BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
technology helps people to communicate

Technology lets people communicate instantly no matter how far apart they are. Telephones and the internet are huge examples of this. Technology helps translate languages so people can understand what others are saying even if they don't speak the same language. Language learning software, automatic translation of websites are examples. Technology lets people who would normally have no or very little means of communication communicate. Hearing aids are an example. But in every case, technology is the bridge that joins people or groups together so that they can converse, share ideas, and grow.
technology helps people to communicate

We are in danger of becoming a race of keyboard tappers unable to communicate with each other, meaningfully, in a natural manner, face to face. Technology should be used to enhance human communication, not to replace it. It's an unfortunate truth that many people use the wrong mediums for the messages they want to convey. Differing cultures, skill sets, and age groups require that information be delivered in a variety of formats. Depending on your circumstances, choose the most appropriate way possible to communicate. It could be face to face, a phone call, a text message, an email, or even a Facebook message. The trick is not to be lazy and use what seems more convenient. Use instead the most appropriate.
technology helps people to communicate

I don't think the technology help people to communicate,but make it even worse. Almost everyone has their own phone now. When people get together all they do is play with their phone, checking Facebook. People do not talk to each other anymore. Although technology does help the science and make it more convenience for people in some ways. But it also make the distance between people further than before. People playing with their phone all the time, even in school, in class while the teacher is talking, it will has bad influence in their grade and also lower the efficiency of studying. So I think the technology does not help the communication between people.
technology helps people to communicate

Not surprisingly, the majority of complaints about technology inhibiting communication come from older people who are disgruntled by being forced to learn new skills to communicate. Though it is understandable and even expected that technology would be confusing for people who didn"t grow up with it, this is not an adequate reason to blame it for communication problems. Rather than harboring unjustified dislike for technology, these people should invest in learning how to use it properly. I don"t know about you, but I haven"t met a single person who knows a lot about technology and doesn"t like it, so maybe technology is not as bad as we thought. First of all, people spend plenty of time communicating face to face. In fact, we spend more time in community than we ever could without technology due to the ease of making instant plans and contacting multiple people at once. Sending out a mass text or a facebook invite is an easy, efficient way of planning gatherings. Though some may complain it"s impersonal, that is actually one of its greatest benefits. Too often, people don"t make plans together because they don"t think they know each other well enough to ask or that the other person won"t want to hang out with them. Technology allows people to make plans in an impersonal, less intimidating way, which in turn allows them to spend quality time with a variety of people in person.
technology helps people to communicate

When two people take the time to talk to one another in person, they are able to clarify responses on the spot, brainstorm new ideas with one another, and ultimately come to a decision about what needs to happen. It's better than talk all about though phone, less and less people like talking face to face, because they don't know how. They are used to use phones. So I really believe that technology is not helping people. We should use technology as a bridge to enhance effective communication in some places. Technology can be addictive. So it is very bad for students. Because they are using them all the time, they are addicted to it. We should use it more properly.
breathing is healthy

First of all I would like to say that breathing is unhealthy because I deemed it so.. but for the sake of this debate I guess I will try to post some convincing evidence... - "Well, according to ---------- if we didn't breathe" I never stated that we shouldn't breathe, but that it is an unhealthy act.- - my opponent states... "(breathing) must be healthy (and it doesn't lead to death). Therefore, breathing is healthy.".. My opponent seems to think that the only way a person can be deemed unhealthy is by them being dead.. This (as we can all agree to I hope) is false <.<...- -Now for my argument- -Breathing is unhealthy.. especially when it is done through the mouth <.<... "Mouth breathing is considered harmful to the dento-oral complex as it can lead to hypotonicity of the upper lip, hyperactivity of the lower lip, distoclusion, harm to dental growth as well as bone growth, high vault of the palate, xerostomia, and adenoid face"[1]. - -Also on the same page it explains that when you breathe through your mouth the air is not filtered as much as if you where breathing through your nose.. but even your nose cannot filter everything.- -From a separate source about the benefits of breathing through your nose rather then your mouth we find this statement about breathing through the nose "in exhalation, and in case they have accumulated too rapidly or have managed to escape through the sieves and have penetrated forbidden regions"[2]. This shows that even though breathing through your nose is more healthy then breathing through your mouth bacteria and germs can still get through and into your body.- I await my opponents response. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.shout.net... (9th paragraph)
breathing is healthy

I am, indeed, resolved that breathing is healthy. How do I know this? Well, according to (http://www.dhyansanjivani.org...), if we didn't breathe, we wouldn't be able to supply out bodies with the amount of oxygen we would need to keep our brain, nervous system, and vital organs alive. When people have circulation blockages to the heart, they suffer a heart attack. When the same thing happens to the brain, they suffer a stroke. What are the results of suffering a heart attack? Well, according to (http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov...), half of the 1.1 million people suffering from heart attacks die. Definition of healthy (http://www.merriam-webster.com...): Main Entry: healthy Pronunciation: \ˈhel-thē also ˈhelt-Function: adjective Inflected Form(s): health•i•er; health•i•est Date: 1552 1 : enjoying health and vigor of body, mind, or spirit : Definition of Death (http://www.merriam-webster.com...): Main Entry: death Pronunciation: \ˈdethFunction: noun Etymology: Middle English deeth, from Old English dēath; akin to Old Norse dauthi death, deyja to die — more at die Date: before 12th century 1 a : a permanent cessation of all vital functions : the end of life — compare brain death b : an instance of dying Well, death isn't very healthy ... you can't be very healthy if you are alive. Therefore, if not breathing is un-healthy, than the only other option (breathing) must be healthy (and it doesn't lead to death). Therefore, breathing is healthy. I await my opponent's response!
people will die otherwse - all states should have opted into the medicaid expansion

I accept. First of all, look at the Obamacare expansion of plans necessary. From a personal experience, the requirement for Obamacare expansion has caused many health insurance companies to be forced to upgrade the required plan, therefore making the consumer pay lots of money out of the pocket. This would show catastrophic in others. Second of all, look at the states that did not go into Medicaid. They didn't go in because of the catastrophe that it made in the job market and the markets. For the job market, now people cannot get full time jobs because there employers refuse to hire full time. It is not beneficial for them anymore to have full time employees. Saying that this is going to cause 17,000 to die, what does that statement mean? That means that 17,000 will die of something? What will they die of? Not paying more bills? Trust me, it is not all about politics.
people will die otherwse - all states should have opted into the medicaid expansion

all states should have opted into medicaid expansion it basically amounts to politics alone being the reason people are dying. obamacare included a medicaid expansion for people with low income. (people with more than little income are part of the normal obamacare insurance exchange program, that may or may not include subsidies. the main reason the states should have opted into the expansion, is because so many people will die if they don't. an estimated 17,000 people will die because they opted out of the expansion. http://healthaffairs.org... https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net... also, getting medicaid to one's state is a financial boon to that state. it causes funds to flow to the state. it's in the states interest to take the money. even if there were some strings attached, or a co pay with teh state, overall it is more beneficial cause it's basically free money, at least with respect to the state. also, government run insurance is known to be more cost effective than other programs anyways... usually. the USA spends 17% of its GDP on healthcare, and has worse results than other developed countires. the other countires spend 10% on health care and get better results. most of those countires have govenment health care. (some have tightly regulatd private markets, but this is getting into another debate) also, the states can work with the federal government to create their own program. it's not like they are without options. while there may be principled reasons to be against the expansion, none are sufficient to overcome the above points. even if you quibble with some of the points, the fact that 17000 people will die otherwise is sufficient reason to take the expansion. if you have quelms with the system, work to reform it. in the mean time, take what you got. the polticians knew it would make them look bad to take the expansion, so they went against it. it basically amounts to politics alone being the reason people are dying.
people will die otherwse - all states should have opted into the medicaid expansion

it forces some plans to be upgraded, but this is only for private insurance. medicaid is not private insurance, and i've shown that non private plans in other countries are very well established to be cheaper and more efficient. as to the plans being upgraded, sure, but it also causes some plans to be cheaper. it is effectively taking from the rich to give to the poor. you have to be against this point to be against the private plan part of it, and i'm not so sure it's such a bad thing. i might be willing to admit that we only should have did medicaid expansion, cause then the overall cost wouldn't go up, potentially. i do admit i dont see plans that are down graded, but only upgraded. there's at least the marketplace acting on it to keep it cheaper, but that's be the case without expanding private insurance requirements, so again i could see beig against the private plan thing. for moral reasons, we should increase the requirements some for some people, just not as much as the government already did. again, with the employees full time point, that is for private insurance. not medicaid. also, that part time rule only covers employers with lots of employees. like fifty or so. richer companies can afford to buy insurance, and have group rates and a competitive exchange to keep it cheaper. also, if they decide to keep people with fewer hours, that would add more jobs to the labor force. that is always a good thing. not that government should be making those decisions, but when it's in an example like this where it's only to do good for people, it's not a bad thing. what is your evidence that medicaid expansion caused problems in the market? unemployment has only gone down since the housing crash, and indexes and productivity indices have only gone up. it might not be as fast we we'd like, but that's still the case. me thinks you are just 'gut thinking' your ideas here. i have no idea how you think people would not die without health insurance. that's what insurance does, enable you to pay for and / or receive health care. thus preventing death. everyone doesn't just get health care in america automatically. we live in an archaic society. before the expansion people had no care. it's not just increases in expectations of care, but giving care to begin with. with that said, obama care in general, regardless of what you think about medcaid expansion, has saved lives too. before obamacare, and this is a well established fact, about forty thousand people would die. the number of deaths have been cut in half. big surprise, it was pretty much poor people that died, and a little more than half of all states opted into it, thus saving a little more than half of their lives. we can dispute studies and such, though we shouldn't given how well established this stuff is, but if we look at the big picture as i just did, it makes sense that way too. i apologize for the forfeit. if you would like more responses to yours, i am willing to redebate, as i have more time.
Deism Is Absurd

I'll just end it with why I think deism isn't absurd and the case for deism. I argued that deism is a reasoned approach to faith and that it generally rejects organized religion. My opponent says deism is absurd because it is a belief in a God who doesn't care whether one is deist or not. I countered that it wasn't so because it wasn't mutually exclusive to believe in a thing that doesn't bother over someone eg virtual particles, dust etc He also maintains that deism has no practical and repeats that since a deist's God doesn't care, it's absurd. My counter has been that a deist God does care and some deists believe this. I earlier argued that there were a wide category of deists some who are quasi-theist; therefore, partly explaining why a deist can believe God intervenes. I also noted America's founding fathers were deists and that their beliefs were vital to the principle of seperation of church and state. 'Nuff said. As I said earlier, deism is a reasoned approach to faith. And it is important to note that deism, since it lost prominence, has quietly evolved in ways people like Garret no longer appreciate. For example, why I will call myself a deist who believes in an intervening God is that my understanding of it is significantly different from religionists. But more importantly, I believe God to be transpersonal, who transcends human personality as its source; and hence, is different in many ways from the personality box we place him in. A Brahma if you will. This is my own approach. There are some deists who are pretty much classical deists; some deists are strong anti-theists, some aren't; some believe in evolution, some like me remain deist because of ID: the deist community has become more varied. I think deism is a viable alternative to spirituality without religion since it allows one to choose one's way to undertsanding God without the constraints of revealed religion, and without perforce having to be diametrically opposed to it. There's no a priori belief in Scripture or clergy or a community they adhere to so they are relatively less biased than either sides. In light of this deism is not absurd, it's the most logical approach towards finding the truth about final cause(s) in reality. Thank you.
Deism Is Absurd

The definition of deism you emphasize is constrictive. I have said some deists believe God intervenes in the universe. For example, Benjamin Franklin was deist who believed in miracles. But let's assume the deist's God doesn't interfere with Nature. What next ? You don't effectively rebut my points: you simply cherry-pick it as I will show. 1) I actually stated why believing a belief doesn't matter isn't absurd. It isn't a mutually exclusive statement. And you didn't show how my examples of beliefs like the Bahai faith was wrong. That said, deism is of practical value in knowing the truth about reality, which matters to everyone and how they live. Furthermore, deists believe that man should follow the pursuit of good based on reason and empathy. As for deism solving life's problems, you may want to reconsider that. Thomas Paine was an example of how deism in a man solved problems. He wrote his book 'On The Age Of Reason' in part to stem the tide of atheism in France during the period of the revolution; you may confirm this by reading the preface of the book. America's founding fathers a number whom were deists like Thomas Paine (also a founding father) specifically emphasized the seperation of church and state because they didn't want religion to be used to oppress people. They may not have done this if they were deists. 2) God can care about a universe he doesn't intervene in. For example, audience of a sport eg wrestling match, baseball etc care about it, but they don't intervene; they aren't allowed to. A father can deeply care about a child who is now independent and since being no longer a minor. Caring about things you don't interact with is very common. 3) Pointing out a hypocrisy undermines a rule being broken; especially if, as in your case, the rule is not consistently applied. You say because the deist's God doesn't care deism is absurd. I reply that the Christian God doesn't care too, now why shouldn't the Christian God be absurd; you still believe in Him and defend Him. Finally, you simply assert God loves all people; you don't bring evidence. Not to mention how I pointed out God doesn't mention deists or atheists at all. And the doctrine of hell contradicts a loving God. Deism is practical. It believes in a God without being too speculative. I think that's a more reasoned approach to faith as opposed to taking what a man says or writes as divine fiat.
Deism Is Absurd

“A better definition of deism would be a belief in God based on reason.” This implies that all non-deist religions are irrational. Because of this absurd (or at least, unsubstantiated) assertion, Deism must remain defined as the belief in a god who doesn't interfere with nature. “Examples of people who think their beliefs don't matter include Unitarian universalists (who accept all beliefs), liberal Christians (who believe other faiths are as valid as theirs), Bahai followers who think the brotherhood of all men is more important.” Deism is just as practical a belief as Unitarian Universalism. Deism offers no solution to any of life's problems, and neither does Unitarian Universalism, by virtue of it's inherent self-contradictory nature. “Your statement that deists believe God doesn't care is a hasty generalization( … )” It's not, actually. If God does not intervene in the universe, there can be no evidence that God cares about what you believe. To think otherwise would be irrational, which would contradict your earlier claim of Deism being “based on reason.” “Christians say the Bible teaches that they shouldn't care for secular matters but spiritual ones; does it follow that Christians undermine themselves?” Pointing out examples of hypocrisy does not undermine the rule being broken. “I think a Yahweh who is omniscient would have foreseen atheists and deists and couldn't (and shouldn't IMHO) be bothered with them.” I assume you're referring to the Old Testament God because you call him Yahweh. Yahweh loves all people, so to say he “couldn't” or “shouldn't” be bothered with the people he loves makes no sense. “I can argue that Yahweh didn't care about deists or atheists( … )” You can't, for the same reason I just explained. Deism has no practical value.
Deism Is Absurd

A better definition of deism would be a belief in God based on reason. Some deists believe that God intervenes in the universe. In fact, there is a wide spectrum of deists from Christian (or quasi-Christian) to agnostic deists, even deist anti-theists who criticize religion as strongly as some atheists. Hence, it's best to capture all deists as people who belief in God based on reason and outside the scope of organised religions. Deism has evolved from the quasi-Christian movement it was to something larger. Your point on deism's absurdity rests on the proposal that deism involves a belief that denies itself (a belief that believes it doesn't matter). You state the reason for this is because deists believe in a God who doesn't care whether or not He is believed in. This is wrong because 1) Believing your belief doesn't matter isn't absurd; what is absurd (or logically contradictory) is to believe you don't have a belief. Na"ve skeptics are an example of this, atheists too. Examples of people who think their beliefs don't matter include Unitarian universalists (who accept all beliefs), liberal Christians (who believe other faiths are as valid as theirs), Bahai followers who think the brotherhood of all men is more important. 2) Even then, not all deists think God doesn't care about someone's belief. Some may think God cares and it seems Edward Herbert was that sort. Some are agnostic about it, and some do think God doesn't care. Your statement that deists believe God doesn't care is a hasty generalization, especially since deism has been a loose movement for centuries, even till now. 3) Finally, what if God doesn't care ? How must it follow that deism undermines itself ? Christians say the Bible teaches that they shouldn't care for secular matters but spiritual ones; does it follow that Christians undermine themselves ? It doesn't. No more than a painter who doesn't care whether people like his painting or not makes him less a painter. I think a Yahweh who is omniscient would have foreseen atheists and deists and couldn't (and shouldn't IMHO) be bothered with them. Even then, I can argue that Yahweh didn't care about deists or atheists, and undermined himself since there is no mention of deists, and atheism is mentioned once in Psalm 14:1. I hope these points show that the absurdity lies with your claim and not deism.
Deism Is Absurd

Thanks for accepting. According to Google, Deism is: belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind. Deism is absurd because it posits that itself doesn't matter. What word is better suited to describe a belief which demands that subscription to itself has no relevance in the final analysis, than the word “absurd”?! If one subscribes to Deism, one subscribes to belief in a God who doesn't care whether you believe in him or not. That's what Deism is: belief that your belief doesn't matter. Deism is absurd. Good luck, Con.