as it's an art form. Sources: 1. http://www.lifehacker.com.au...
The Majority of Modern Rap is Negatively Influencing the Thoughts of Upcoming Generations

This is my first debate, so my apologies if I get any procedures wrong. Debate Schedule: Round 1 will be the acceptance of the debate along with the statement of each of our respective arguments. Rounds 2-4 will consist of arguments and rebuttals. Round 5 will be the conclusion. Argument: I believe that the majority of modern rap is negatively influencing the thoughts of upcoming generations. I find this to be true because popular rap often: Consists of lyrics that deteriorate many of the morals and traits our species has been built on. Is targeted mainly at young children and adolescents. Promotes illegal and unhealthy habits. Inspires improper grammar and an uneducated attitude within the target market. Thank you in advance to the Contender who accepts this debate.
family friendly employment social policies

It does not disrupt business. Many business's are well-aware ahead of time when their employee is expected to give birth. Many employees request the time off as soon as they have a confirmed due date from their doctors. [1] Also, baby bumps can start to show as soon as 12 weeks [2], 6 more months is plenty of time for an employer to find a solution for when his employee goes on leave. [1] http://www.whattoexpect.com... [2] http://www.babycenter.com...The other two points raised are invalid as they have no reasoning behind the claims made. A new mother needs time for her body to heal from the pregnancy. [3] Emotional distress or distraction would only hinder a parents performance at work. No production cost increase or apparent disadvantage evidence has been given by my opponent. [3] http://www.womenshealth.gov...Text limit, Vote Pro!! :)
Abortion should be legal

I thank my debate partner for this debate. I will do my best to present a good argument. 1. The fetus is the same before birth as it is after birth. It has the same dna. 2. Most abortions take place after week 8 after fertiliation when the fetus can feel pain. 3. The fetus is not part of the mother's body. If it were, that would mean the mother has two set of dna, two blood types, and half of the time, testicles and a penis. 4. It is troubling when one group of people dehumanize another group of people. 5. Women have the right to use contraception if they do not want a child, but abortion is wrong unless the mother's life is in danger or the baby will die anyway.
Abortion should be legal

Pro said: "The scientific answer to the question of whether life begins at conception, at birth, or at some other point during a pregnancy is not absolute, but depends on which perspective is used." My response: My opponant has failed to show me one scientific study proving that life begins at birth. Science does how that the baby is genetically unique from the point of fertilization when the baby his its own dna. Pro said: "A machine does not have feelings, human rights or bodily autonomy, unlike a human being. It exists solely for the purpose of keeping a human alive. Humans don't exist solely for the purpose of donating organs to the sick, and women definitely don't exist solely for the purpose of childbirth or pregnancy." My response: So should born people be killed because the killer has feeling? Pro said: "A dead person is also human by species, but dead people don't legally have human rights. And again, even living people in the case of organ donation are not allowed to undermine the autonomy of another for the sake of their right to life." The fetus is not dead. It has brain waves and heartbeat. The fetus can move. It is alive, not dead. I have answered most of your arguments.
Abortion should be legal

You bet pro. My return rebuttals: You said: "The difference is that before birth, the fetus is a parasite - it uses and depends on the organs of the mother to survive. It should not be able to use her organs without her consent, just as organ donors must give consent before others are allowed to use their organs." My response: Where does science say that life begins at birth or viability? Those are the two main views in the prochoice movement. I used to be prochoice so I know this. Uniqueness is what defines humanity, not location. Should born people be be killed if they depend on a machine for life support? What about the rights of the baby to choose? You said: "This is not the case. 64% of abortions are performed before 8 weeks" gestation, and 91.7% before 13 weeks. Not only that, but fetuses cannot feel pain before 24 weeks' gestation at the very earliest because connections from the fetal body to the cortex that are necessary for pain perception are not intact before 24 weeks of gestation - and even after that, fetuses abide "in a continuous sleep-like unconsciousness or sedation" that "can suppress higher cortical activation in the presence of intrusive external stimuli." (1)" My response: You are nitpicking. Whether you are right or I am about how late abortions take place is not relevant to the fact that abortion kills a human being. You said: "Only when the other group are actually people. There is no scientific evidence conclusively proving so (3) and the US constitution and Universal Declaration of Human Rights have not labelled them as people (4)." If the fetus is not human, what species is it?