BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
should teachers be allowed to have cellphones at school

My opponent stated that teachers "should not be able to [use cellphones] unless it is an emergency" That means that teachers will need to have their cellphones at school in order to respond to such emergencies. Of course, I agree with my opponent's point that teachers should not be spending class time texting on their phones or something of the sort. But in order to respond to emergencies they will need to carry cellphones to school as I stated above. Hence teachers should be allowed to have cellphones at school. In addition cellular devices can be used in other ways as well which is productive for the class. For instance, if it is a smartphone then the teacher can look up information if a student asks a tough question. Even though there may be laptops or such devices, a smartphone is a good backup device if the teacher's original device is not functioning properly. Hence teachers should be allowed cellphones at school.
should teachers be allowed to have cellphones at school

You say they 'Cyber bully kids', i do not think that teachers would be spending class time would be bullies. But for arguments sake lets say they did. I do not think they would spend class time to send a mean text to a kid in class. Besides if they the teacher does have contact information of a child then the teacher can always cyber bully from home. School or home does not make a difference. In fact teachers wont be cyber bullying at school in the first place. They would be bullying in the traditional way since the student is right there, if they bully at all. You say that they will be a distraction to students, well this is agreeable to some extent but there is a possibility of an emergency (such as the teacher's spouse/child is in critical condition due to accident). And teachers know that nobody should call them unless it is urgent (they should tell their contacts that). Even if that does not seem good enough, they have break times where they can use phones.
Environmental protection

I used to embrace the idea of government regulation on oil companies that were damaging the environment. As a liberal, I used to think that the people that were against government regulation were just a bunch of dumb rednecks. This debate will be focused on why oil companies don't need regulation and how if we put regulations, the severe economic downside to that. 1: The Pro would usually be in the stance that nothing is happening to help the environment. That is true. But there are 320 million Americans. In those millions there are thousands, there are hundreds of people that believe in renewable energy sources. The reason why this is important is we first have to understand the free market. The free market insures competition between businesses. The reason why America grew was because of oil businesses competing with each other. We see this in technology. Apple and Microsoft competed with each other and ended up creating what we use today. The same ideas can be applied to the environment and renewable energy sources. Check out top ten renewable energy. Companies here http://www.renewableenergyworld.com... If you look at that link you would see that companies are already competing for finding the next energy source. 2:Oil Companies- All of the oil companies provide a total of 400 million jobs. http://www.chacha.com..., Putting restrictions will harm these oil companies producing economic uncertainty. 3.We are already ahead in energy- If you look at top ten renewable energy producers, you will find that countries are already ahead Rank Country Year Total[1] Hydroelectricity[2] Wind Power[3] Biomass and Waste[4] Solar[5] Geothermal[6] 1 China China [7] 2014 1300.0 900.0 160.0[8] 42.0 25.0 European Union European Union[9] 2013 755.7 395.5 227.4 51.3 75.6 5.9 2 United States United States 2011 520.1 325.1 119.7 56.7 1.81 17.0 3 Brazil Brazil 2011 459.2 424.3 2.71 32.2 0.0002 4 Canada Canada 2011 399.1 372.6 19.7 6.4 0.43 5 Russia Russia 2011 166.7 166.2 0.018 0.038 0.464 6 India India 2011 162 131 26 4 1 7 Germany Germany 2013 131.6 28.6 51.7 20.2 These are just ten 7 countries that are already paving the way for the future.
Music education should be put in high schools

I was mainly refering to schools funding voluntary band membership in schools 1. Incintive to get good grades Music education is benificial because it gives most students an incintive to obtain and maintain good grades. Many school systems require a 2.5 GPA to participate in music activities. If a student enjoys music this gives students a reason to get good grades.2. Teaches teamwork and preserverence Music education teaches teamwork because a band or choir is a giant team that must come togather to create music. It requires collaboration to play well and teaches students to work together. It also teaches perserverence through repitition. It takes patience to play a part over and over again to make it perfect.3. Teaches a trade Although music is a very competitive career field, music education in high school teaches a student skills needed to become a musician if they so choose4. Scholarships to collage Many collages give scholorship for music ability. Many students pa for collage by playing an instrament they learned in highschool5. Keeps kids out of trouble Music programs often have rehersals and concerts during the weekend and after school. If students are at these activities, they are less likely to be getting into trouble.6. Improved learning It has been proved that students involved in music have improved learning and grades than student that are not. In an analysis of U.S. Department of Education data on more than 25,000 secondary school students (NELS:88, National Education Longitudinal by Text-Enhance" href="http://www.amimusic.org/index-2-benefits.html">Survey), researchers found that students who report consistent high levels of involvement in instrumental music over the middle and high school years show “significantly higher levels of mathematics proficiency by grade 12.” This observation holds regardless of students’ socio-economic status, and differences in those who are involved with instrumental music vs. those who are not is more significant over time. http://www.amimusic.org...; “A research team exploring the link between music and intelligence reported that music training is far superior to computer instruction in dramatically enhancing children's abstract reasoning skills, the skills necessary for learning math and science. — Shaw, Rauscher, Levine, Wright, Dennis and Newcomb, "Music training causes long-term enhancement of preschool children's spatial-temporal reasoning," Neurological Research, Vol. 19, February 1997
Music education should be put in high schools

Ok this will be fun! I believe that high schoolers are old enough to decide if they want to join a sport, music, club, etc. You have gone through music education your entire life, and you should know the basics. Once you are in high school, you focus on college and what you want to do for a job. Many kids decide that they want to be a lawyer, doctor, nurse, etc., and you don't need to learn basic music notes when you are in court or operating on someone. You also learn how to read notes and to play the recorder in elementary school, so it shouldn't be mandatory for a high schooler.
Creationism should not be taught in schools

I will be debating that schools should teach their students about the theory known as creationism in a comparative religion class.Guidelines1) All common guidelines must be followed; No plagiarism, debate must be taken seriously, etc.2) No semantics. If you are unsure about a word, do not accept the debate and make your own definition. Ask.3) Sources must be proven reliable.4) First round is for acceptance only. This shows that you have agreed with all the guidelines and definition, and if you fail to follow a guideline or definition and claim you did not know, I could use your acceptance against you, because it shows you have read and agreed with all guidelines and definitions.DefinitionsCreationism - The theory that the christian god created the heavens and the earth in six twenty-four hour days, going by specific order.
Every view ends in meaninglessness

you say "his is barely a refutation. Pro invokes concepts such as logical absurdities, reductio ad absurdum, paradoxes and contradictions, then denies the meaning of truth. Pro can't have it both ways. Either those things mean something, in which case my argument stands, or they don't, in which case Pro refutes his initial argument." Con offered a rebuttal starting with the premiss 1. Suppose "Every view ends in meaninglessness" is true you see he uses the notion "true" but if every view ends in meaninglessness- as his premise states - then based on his premise the notion/view "true"" ends in meaninglessness as well so he cannot go on with the rest of his syllogism so in effect con did not offer a rebuttal also his premiss 1. Suppose "Every view ends in meaninglessness" is true is impredicative ie is a view thus referring to itself thus even the premiss ends in meaninglessness so again so in effect con did not offer a rebuttal
Every view ends in meaninglessness

you say "1. Suppose "Every view ends in meaninglessness" is true. (Hypothesis) 2. "Every view ends in meaninglessness" is a view. (Given) 3. Meaningless views are neither true nor false. (Given) 4. Meaningless views are not true. (From 3) 5. "Every view ends in meaninglessness" is meaningless. (From 1,2) 6. "Every view ends in meaninglessness" is not true. (From 4,5)" the notion "true" ends in meaninglessness the notion "meaninglessness" ends in meaninglessness
Every view ends in meaninglessness

1. Suppose "Every view ends in meaninglessness" is true. (Hypothesis)2. "Every view ends in meaninglessness" is a view. (Given)3. Meaningless views are neither true nor false. (Given)4. Meaningless views are not true. (From 3)5. "Every view ends in meaninglessness" is meaningless. (From 1,2)6. "Every view ends in meaninglessness" is not true. (From 4,5)The resolution is disproven.
Every view ends in meaninglessness

This MA in philosophy argues all views end in meaninglessness ie existentialism nihilism etc all ologies all isms every view Contentless-Thought-A-Case-Study-in-the-Meaninglessness-of-all-Views http://www.scribd.com... quote " all our categories, all our ideas, all theses, all antitheses, all philosophies, all epistemologies, all ethics, all ontologies, and all metaphysics, in other words all our views are meaningless. They all collapse into absurdity, or meaninglessness via a dialectical reductio ad absurdum form of argumentation... Absurdities (i.e. self-contradiction, infinite regress, paradox, circularities and dilemmas) exist within a word, image, concept, or anything else as a yet to be discovered statue exists within the block of marble."
Breed-Specific bans on dogs

What if the people taking care of these dogs actually had malicious intents? Many times families can seem loving towards their pets, but in reality they may not be. It is more of a risk to give the option of owning a powerful breed to people like I just described than to allow them the option. You would never hand a bat or a gun to someone who is inherently angry, though these are not necessarily a threat to others, they definitely have the ability to be so. Specific breeds of dogs are not necessarily a threat, but certainly can fall into this category. The argument on whether or not specific breeds should be banned does not only have to deal with dog fighting, but also violent dog attacks that occur across the country. In fact, "Each year, more than 350,000 dog bite victims are seen in emergency rooms, and approximately 850,000 victims receive medical attention." http://dogbitelaw.com... . This is a fact that is being ignored. The reality is, this situation can be fixed higher up in the stream, so to say. By not allowing certain breeds of dogs, we cut the risk of attacks and dog fights down (or at least decrease the likelihood of them). This, in turn, provides more benefits for the country as a whole, and greatly outweighs whatever drawbacks may occur. Though it might be difficult to enforce, the cost of these attacks shows that we should move forward with some type of response. Education can not be trusted solely to change the current situation. It takes a large amount of time, more resources, and less chance of success. The discussion is not on whether these dogs have an incorrect stigma (which can be changed with education), this discussion is brought up to do something about the dangers of certain breeds that have been noted over time. Though education can help, by combining it with legislation we once again increase the chance of solving all the issues that certain breeds of dog can bring up. Education and BSL are not exclusive, and can be used together to increase protection. The fact is, incorporating some type of legislation can better outweigh any form of drawback, as has been commented before, and is what this debate is standing on. Maybe a law banning breeds entirely (including mixes) is not the best solution either, but while educating the public (which would take a lot of time), some type of restriction is necessary. Thank you.
Breed-Specific bans on dogs

Pit Bulls and other similar breeds are targeted for dog fighting for several reasons. But the reason that rules above all is their loyalty. Yes, they have powerful jaws, but a larger, stronger, breed could easily win a fight with them. Even poodles have been known to be vicious, and even attack pit bulls. Despite their strong and fierce rap, pit bulls are /not/ the strongest, fastest, most powerful, most dangerous, or even the smartest breed. And like I said before, taking these dogs and banishing them from (often times) loving families, is not going to solve (Or even help) the problem. People will still fight dogs mercifully. They will choose a different breed, and give that breed a bad rap. The problem is not the animal, or the stigma even, it is how the people are taught. And if people are still dog fighting even though it is illegal, what makes you think that they will listen to a ban either? If we don't have the time or resources to effectively enforce the law already in place to stop this, I have not faith at all that making a new law on the same topic will be enforced any better. By simply educating the public, we can stop dog fighting in youth before it starts and save countless pit bull (and other breeds) lives. And there is also just too much confusion about these laws. What about mixes? If your dog is one fourth pit bull what happens? And what about the dogs already there? Do you simply euthanize them? Or do you send them to another state or country to become that place's problem? There is simply no obvious, easy, or clear way to enforce these laws. And wouldn't banning these dogs just enforce the already prominent and dangerous stigma surrounding these breeds? If children are never exposed to a good example of a pit bull, and they only hear from the media about these bans, their fear will only grow. As much as a quick fix to a large problem sounds good, it simply isn't realistic and wouldn't be effective. Breed-specific bans would do more harm than good. http://www.mlive.com... This source is just something I saw that I thought was interesting. It enforces the point about whether mixed breed dogs would be banned or not. I thought the Pachbund was a really interesting example. (Also really cute and funny, just a cool article to look at even if it doesn't support my side too much.)-- http://www.holidogtimes.com...
Breed-Specific bans on dogs

Thank you for posting your argument regardless of mine not being there. I do agree with you that people have the fault not the dogs; however, dogs have no power on what people decide to do with them. As you said, people could decide to breed poodles to fight, but they do not have as much strength as the pit bull type does. That is why more people chose to make "pit bulls" fight. You argue that we should put our resources elsewhere (educating people and banning fights instead); governments have tried. For example, dog fighting is illegal in all 50 states (http://www.humanesociety.org...). This does not mean that people won't breed their dogs to be mean and vicious. Many dog breeds suffer because of their looks alone, just because they look mean. Some people want them just for that and breed them to enforce that look. Yes, there is a stereotype and the breed is not actually like that, but many want them to be. Until people are better educated and more strict rules are enforced against cruelty towards these animals and dog fighting, I think that banning them is a better option. It allows the option for them to not be engaged in this activity, therefore to not suffer the damages that come from it. As well as by not having these enraged animals, whether it be their fault or not, people do not see their bad side and stay with the stereotype. Thank you; I look forward to your response.
Breed-Specific bans on dogs

Okayyyy so I guess you missed the deadline but I will post my argument anyway. Breed specific bans are usually on dogs that are part of the pit bull class because of the stigma surrounding these dogs. The stigma comes from some dogs being used for dog fighting and being labeled as "dangerous." But the problem is not the dogs, it is the owners. Take away a pit bull? A dog fighter will train a poodle to fight. We need to focus our money and resources on educating the public and stopping dog fighting, not enacting discriminatory laws that hurt dogs and their owners. The fact is, there is no evidence that these laws work, as they are notoriously hard to enforce. They also encourage people to keep their dogs inside and deprive them of exercise and space to keep them out of sight. And as someone who has been around many pit bulls and volunteers at an animal shelter, these animals are able to be rehabilitated and deserve to be treated kindly, not banished from their homes. Pit bulls and other breeds are not inherently dangerous, they simply are too loyal for their own good. Banish the culprit, not the victim. http://www.aspca.org...
Breed-Specific bans on dogs

Hello, The debate is about whether there should be Breed-Specific bans or laws against dogs in the United States. Term definition.- Breed Specific Ban: Breed-specific legislation (BSL), also referred to as breed-discriminatory legislation (BDL), is a law or ordinance that prohibits or restricts the keeping of dogs of specific breeds, dogs presumed to be specific breeds, mixes of specific breeds, and/or dogs presumed to be mixes of one or more of those breeds. The most drastic form of BSL is a complete ban (http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com...). First round: Acceptance. Also, please let me know what it would take for you to agree with me. Second Round: Arguments. Third Round: Rebuttals. Forth Round: Conclusions.
$15 minimum wage would be beneficial

Thank you for accepting. Currently, the United States is filled with lazy "workers" who don't want to work. At minumum wage, on a 40-hour work week, one could be slightly below the $15,000 threshold for poverty. With that being said, 70% of those who have a minimum wage job, work 35 hours a week or less. (1) People need to get active. People need to go to school and get a job. This is the land of oppurtunity, people should not be trying to live off of minimum wage in the first place. Making the minimum wage $15 would also cause many economic issues. What kind of prosperous corporation is going to want to hire more employees at $15/hr, if they are being taxed more (given Bernie Sanders is elected)? A $15/hr minimum wage is only going to make America more lazy. (1) Source- http://www.salary.com...
Biblical truth is false.

You are correct when you state that my beliefs are.."There are many personal realities instead of one true reality". I am happy to hear that you are understanding towards my point of view and I thank you very much for your mature demeanor and pleasant arguments. Maybe I will create a new debate on personal realities v.s. one true reality in the future. It could be a great debate... But neither side can be proven without doubt in my opinion. Thank you for your time, thoughts, and views Con.
Biblical truth is false.

Hey, thanks for putting up the debate. A few thoughts: I don't think your example of writing "The Zexus" is the same case we have as the Bible. You see, the Bible was mostly written as a historical and factual book. It is the history of God's people inspired by God Himself. This also wasn't some book that God appeared to the writer and directly commanded to be written down (with the exception of Revelation, hence the name). That was Mormonism. I understand that if a Christian says the Bible is "truth" (which "Biblical truth" is not an actual term as far as I know) there should be reason to say so. I gave the main reasons in my last argument. But the fact is, you cannot prove the Christian claim to be false, which is still what you would have to do in order to win. When reading your arguments I am getting a little understanding of your beliefs. You seem to suggest there are many "personal realities" rather than one true reality. This is where we differ, for in your view we would have contradicting realities which doesn't make much sense. Christians do in fact believe there is one truth and one reality, and this seems like something you don't believe in, I may be wrong or exaggerating on what I read. Since its over, there's not much point in continuing to debate, but if you have more thoughts you would like to share I'd like to here them. Thanks again mate.