BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
yes , reading books helps in sharpening the intellectuality and ultimately results in widening the mental spheres .

Reading books enhance the intellectuality it fills the hunger of striving mind ,it satisfy all the queries of mind . Reading book enhance the imagination and hence open wider space of creativity . it helps in innovating different things which tv does not.contrary to that tv shortens the probability of innovation .when one reads a book he can learn how to imagine , he can learn how to express the views ,he can learn how to make a perception over a thing .watching tv would not help in learning all these minute things which are important for a person .because expression of views gives a person an identity it personify him .so for being a better learner one should need to be better scholar and for that he definitely need to read mind enriching books .
Even the most educational shows are novice at best.

Firstly, all education is not the same. I is an huge over generaliztion to simpy say all education good even within a context of university. For we may learn false or fallacious knowledge or simply bad knowledge. For arguing through a Graduate level framework. I take pleasure every few day to watch something benificial before bed. What I recognize of even the most educational shows they are benificial only to a very general understanding of the topic. Channels such as the history channel are hardly historical and even when they are they are careless to speak with enough accuracy to discriminate between very unliklyness and truth claims. There is often a motivation to make certain topics more exciting but often with the cost of oversimplification. Moreover in attempt to reach greater audiences shows are capped at a intellectual capacity of the casual person. But for a deep level of understanding books can be particularly selected to meet the optimal requirements for the learner. For there may be use in learning basic generals of a topic. But the computer really is the better source then both books or tv. especially with the increase of e-books and the ability to select for individual capacities. But books inable to reader to learn at thier own pace and process information at a pace best for them, while a tv show requires less effort. the learner loses information when attemping to contemplate over a concept of interest for they either miss the continuing the information or do not fully benifit at the from absorbtion of information caused by deeper processing. One of the intuitive motivation for tv vs books is the effort required vs pleasure recieved. For just like any new system of understanding such as learning a new language or learning to type.. once the skill is mastered the effort required for value drops thus increasing the motivation to take advantage of the new skill. thus mastery of reading increases the rate you of value you get out of reading vs the effort put in.. That is for the unpractised reader may be more motivated for tv then books. But as you become more skilled the more you reading becomes valuable. So we may understand that the novice reader cannot percieve the value of reading from a frame work of ignorance. this is not to be taken in an evaluative meaning but rather a descriptive explanation.
Commercialization on tv is brain posion

One thing that has been left our of this debate is all the things envovled in tv that is unwanted. Commercials are constanty bombarded our mind and thougth with sophisms and non-sense motivation by association to product we don't need. Secondly, There is alot of volence and fake sense of reality.. What does are the effects of constant imaginary dialogues that seem to resemble everyday living when they are not.. Is there a warping of understanding reality when being constantly bombared by fictional circumstance .. does false everyday entertaining coincedence on tv increase or standard of real life thus making reality and learning apealling to use as dull. Do constant shows and movies which verifiy our own values polars are fundementalist beliefs of society blind us.. particularly in the State fundementaism is on the rise.. such reaffirmation of democraxy and conception of rights leave reallity making us impervious to refutability of discomfirming information?
The ever-present threat of terrorism or a crash

This is manipulating statistics to the worst degree. Of course a terrorist is not going to bomb a bicycle as its travelling along the road! But it is more likely a bike will be hit by a car than a terrorist planting a bomb on the train you are on. If we totalled up statistics, compared train accidents/bombings with car crashes and bike accidents I ma sure you would find that the train is a far safer mode of transport. " Nowhere near as dangerous as they used to be, is the upbeat answer. Last year, 3,423 people were killed on the roads, two more than in 1998. (By comparison, 33 were killed on the railways.) "(1) (1)http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1076541.stm
Luggage limitations

Well then as a one off, for holidays, people could use a car. This does not negate the fact that trains should be the main mode of transport for all people. that rail companies currently only provide limited luggage space does not religate rail travel from being the mode of transport for the future as rail transport could carry as much luggage as any sane person is likely to want to bring once more luggage racks were fitted. Or else if you happen to want to take more luggage with you than you can carry then the railways could do as they once offered and deliver it in a similar maner to the way airlines do now.
Germs and all things icky

Germs and disease causing pathogens are spread on trains very easily as carriages are not often sanitised. Holding a hand rail on a train could leave you with an illness for a week- or worse! This is caused by any mode of transport where large volumes of people travel daily. In a day and age when germs are immunising themselves from antibiotics quicker than we are making new antibiotics to cure the afflictions, an increased risk of illness does not bode well.
Many trains do not have air-conditioning

The rail traveller is dressed in his suit on his way to work on a hot July Monday morning, using the London Underground, along with 28 million others(1) who do so each year. In terms of how rail travel fares in the future, the commuter will not fare well as he has passed out in the carriage because it is so hot! It is well known that the London Underground has insufficient air-conditioning, unless you stick your head out of the window at the end of the carriage. (1) http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/modesoftransport/londonunderground/1608.aspx
The ever-present threat of terrorism or a crash

It is true; the chance of your train being subject to a terrorism attack or a crash is very unlikely. But yet, the threat does linger. After 7/7, many rail users were reluctant to use the train after hearing about such horrifying experiences. Being attacked whilst in your car or on a bicycle seems much less likely. Statistics released today by the Evening Standard show that passengers who are standing are three times more likely to be injured in a crash than those who are seated(1). (1) http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23393223-details
Reduces CO2 emissions

Yes, yes, we all know, we should be switching the television off stand-by when not in use. And that we should be getting out of our cars and getting on trains, buses and bicycles to reduce global warming. It certainly is not easy, particularly when generations of today have become so used to modern conveniences, namely cars. As soon as an individual passes their driving test, many are unlikely to get on a bus again! But the reality is, using rail travel is much better for the environment. The Manchester Commute Challenge recorded that the train commuter produced 382 grams of CO2, the bus commuter 603 grams and the car produced 1123 grams(1). If everybody were to cut down how much they used their car, it really would make the world of difference for the future. Additionally, the creation of car parks uses land that could be used for more homes in Britain or maintaining a greener country. Imagine the amount of car parking space would be needed during a global event, such as at the Olympics in 2012. (1) http://www.everydaycycling.com/edc/news/news2008/20080916_gtr_manchester_commute_challenge.aspx
Rail travel is often faster

For much of your journey, a train reaches a speed twice that of the limit allowed on roads. When travelling by plane, you have to get to the airport, check-in, endure the flight and then any onward travel to your destination. A train takes you from city to city efficiently: from London to Brussels in 2 hours 40 minutes; from London to Paris in three hours, saving us all plenty of much-needed time(1). Roads and motorways do get very congested and this is unlikely to happen on a train. (1) http://www.stvincent.ac.uk/Resources/Physics/Speed/rail/index.html
Trains

I think trains are a great form of transportation. Have you ever been to Japan? That is THE mode of transportation. Cheap, easy, fast. Crowded? Yes for sure but it gets you from point A to B in a fast fashion. It may not be ideal for traveling out of state, but going from city to city in a train is a great way for transportation. Of course... it will probably cost A LOT of money and a LONG time if they got started now.. Ok you are totally wrong about fast, ever heard of the TGV?
Bicycles are the best mode of transport for the future

Perhaps I speak for myself, but the idea of getting on a bike to dangerously wobble through traffic in lycra whilst huffing and puffing is possibly the most undesirable thought ever. You have to pass your cycling proficiency test to cycle; you pay out a lump sum for the bicycle itself and then have to negotiate heavy and often dangerous traffic whilst drivers tut at you. Fair play to those who do cycle a great deal: but, I doubt that a Britain that is supposedly getting fatter will all start cycling soon.
Rail travel is cheaper

This really all does depend on what distance the rail commuter is going and what ticket they buy. A traveller going from Birmingham to London Euston, one of the busiest routes in the country, would pay £123 for an return fare by rail, whereas if they were to rent a car with a friend for two days, including fuel and the congestion charge, would pay £57.79 each(1). (1) http://www.easier.com/view/Travel/Car_Hire/article-159108.html
Can only travel so far (distance-wise)

The answer to long distance travel lies only on a plane or helicopter. I have not yet heard of a train that will take me to the Caribbean. A car or bicycle will take you to your destination, from door-to-door. Yes, rail travel is efficient in travelling to some of Europe’s most popular cities, such as Paris and Brussels, but more and more Brits are venturing abroad and the need for another runway at Heathrow shows that flying is a very popular mode of transport and will remain so for the future.
Rail travel is cheaper

With the ever increasing rise in fuel prices, it is difficult to tell when it will ever stop. Car users are shelling out more and more money to pay at the pumps for their petrol and feel bitter having done so. Travelling by rail means that you do not pay to fill up your car, only for your fare and do not have to concern yourself with where to park your car or bike and do not have to pay for the pleasure: particularly trying to park in London. Perhaps travelling by train makes us all better off in the long run.
There is a great deal at stake in the claim that God did not create the world in seven days: the Bib...

There is a great deal at stake in the claim that God did not create the world in seven days: the Bible says that he did; if he did not, then the Bible is wrong. If the Bible is wrong on this, we cannot trust it on anything else and our entire faith, which you seem to want us to be allowed to maintain, is built on a lie - on your logic, we should not be allowed to teach our religion at all, since on your logic it is all false. For example, the Bible’s description of Jesus as a ‘second Adam’ is undermined if there was no ‘first Adam’ - this would remove Jesus’ significance. Those churches which accept evolution are compromising their faith.
There is no need to draw a sharp distinction between academic subjects in which creationism may and ...

There is no need to draw a sharp distinction between academic subjects in which creationism may and may not be mentioned, particularly if you hold, as Christians and other religious people do, that the truth is unified and beautiful. If it is acceptable to talk about creationism’s religious, cultural and historical significance - as it should be - then it is acceptable to talk about its scientific legitimacy. We believe that it is scientifically legitimate - more so, indeed, than evolution - and we intend to defend that claim in science classes.
Evolution is an unproven theory about the origins of life. Both creationism and evolution are faith...

Evolution is not a theory about the origins of life at all. It is a theory about the development of life. All scientific theories are necessarily unproven - that’s what ‘theory’ means. If we only taught those areas of science which were entirely ‘proved’ there would be little or no science teaching at all. The theory of evolution is, however, supported by overwhelming evidence, and is therefore not a ‘faith-position’ whereas the ‘evidence’ for creationism is discredited. The fact that much (not all - evolution is a continuing process) of the evidence relates to the past is not a problem: all sciences (and indeed history as an academic discipline) make what are, in effect, predictions about the past which are then confirmed or disconfirmed by evidence such as, in this case, the fossil record.
Biology can be studied in a creationist context. Looking at the way in which different organisms wo...

Evolution should be a central part of the science curriculum, because the rest of biology is dependent on it. Understanding how and why different organisms work as they do requires a knowledge of mutation, natural selection and adaptation, which are rejected by creationism. For creationism, the classification of living things based on lines of descent and chronological speciation makes no sense. Furthermore, understanding how evolution works as a theory helps teach students about the nature of scientific method - a matter on which creationists are notoriously shaky.
If we are allowed to teach religious studies, we should be allowed to teach all of the implications ...

The belief that God creates and sustains the world is not the same as the belief that God created the world in seven days a few thousand years ago. The former is a theological position which implies the goodness and sovereignty of God, and his continuing involvement with his creation, not a scientific claim. The latter is an empirically testable claim which has been empirically tested and found to be false. We should not allow schools to teach our children things that are just plain wrong, and known to be wrong. This is distinct from allowing the teaching of religion, which is culturally and historically significant and which involves beliefs which are in principle distinct from science.
Biology can be studied in a creationist context. Looking at the way in which different organisms wo...

Biology can be studied in a creationist context. Looking at the way in which different organisms work shows us the beauty and perfection of God’s design. Classification is still possible, along the lines of the ‘kinds’ described in the Bible - but cladistic classification based on hypothetical ‘lines of descent’ is deeply flawed and should be rejected. Creationism helps us to understand the power, goodness and majesty of God and to see how everything is under his authority.
If we are allowed to teach religious studies, we should be allowed to teach all of the implications ...

If we are allowed to teach religious studies, we should be allowed to teach all of the implications of religious belief. The idea that God created the world is central to Christian, Muslim and Jewish belief. If we allow faith schools in which children are taught about their religion from an explicitly committed perspective, if we allow (indeed encourage) religious worship in schools, it is bizarre to allow this to be contradicted in science lessons.
US-SPECIFIC ARGUMENT: It is true that the promotion of religion is constitutionally not allowed in s...

US-SPECIFIC ARGUMENT: It is true that the promotion of religion is constitutionally not allowed in schools: however, scientific creationism, while it has religious implications, is legitimate science - if teaching creationism implies the truth of the Christian position (which it does not necessarily, as some Muslims and Jews would support it) then that simply reflects the fact that the Christian position on this is correct.
Creationism is science. It has discovered evidence for a young earth and for the biblical flood. I...

Creationism is not science. It takes the Genesis account (actually there are two Genesis accounts, in Gen 1.1-2.3 and Gen 2.4-3.24, but let’s not get into that) as true in every particular, and bends the evidence to fit that so-called ‘hypothesis’ - in fact it is not a hypothesis at all, since it is in principle unalterable for the creationists. Meanwhile, evolutionists come up with hypotheses which they test, modify and, where necessary, abandon as appropriate.
Schoolchildren are vulnerable and impressionable: if you teach them that Genesis is wrong, they may ...

Schoolchildren are vulnerable and impressionable: if you teach them the literal truth of Genesis as science, they may well believe you. Since you are wrong, this is not to be welcomed, particularly since what your teaching involves is a wilful misunderstanding of the nature of scientific method, with implications for their understanding of science in general for the rest of their lives. The fact that more than half of all Americans believe that the world was created by God in seven days is a testament to political pressure from Christians to water down the science curriculum, and it is harmful - because it is wrong. We may allow children to be sent to faith schools, but we do not allow those schools to teach them whatever they like.
There is a great deal at stake in the claim that God did not create the world in seven days: the Bib...

On this question, the Bible just is wrong, and if you insist on holding a literalistic approach to Scripture then the implications you claim do indeed follow. However, there is no theological need to do this. The Roman Catholic and the Anglican churches, for example, have accepted the truth of evolution and they still hold what is a recognisably and distinctively Christian faith. Assuming that the writers of the Bible meant their creation stories to be understood as literally true makes them look stupid – we should do them the justice of allowing that they wrote stories designed to account for the world as they knew it, not scientific accounts.
There is no need to draw a sharp distinction between academic subjects in which creationism may and ...

There is nothing wrong with teaching the creation myths of Christianity, and indeed of other religions and cultures, in religious studies, history or language classes, because of their historical and cultural importance - they may even make a good starting-point to evolution courses as a point of contrast to show that there is little to choose between non-scientific creation myths, but that Darwin’s revolution transformed our understanding of the development of life by positing a scientifically testable theory in place of myths. Teaching creationism as science, however, is wrong.
Schoolchildren are vulnerable and impressionable: if you teach them that Genesis is wrong, they may ...

Schoolchildren are vulnerable and impressionable: if you teach them that Genesis is wrong, they may well believe you. This has implications for the possibility of bringing them up as believing Christians, which is of course the point of having faith schools in the first place, and what their parents must be presumed to want if they choose to send their children to faith schools. If a majority of Americans are creationists then the school curriculum should reflect this.
Not everyone is able to make informed decisions

yes but if kids arent allowed to do something they usally do it any ways. i have a bunch of friends who are only 14 and they have tattoos. i have some friends who are my age and they do drugs. i even have friends who do self harm. weve tried to make them stop but THEY KEEP GOING BEHIND OUR BACKS AND DO I T ANY WAY! so no matter what the law is or what people say it is people are gonna do it any way.
it's extremely hard to make sure that what a person does on himself has no effects on others

This is true, however there are some cultures and religions that believe that things such as piercings and scarification that cleanse the body. It is a ritual doing and in doing so the family are fully aware of the nature of the effect on the body. This can be seen as a the 'copycat' attitude that so often influences those to change their body however in this case it is a form of ritual. Being a ritual does it mean that we can make decisions on whether it is wrong or right? Do we have the ability to understand the idea of cleansing through the adaptation and manipulation of the body? No. We can see it as wrong or right but ultimately we have complete power over our own bodies.
Since the body is not the property of others

Who says the body is not the property of others? Perhaps that body could mean more to people around them than to the person who inhabits it. According to Jean-Jacques Rousseau people do not have rights like that, to become part of a society (as in social contract theory) and reap the benefits of it such as protection under laws they give up certain freedoms; they simply do what the majority of people say is right: Jean Jacques Rousseau The heart of the Idea of the social contract may be stated simply: Each of us places his person and authority under the supreme direction of the general will; and the group receives each individual as an indivisible part of the whole. In order that the social contract may not be a mere empty formula, everyone must understand that any individual who refuses to obey the general will must be forced by his fellows to do so. This is a way of saying that It may be necessary to force a man to be free; freedom in this case being obedience to the will of all. [[http://teachers.sduhsd.k12.ca.us/mmontgomery/world_history/dem_ideals/rousseau.htm]]
Concerns above and beyond the physical body.

Because when you do decide to miss out on a few nights sleep, you're being irrational, because you knowingly are hurting your self physically, but you're still staying up. Having said so, when you can't be rational about a specific subject, someone has to step in (i.e: the government) and stop you, because as a citizen you're their responsibility. The utilitarian decision you made seems only "legitimate" to you, but you wouldn't know because you're causing self-inflected harm in real time, thus you're irrational, thus you're opinion is disregarded, so for example if you decide that you want to hit yourself with a hammer because you think it will send you to heaven, you should be stopped by a police officer, why? because you'd simply be too irrational thus being a danger to yourself and possibly to others. This is also one of the reasons we're not too accepting of suicide bombing, think about it, suicide bombing is a form of utilitarianism as well- should we universally deem it acceptable because outcome (paradise for the suicide bomber) justifies the means (blowing his self up)