BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Money is the end product of what you did

Money is the end product of something that you did that you think its enjoyable to you. For example, if someone started invest into a company or firms, it is because of the excitement not because of money. It is the excitement that make people invest and this excitement will leads to the end product, money. Therefore there is no reason to say that money is the root of all evil. Money is just the end product of what you did that excite you
If money was such a good thing then IT would serve the people. Instead people serve IT.

Money CAN be a good thing but who's really in control? Do you think you're in control because, what, you have a good job? You invested in something? Exactly how much control do you have over your own life when all you do is serve pieces of paper and the system that relies on it? I suggest to watch these if you dont know what I mean. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPWH5TlbloU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXt1cayx0hs
Money is not the root of all evil. The lack of money is the root of all evil.

But if there was no money (such as in the case of communism) the lack of it, wouldn't adversely affect anyone. All the fears you refer to only exist because we need 'money' to buy stuff but if there was no money and resources were distributed freely and equally there would be no need for petty cash or even less liquid monetary equivalents. No-one is free of evil/desires, your argument is just as crudely sufficient as saying 'lying isn't bad because everyone has done it at some point'. The fact that we sin and/or are tempted to, doesn't not make it right/good.
Money represents positive value

Were the soviets, who sent the first dog,man and woman into space, devoid of intellect, creativity, willpower, effort, muscle and the rest of it? P.O.A no they were not. The notion that money is the sole motivator is a great fallacy.If the notion were true, social/pro bono/charity work would not exist. Why are there unpaid interns? Why do students pay for courses? you might argue that everything is done to ultimately make money but the point is, making money is not why people are motivated to perform well and outperform others. Some other reasons are recognition,fame,responsibility,habits( being a workaholic) and competition. The need for money is artificially created in a capitalist world. Outside of that universe of discourse, where money is banished and resources are equally and fairly distributed, all the frustration over not having your needs or wants met, would diminish. Having more money than another person is similar to having the ability to cheat him/her. Historical rhetoric propounds: people with higher salaries exploit people who work under them, The rich exploit the poor and so on. It is quite possible to have money without earning it through your own competence. very rich people often inherit it from their family, order other people to make money for them, and then money generates more money through interest rates. people on Income Support get money directly through being unable to make money, although it isn't really their fault.
Originally, Money was the solution to the problems(/inefficiencies in transactions) arising out of barter exchange system.

Read on the history of money. Originally, Money was the solution to the problems(/inefficiencies in transactions) arising out of barter exchange system. Ex: In barter exchange there had to be a double co-incidence of wants. A man selling milk who wanted to buy rice had to find someone selling rice & wanting milk. GOOD LORD! Just imagine how time-consuming & frustrating. Also, there was a need for a standard to objectively measure the value of all types of goods like cows, milk, foodgrains, clothes, ornaments, etc. Imagine feelings of doubt & being cheated arising out of selling 1 kg rice in exchange of 3 litres milk (when later you met someone offering you 4 litres in exchange for the same value)! Moreover, money is the best & most liquid store of value & has legal tender - so you sue someone legally if cheated. Money solved the problem & also avoided all the confusion. Money is an indispensable part of our lives. Money has to be earned! The root of evil is people who want the unearned money. Saying "MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL" is like blaming your tools; it's very embarrassing. A similar statement: "Computers (or tech) is a curse." Ex: You condemn the car for it lead to a terrible accident & you landed up in hospital. So is car the cause of the accident? Or are there other things to consider- like did you repair & maintain it regularly? Why did you buy it? Were you drunk? Were you daydreaming while driving? Did another car hit yours? I'd say that anyone with minimal level of intelligence should get the gist of it & should be in a position to discern the fact that car per se didn't create the problem. In the accident scene, car was the passive factor while the man driving it was an active factor & another car hitting it was the causal factor. Money too is a passive factor. How you approach it makes all the difference! Just as how you use Internet & Computer decides whether it be a curse or a boon. My smartass opponent may say car was purchased with money- so again money is the root of all evil. Alright then, could you dispense with your car? Could you dispense with anything else having money value? But this is different issue altogether.
advantages of some of the study being in Summer

Children would much rather do P.E. in Summer, when they don't have to run around in the cold wearing shorts, and subjects that involve intensive studying could be done in winter when children don't feel as bad about being stuck inside. Also, the summer holidays are in a period where there are few other seasonal events in the UK, such as Christmas and Halloween, so they would be the most productive time to get work done with fewer interruptions. Exams could be shifted away from Easter so students can enjoy Easter without worrying about exams.
Effect on children's morale.

Not all children love the holidays. Some of them hate the change in routine, don't have enough to do during the holiday, feel unsafe outside the school because their home situation isn't good, or just genuinely enjoy some aspect of school. Also, the fact that children can't wait to get out of school is surely a problem that needs addressing. School isn't prison, children shouldn't see it as a thing they need to escape from. Why can't they relax and have a good time at school, say by having enough regular breaks and more things to do in the breaks?
No sudden dramatic routine changes.

Changing from a very ordered, almost institutionalised life where everything is timetabled, to complete freedom, often with nothing to do, is extremely stressful. It can lead to irregular eating and sleeping and little motivation to do any activities, where children are used to everything being compulsory and can't self-motivate very well. Smaller breaks need to be planned out better, because otherwise you mistime it and come back late. The smaller breaks also mean more regular breaks, so children become more used to free time.
History offers knowledge that coincides with other subjects

Whilst subjects such as Maths and Science may seem more important in a world that relies upon workers in the financial industry and doctors, History as a subject as less of a priority. However, History offers more than an update of past events. Pupils/students learn how to formulate arguments, compare and analyse sources, and learn about cultural differences and changes. Additionally, knoeldege aquired from History lessons may help with other topics. For instance, learning about a war or dictatorship might provide background knowledge which assists the pupil in understanding novel in English Literature studies. Young people need an all round eductaion in order to progres through the various challenges life brings. If history is not neccessary; why do we have museums? History offers knowledge about some of the greatest and most influential people from various time periods. Knowledge is always neccessary for progression. We cannot pick and choose which subjects to learn about and which ones to ignore. History is closely interlinked with many other areas of subjects, and gives us greater insight into the world right now. Also, if we only concentrate on what currently exists and naively turn a blind eye to our past, then aren't we disregarding the work of our forefathers? History is as important as any other subject, and should not be disregarded in any way.
We learn from the mistakes and successes of others

Knowledge as we have it; encompasses entirely of historical data. All the inventions and development we see and use today were made in the past. To create/invent again we need to stress on the hurdles and aides our historically successful inventor/creator predecessors faced and how they rose above adversity in the end. Learning from the heroes and dastards of the past, is far more time/cost-efficient than making the same mistakes ourselves. Knowing how someone solved a problem that we are presently facing saves us from having to deduce the answer ourselves. If history were not taught then nothing would be taught; no knowledge obtained in the past would be put to use and we'd be cavemen/women forever. [[http://www.testmagic.com/test/ViewDtlEssay.asp?EssayID=22&TopicID=38]] Counterargument: Perhaps, the same can be said of art or literature. Why is it hard to digest that entertaining anecdotes have overt or embedded lessons in them? Wars do occur in and are relevant to our time; technologies may have changed but strategies and the will to win are not very different. Conflict in any form is resolved more easily when we draw on the wisdom of our warrior forebears. Genghis Khan for example; taught us the value in unity/loyalty when facing an enemy. Fashion is also influenced by ghosts of the past and those you claim the world will end in 2012 because the Mayan calender ended there do not laugh at the religions/beliefs of our ancestors. Excuse me? How can you stand there and blindly intone that history is about wars and bloodshed? History is made out of much more than 'battles, bloodshed and fashion', how dare you disregard all that! Besides, all of history DOES relate to our lives nowadays. If we ignore our history how are we to learn from it?
Continued reliance on DRM inhibits the industry shift towards new models of content management for t...

Continued reliance on DRM inhibits the industry shift towards new models of content management for the future. The media industry needs to preserve its revenue by moving in at least some ways in the direction of the Creative Commons agreement. DRM goes in exactly the opposite direction. It hurts the firms because it gives consumers a negative experience and places the burden on them to prove that they aren't pirating, but doesn't even stop those who actually pirate. Viacom's $1bn lawsuit against Google for their Youtube subsidiary could act to inhibit the growth of the web-video industry, preventing transition to a sustainable (per view?) model of revenue sharing.
It is generally accepted in most legal jurisdictions that copying media for the use of others is a f...

Treating commercial pirates and home users differently, despite the fact that they are both committing acts of piracy runs against the principle of the uniformity of the rule of law. Companies are within their rights to protect media just as if it were any other product. If anything, the prevalent view that low-level home piracy is a socially acceptable crime which hurts no-one, is a clear reason why home users should be treated as pirates. DRM software does not prevent legitimate use of a product, but it does aim to reduce the incidence of casual piracy which has been made easier by software such as BitTorrent and has resulted in over 80% of he software in most eastern European countries being pirate rather than legitimate. Such casual piracy significantly harms the revenues of software and media firms, small and large.
DRM technology constitutes an anti-competitive practice which should be outlawed. On one hand, some...

The opposition does not have to defend all forms of DRM technology and if such technology is simply a cover for a firm illegally dividing up a market, then obviously that should be investigated by the relevant law enforcement agencies. However, media firms are not charities and they have no obligation to make media available at cost all around the world. Rather, pricing decisions are made on the basis of the demand in the market. The profits that media firms generate are then invested in new artists or software design, pushing forward music and technology. By undermining these profits through ‘sharing’ music with a friend who might otherwise have bought that track/album, DRM hackers reduce the profits of these software firms. This results in price hikes to legitimate users in order to recoup costs and less funds available for small software firms to reinvest in engineering, reducing competition in the market and therefore keeping prices high. Arguments about violating TRIPS are certainly controversial, but here governments are talking about matters of life or death rather than service-sector goods purchased by those who could afford them. No-one is claiming a right to the latest Busta Ryhmes CD, rather the right is with the record company to restrict use to those who have paid for their product.
DRM technology should be considered an infringement on types of legitimate ‘fair use’ consumer use, ...

There exists no ‘right’ to copy a product for personal use. Opponents of DRM just think that the media industry is retailing a different product. If media firms choose to sell single-use or single-license media then that is their right and they should be able to use technologies to prevent the breach of this contract by users, be they home users or large corporations. The act of copying media involves no interpretation as in the case of a play which is performed; it is the simple duplication of the original. If you want to listen to a CD in two different locations, you need to take that CD between them or pay for another copy if you prefer. Further, even for interpretive reproduction (specifically the theatre), authors are still allowed to enforce restrictive sets of rights during their lifetime, preventing certain interpretations such as cross-casting. All digital media firms are doing is putting in place a technology to protect those rights.\ There are circumstances, as with any technology, in which DRM will malfunction, but in these circumstances, firms will replace the media free of charge as they are obliged to do. When pirated copies of Microsoft Windows were registered using fraudulent keys and then activated online, Microsoft implemented a helpline for genuine users who found that their CD key had been taken by pirates leaving them unable to activate their product.\
Not only does DRM technology infringe consumers’ rights, it is also ineffective in actually preventi...

When operating systems and high-end graphics packages retail for in excess of $1000 then there will always be a huge financial incentive for pirates to ‘crack’ and ‘patch’ newly released products and this means that all DRM technologies will eventually be cracked. However, DRM technologies are becoming harder to crack over time, meaning that fewer and fewer home users are able to obtain pirate copies of media rather than real copies. Pirating Windows XP SP2 required the ‘slipstreaming’ of 2 separate installation disks. In order to activate Windows Vista, home users either had to use a ‘virtual server’ set up by pirates or imitate the BIOS of another computer, a process which left many users’ machines unable to boot. Over time the risk of crashes and viruses has increased, along with low quality on ‘ripped’ DVDs and non-functional music CDs. Therefore the cost to users of choosing a pirate product (the purpose of DRM technology) increases and so it is absolutely worth media companies continuing to invest in DRM technologies because it is increasing the level of technical knowledge required to even install pre-cracked pirate products.
DRM has a 'Chilling effect' on genuine technological research, preventing legitimate reverse-enginee...

Those who are not committing illegal acts have nothing to fear from the media industry. However, if PhD students who engage in some casual software piracy on the side are deterred from their ‘research’ by the threat of potential legal action, then that is a good consequence of DRM. The Oxford Internet Institute has recently shown that the interests of budding and experienced cryptographers can be put to far better use reverse engineering the software behind the great firewall of China, aiding the spread of freedom of information and democracy rather than focussing on DRM software.
There is a logic which says that DRM may actually lead to reduced sales, hence not even benefiting a...

Artists produce media and media firms then make sure that media sells. There will always be something of a ‘Faustian pact’ between punk rock bands and music industry executives, but that is something that bands should consider when signing contracts. Governments do not write legislation to avoid irony.\ In terms of the effect on sales, whilst it may be possible to cut costs on mass-produced music, on many forms of media, significant sunk costs have to be covered. As with the pharmaceutical industry, the profits from every hit product (band or film) have to cover the losses from many more loss-makers. Yet without investment in new bands, singers, actors and directors, and a willingness to take commercial and artistic risks by media companies, there will be no pipeline of new stars to provide entertainment in the future. Pirates, of course, do not care about such long-term investment in talent; this means that the lowest pricing level which covers costs would still induce piracy and so media firms still need to tools to fight that piracy. \ In terms of users who are inconvenienced by the loss of their itunes collection when they spill orange juice on ther laptop hard disk, that is their fault. If they have insurance that should cover the costs, if not then they should bear the costs just as if they accidentally set fire to some of their non-electronic possessions.\
Continued reliance on DRM inhibits the industry shift towards new models of content management for t...

DRM and a shift towards Creative Commons licensing are not mutually exclusive, they can just apply to different forms of media or different content. Further, here again, governments should not act as agents to tip industries into following the perceived ‘right’ path for their future. Surely this is just as intuitively wrong as the thought of the government stepping into the VHS vs. Betamax debate in order to prevent the production of incompatible video – both would be a waste of resources. This argument is bizarre and is worryingly similar to those made in command economies during the 1980s.
It is generally accepted in most legal jurisdictions that copying media for the use of others is a f...

It is generally accepted in most legal jurisdictions that copying media for the use of others is a form of stealing and should remain illegal. However, this should be enforced by targeting pirates who produce large quantities of copied of media in bulk, rather than targeting innocent or low-impact home users sharing songs with a friend or transferring a song from a CD to an MP3 player for listening on the move. Such home users make little difference to the viability of the media or software industries, but the actions of pirates impact upon their ability to make profits from the intellectual property they own. DRM isn't effective against piracy and so we should see it as an anti-competitive practice and trade barrier which makes life worse for consumers and doesn't bring benefits to artists or the music industry in the long run.
DRM technology constitutes an anti-competitive practice which should be outlawed. On one hand, some...

DRM technology constitutes an anti-competitive practice which should be outlawed. On one hand, some forms of DRM technology prevent the free movement of goods and services which should be guaranteed under WTO membership. DVD region codes prevent genuine competition on the international markets, because consumers can't legally play imported DVDs, which would drive down the price of DVDs in Europe or America to Asian levels (where the DVDs are produced), significantly benefiting consumers. This is an example of 'market sharing' which is illegal in both the UK & EU under the Competition Act 2002 and the Treaty of Amsterdam (Article 81 & 82). DRM technologies should not have a unspoken exemption on what is just an practice designed to keep prices above their market equilibrium. On the other hand, conversely, DRM also overprices media only currently available in the West, meaning that it just isn't available in developing markets in South America or East Asia. This is a similar argument to that made by those who think that Indian pharmaceutical companies should be allowed to circumvent TRIPS in order to produce reasonably priced generic versions of drugs domestically. Further, the EU has criticised DRM on some software because it is impossible to legally disable even where not doing so “threatens infrastructure or critically endangers lives”.
DRM technology should be considered an infringement on types of legitimate ‘fair use’ consumer use, ...

DRM technology should be considered an infringement on types of legitimate ‘fair use’ consumer use, harming rights for consumers which are protected under the World Intellectual Property Organisation Copyright Treaty, 1996. DRM aims to make it impossible to create compilations of songs & videos that you already own. Microsoft Zune's limited sharing technology prevents unlimited streaming between two devices owned by the same individual. Activation schemes frequently incorrectly tell users that they are using pirated products when reinstallation is attempted after a crashe (for instance the Windows 'Genuine Advantage' scheme). Further, DRM makes it very difficult for firms who operate thousands of computers to install multiple copies (volume licenses often do away with DRM), resulting in a huge economic cost to them in terms of having to install on every system separately. Evidence of an acknowledgement of this counter-productivity came when EMI stopped releasing Audio CDs with DRM in January 2007 because of the sheer number of CD players they were incompatible with. They themselves admitted that “the costs of DRM do not measure up to the results”.
Not only does DRM technology infringe consumers’ rights, it is also ineffective in actually preventi...

Not only does DRM technology infringe consumers’ rights, it is also ineffective in actually preventing piracy. It took only a matter of months to crack the Blu-Ray encryption algorithms, and this was before disks were even widely commercially available. Similarly, the DivX video coding format, previously the leading form of DRM in the digital video market is now completely obsolete. The problem of DRM is therefore that it is never an issue of if, but when the protection will be cracked. The result is that the media industry pointlessly piles money into cryptographic research for only a few months of protection. No form of DRM protection has ever lasted more than 2 months before it has been disabled or a workaround has been found. The fact that DRM is therefore ‘defective by design’ reveals that its true aim cannot be to prevent piracy because most pirates are not individuals with a computer, but organizations with access to a media duplicating plant and skilled programmers. Thus the 'sole purpose [of media companies using DRM] is to maximize revenues by minimizing your rights so that they can sell them back to you”.