azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should students be able to listen to music in class?
Side: No

no because he will not be able to concentrate with the teacher!!
Debate: Should students be able to listen to music in class?
Side: Yes

I doesn't mean a dancing music .. if we listen to cute music and gives you a great feeling to be able :)
Debate: Should students be able to listen to music in class?
Side: No

I think no, Because that means the teacher is not interesting the students,and if you are the teacher it will be hard to know who is focusing with you.
Debate: Should students be able to listen to music in class?
Side: Yes

but our teacher is trying to make it able .. because he know that we can get more understanding
Debate: Should students be able to listen to music in class?
Side: No

students can not focus with music and teacher at the same time . So they have to just listen to the teacher ..
Debate: Should students be able to listen to music in class?
Side: Yes

if the music was low they can and I try it in my class .
Debate: Should students be able to listen to music in class?
Side: Yes

You wouldn't listen to music when the teacher was talking. I don't understand why you would even think that is what this is about. You would listen to it during work time. And if the teacher does have to say something, then if you are wearing just one earbud then you can hear it just fine. That's the rule at my school- one earbud only- and we can always hear if the teacher has to say scomething
Debate: Should students be able to listen to music in class?
Side: No

My teacher would have grabbed my ear, pulled me outside, and swatted my little ass. Probably why the country used to have manners.
Debate: Should students be able to listen to music in class?
Side: Yes

Of course my teachers were busy chasing me around. If only I'd had those new kid crack meds...*
Debate: Should students be able to listen to music in class?
Side: No

music effects negatively on the cells of brain when the teacher and music talk in the same time ..
Debate: Should students be able to listen to music in class?
Side: No

I want to ask you .. did you try it before ?
Debate: Should students be able to listen to music in class?
Side: No

yeah guy u think it's great idea but it isn't in fact it's horrible because students will lose thier focus
Debate: Should students be able to listen to music in class?
Side: Yes

Music can create bonding opportunities,and can make you see that there are other people with struggles just like you.
Debate: Should students be able to listen to music in class?
Side: Yes

Music makes kids focus. When listening to music you tend to flow with the drum beat, so when its a fast beat, you go faster. If you are listening to a fast song that means that you can get more work done. For example, I was listening to a fast song when I wrote this and it took about 10 seconds.
Debate: Should students be able to listen to music in class?
Side: No

i don't think that's a good idea because our students don't need one more think to lose thier focus
Debate: Should students be able to listen to music in class?
Side: Yes

, I think kids should be allowed to listen to music in class because it helps kids concentrate. It also could solve the problem of kids talking in class. While listening to music they wouldn't be able to hear their friends talking as well and it would block out background noise
Debate: Should students be able to listen to music in class?
Side: No

as we all know lowdly music can break glass !! And i think any type of music enough to break ur focus
Debate: Should students be able to listen to music in class?
Side: Yes

According to the American Music Conference (AMC), music won"t rot your mind -- in fact, it"s actually good for your thinking-cap. The AMC has cited research that has shown that studying and creating music may help improve your capacity to learn other subjects and get better grades overall.<< (This is copied and pasted from yahoo! sorry...)
Debate: Should students be able to listen to music in class?
Side: No

in my opinion if my teacher see that she won't be happy :D
Debate: Should students be able to listen to music in class?
Side: No

i think music like blade with 2 faces if u can use it professionaly u can reach what u want but if u can't u'll lose more
Debate: Should students be able to listen to music in class?
Side: No

should teachers be able to come to ur home and give u free extra study time
Debate: Should students be able to listen to music in class?
Side: No

chill brother u're in arabian world to make sure u can remember
Debate: Should students be able to listen to music in class?
Side: No

i said no because the focus is main think not same as music -i mean at school time -
Debate: Should students be able to listen to music in class?
Side: No

i don't think so because i can't focus when i listen to music
Debate: Should students be able to listen to music in class?
Side: No

in fact that's impossible because music will make them lose more focus
Debate: Should students be able to listen to music in class?
Side: Yes

Music actually makes kids more focused. If we didn't have it, our minds would just be wondering around, doing nothing at all. When listening to music, you get a certain feeling, so when you have a good feeling you can get a lot done.
Debate: Should students be able to listen to music in class?
Side: No

Another reason is the bad influence on children most music these days can have.If you think about it , roughly 60% of the music kids listen to nowadays is explicit or at least contains an inappropriate story line or meaning.
Debate: Should students be able to listen to music in class?
Side: Yes

About you're point on bad influences new music causes.1. Not all kids listen to new music these days and not all music has a bad storyline or meaning. Lots of music is poetic and beautiful, even some rap songs (which I consider to mostly be a guy screaming swear words in no tone over loud horrible music).
Debate: Should students be able to listen to music in class?
Side: No

teacher will punish us !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Debate: Should students be able to listen to music in class?
Side: No

you will forget the information that was told ....................
Debate: Should students be able to listen to music in class?
Side: No

you will forget all of the information that was told by teacher .........
Debate: Should students be able to listen to music in class?
Side: No

Music help them focusing on their works and ignoring all the noise around them like people talking, like people talking or teachers teaching. unless teachers act out what they have to teach.
Debate: Should students be able to listen to music in class?
Side: No

and students are able to listen to music (unless they are deaf). they just shouldn't be allowed to.
Debate: Should students be able to listen to music in class?
Side: No

Yes, for me personally the right music can make such a positive difference in my studies. Although I have seen a lot of kids taking advantage of the possibility that has been given to them. Kids will copy some notes down from their notes. Of course during a lesson, it really doesn't make a difference but alto of people also say that during a TEST, some music would help them to concentrate. It would be possible for the teacher to control the students so that they can't touch their electronic device at all. But they could also record the test answers and then listen to that. And also if students could listen to music during a test, the teachers would have so many new things to observe, it would be a bad utilization of teachers resources. All that together, it just wouldn't be reasonable. And i am sure that music makes a big difference for only a few students in class
Debate: Should students be able to listen to music in class?
Side: No

I didn't say during a test; I certainly wouldn't agree with that, and your also forgetting that there are moderators and invigilators involved. About the playing of music on in normal lessons could potentially be a device ultimately controlled by the teacher. However, I appreciate that this way may not work for everyone; there has to be an element of trust. If I were the teacher, I would allow people to listen to their own music but after giving the pupil's their freedom of choice, I would assess whether it made them lose focus or gain focus and make a reasonable judgement. Therefore, anyone who violates/ takes advantage of this privilege will be reminded of the many people in the world who don't get a chance for a proper education or risk their lives every day to travel to school in very remote areas. This is a reality. Abusers will automatically lose that privilege if they abuse it's fair, right? That is their choice. As for listening to the teacher - the lesson isn't constituted by merely the teacher talking all the time, so during work time you can be flexible and allow the pupils to listen to their music if they want to. I think that could work.
Debate: Should students be able to listen to music in class?
Side: No

Music is very enjoyable, but it just isn't practical to allow students to listen to music- wait, scratch that. Music is a fun treat, and can be used during recesses, or maybe for fun activities or parties in the classroom, or maybe even if the teacher just feel like putting it on. However, if students were always listening to music, inappropriate context is obviously a concern. It may not be a big deal for 12th graders, but what about 1st graders? If one child in a classroom is exposed to language or other, well, things…….other first graders could pick it up and soon all of the parents will be angry that their child knows such bad language and context! I'm not saying that music is a bad thing- in fact, its a great thing! Songs can be used to help certain students learn, but the fact that the title just said "music" can mean any type of music, so because of that I am against it.If teachers specifically say at certain times that it is okay, than its okay. But I would be careful about that decision if made…...
Debate: Should students be able to listen to music in class?
Side: Yes

It might be good if they had the child's parents approve or create a list that they approve of.
Debate: Should students be able to listen to music in class?
Side: Yes

Okay, but I don't think a first grade teacher that barely let's you say, "I hate you," is gonna let some innocent 1st graders listen to music with curse words in it. Just a thought. Oh and I don't know if they mean singularly, as in everyone bring in their iPods and ear buds, and keep the volume on low and one ear bud in, or group as in she chooses the music, but the second option would be bad for some, but the first option is great for those who like music.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

Based on how this is worded, I have to say yes. But I do strongly disagree with one way this could be interpreted.If kids want to be taught creationism, the should be allowed to seek it out with their parents, churches, books, the internet etc. I do not believe in blanket censorship of ideas. But if the poster had added the words "in schools" at the end of the sentence, I'd be on the "no" side. Seriously, who would think that kids have the right, knowledge or capability to start cherry-picking their own curriculum?And actually, even then, I would be okay with them learning about creationism in a comparative religions, philosophy or modern issues class. Just not in a science class.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

What is the difference between a child choosing to learn about religion on their own outside of school and them choosing to learn about in school in a class? They are still making the same decision, just in a different context.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

Of course. But the context is important.It is inappropriate to teach creationism in a science class because it cannot be supported by the scientific method. But I don't feel we should censor ideas or remove people's abilities to investigate concepts independent of school, nor do I think it would be possible to do so. Ultimately, whether the learn about evolution in school or not appears to be irelevent anyway. Public schools have been teaching evolution in most of the US for several generations now, yet a notable percentage of people in this country who went to public school disbelieve it anyway.We would be better served by focusing on teaching logic and reason rather than trying to censor subjects that are devoid of either.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

It is inappropriate to teach creationism in a science class because it cannot be supported by the scientific method.Well, I'm not sure that Creationism would be taught in a science class. And if you believe in the Bible, Science isn't supported by the Bible, therefore all believers should disregard science.Creationism should be taught in schools. What I don't like about this argument is that we are deciding what children should think. In my private school, we were taught both. Religiously, we believed in creation, but scientifically we believed evolution.They can both be, and are, true. Creationism tells the story of intent. Evolution tells the story of method. I'm not staying that it was intentionally designed this way, but it what we have. There was a time where I stopped believing in God and tried to answer my questions scientifically. Oddly, the science brought be me back to God. I'm a scientist by means of observation, plus I read and dabble in actually science. But I began to see the pattern of religious concepts in nature.Religion exists. As facts go, that is a fact. And within religion is a concept of a creator.If there isn't a creator, who created the concept of a creator? Why did this concept come about and why not after almost 17,000 years has it not died? Did "nature" create this idea? If not the creator, then nature did, for it was one or the other. And if Nature created it, couldn't Nature be considered the Creator?Anti-creationists are quick to point out how man "created the creator." But if there isn't a distinct 3rd party creator, then Nature is the creator. Man is a nature made product. Just like trees, rivers, oil, and pond scum. Many Anti-creationists want to separate man from Nature, as if Man was capable of doing something independent of Nature.Without God, Man can never transcend Nature. Nothing man ever does will be his achievement, because no matter what he does it will always just be Nature at work.So when we invent and develop spacecraft to take us to other galaxies, it was just Nature doing it's thing.I believe there is a creator. I believe I know where he lives.We would be better served by focusing on teaching logic and reason rather than trying to censor subjects that are devoid of either.This is very narrow minded. There are so many awesome things that have nothing to do with logic or reasons. Crazy naked parties are just a the beginning. Love isn't logic or reasonable, nor is adventure, football, racing cars, etc. There is more to said about passion and creativity then logic and reason.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

And, as my very first post pointed out, there are numerous avenues of learning about creation science outside of school.Though exactly a rock solid argument: Many years ago, when the Greek mythology was real, or rather popular, people would come from far away to watch the drama. Greek plays were most often done in light. Even though the audience knew the stories were fairy tales, they wanted them for very important reasons.In a couple of the stories, perhaps a father or mother went mad and killed their child. The audience would cry and realize that it could be them. And they could see in their neighbor same horror they felt. And these reaffirmed their need to be strong and good.My point: At one time, it was more important to teach emotional intelligence then science. Developing character is still more important the learning science and logic.Science in general can't really have one opinion or the other about the existence of God, and evolution specifically is only about the method of life's diversification, not its origin.I was part of the Scientology cult for a little while. When I first started, they claimed that they were non-denominational. They assured me that being a Scientology would not conflict with my other religious beliefs. That was just to suck you in. Later on they can calling Jesus a pedophile and such and he was the incarnation of their devil, more or less.The Science Community is a little the same. They claim they don't have a stance, but once you are in, their stance is very clear. If you cannot validate it, its not real. As a validation specialist myself, I found that a lot of religious belief can be validated, you just have to try. Science is like politics, it is funded by people with an agenda. They will not take a stance on God because they know they cannot hold it, but God doesn't serve the political agenda. The idea that there is some great intelligence out there that has our best interests at heart would divert precious attention away from their power and influence.Even if this was true, so what? If that is how it really is, so be it. Naturalistic accomplishment can still be awe-inspiring and worthy of a pat on the back.I love Nature. To me, it's God made manifest. It follows the laws and truth and choice.------I would love to respond to all of your points, but my post tend to a get very long. I enjoy you point of view, as it pretty well thought out, but I still dispute. I can't help it, Nature made me this way. : )
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

Actually, if you look at the old-school Greek teaching methods, you will see that logic and philosophy were compulsory for a good education, I can take a little correction on this subject. I'm not an expert on Greek history. Greeks had their fingers in many pies.Emotions are great and natural for what they are, but they cloud rational judgement and allow us to be manipulated by smooth talkers who ramp up the pathos and ignore the logos. Emotions are actually more real then thoughts. We cannot directly control how we feel. Our feelings can be taught and trained, but it takes time. The power of our thoughts is strongly rooted our ability to change our perspective. For example: Perhaps some horrible event happens to us as kids, and for years we feel bitter or hurt. Then one day you realize that the event make you into a person that you are proud to be. Without the event, maybe you would a beer drinking, couch sitting, TV watching, Arm Chair Quarter Back. Suddenly you are a grate for the experience.Suddenly, you change your perspective and you feelings follow. You can think you are logical, but your emotions tell the truth about how your "reality" is working.You feelings are more closely tried to the reality of the laws of nature. If someone is able to manipulate you, that is the reality of the your base consciousness.For example: You crave friends and recognition. You might not be consciousness aware of it, but you might find yourself doing illogical things to impress people. That is because some part of your subconscious has a desire that might not fit into your model of logic and reason.However, in your subconscious is the history and code of billions of years worth of survival, success, and happiness.The reason things are how they are is because we are what survived.There is consciousness in humans that is beyond them. For some reason, the inner consciousness doesn't humans. The sex drive, the need for happiness, the need for companionship, the need for home, etc, are driven by something deeper then logic and reason.This one of the reasons I believe in Great God and greater beings. There is another life force within us and not allowing us access to the root consciousness. It's sort of like the Borg.There is something in side of us, creating us, and we don't have access to it. At least, not directly.Our emotions are sort of like the connection between the base human code and our personal perspective of the world.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

Emotions are actually more real then thoughts.Even if I bought that concept, which I do not, emotions would still not be more real than the facts in the external world. For example: Perhaps some horrible event happens to us as kids, and for years we feel bitter or hurt. Then one day you realize that the event make you into a person that you are proud to be. Without the event, maybe you would a beer drinking, couch sitting, TV watching, Arm Chair Quarter Back. Suddenly you are a grate for the experience.The exact opposite can and does happen too though. A single event can take a once happy person who is well on their way to greatness and turn them into a shell of themselves. Emotion is a double-edged sword. You feelings are more closely tried to the reality of the laws of nature. Yes and no. On the one hand I totally agree with how they are deeply wired into us as humans, carried on for many generations and refined into our present existence. But they still operate independently of reality. They give us impulses that don't really have anything to do with reality. Disliking poverty does not change the reality of poverty. Liking how a meal tastes does not make in necessarily healthy to eat the meal. The sex drive, the need for happiness, the need for companionship, the need for home, etc, are driven by something deeper then logic and reason.Deeper? Maybe. More realistic or helpful, almost certainly not, at least not always. The sex drive helps keep the species going, but it can also lead to a lot of trouble that could be avoided if people were just more careful and restrained about it. Our emotions are sort of like the connection between the base human code and our personal perspective of the world.But the personal perspective is inherently limited to our observations and capabilities to process them. Virtually all of the universe goes by without us knowing about it...
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

In your first several paragraphs you didn't show me how facts are wrong, just how they are incomplete. There is always something going on outside of our vision and understanding. I don't dispute that. There is no better place to get this realization than to study science, and I've done a little bit of that. But it doesn't work against objectivity, unless the goal is to know everything, and that certainly is not a realistic goal, nor one that has to be satisfied to get to the truth of most issues. Sure, countless things occured when "John coughed"...but it doesn't change the fact that yes, John coughed. And how we feel about him coughing doesn't do much about the fact of him coughing. Worse, feelings can lead us astray. When you are addicted to, say, tobacco, it is hard to feel good without ingesting it. Once you do light up a smoke after having been deprived or going through a stressful situation, you feel better, more complete. Life is right now. But when you are lying on the deathbed from cancer, all those hundreds of hours of good feelings are shown for what they are. Or women who feel that they are in love with someone who beats them, cheats on them. Their partner regularly makes them feel miserable, yet they put up with it for those fleeting moments when the partner makes them feel good, even though they should logically know that with all of the men out there there should be at least a few who can make them feel good without having to make them miserable. If I'm happy, I'm good with God, so to speak. If I'm not, then somewhere my feelings are at odds with my reality.Which means that somewhere your feelings are failing you. Objectivity and rationality can help you identify where the disconnect is coming from, and more importantly, what to do about it and maybe ways to avoid it in the future.