BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
iPads should replace papers and books in schools.

Here are a few agreements before the real initial round of this debate: 1. Vulgar language, slang, and intentional errors in spelling or grammar will not be acceptable. 2. The first round is used for agreement and definition purposes. 3. When sources are used, they are to be cited with web addresses or, in print sources, names of books and authors. 4. This is my first debate, so I wish to have "leeway" from my audience and opponent. The definition of "iPad" in this debate is used loosely. iPad may also refer to any other brand of electronic device that can be used in place of stationery in schools. I wish good luck to my opponent in this debate.
iPads should replace papers and books in schools.

It's not bad at all for a first debate, quite good rather, but I am confident that after the voters finish reading my final arguments the winner will be clear. 1. I have another source on a similar study that suggests that, instead of iPads, students prefer textbooks that they can "mark up and highlight to aid in studying. "[1] The main point here is that students prefer textbooks, thus, since Pro cannot refute this, iPads should not replace textbooks in schools. Also, Pro believes print books will become nothing more than antiques, but this is unsubstantiated and probably false. 2. Pro concedes that "the risk of stealing is higher in digital media. " The reason it is not currently prevalent is due to the fact that the demand for eBooks is low. Once eBooks are widely purchased, we will likely see a similar case to that of the music industry. 3. IPads tend to break easily. The fact that I can drop a book from a building and it’s still readable while an iPad would be crushed to pieces is a fact that Apple or any other company cannot escape. Pro has no answer to this, and Pro argues that these devices should be distributed to youths. Until an unbreakable iPad is created, schools should certainly not invest in them in the way proposed. 4. Pro points out that the devices need not be iPads nor particularly expensive. Pro proposes a reader specifically designed for schools, however, there is no such device currently that fits this description. 5. “A common feature on many eBook stores is a trial copy, which is an abridged sample of a book available for free. ” Personally, I do not want an abridged version of select books to complete my research. This is not an alternative to borrowing books. The example of video stores is irrelevant, as video rental stores are not libraries. 6. Blind people cannot use iPads. Pro contends that books will “end up in antique shops. ” I don’t think there is any evidence for this claim. While iPads and the like certainly are useful, they cannot replace the printed book. Books have existed for thousands of years; they are the simplest and most reliable devices for reading. It is not as if we are replacing cassettes which were only around for a short time. An over-reliance on technology can be dangerous as well. I am not against iPads–they are brilliant devices–but they should be seen as simply a different way to read, not the only way to read. I think from all the arguments I have presented, it is safe to conclude that iPads should not replace books in schools. Thank you, that is all I have. [1] . http://www.risoprinter.com...
iPads should replace papers and books in schools.

My apologies for an unspecific debate. Again, this is my first debate, so please forgive me for any mistakes. My opponent has recently suggested the following points: 1. According to a source, a study found that 75% of college students prefer print books over eBooks. 2. When media becomes digital, it will boost the possibility of copyright infringement (stealing). 3. iPads tend to break easily, and replacing them can be expensive. 4. iPads are expensive in general. 5. Libraries still serve their advantages. The source about college students' preference of print books does not specify the exact reason why some college students feel that way. Nonetheless, the source suggested students enjoy the "look and feel" of print. However, what will they say several years ahead of now? Record players were once common, and today, some people still prefer them over CDs simply because they enjoy their "look and feel". Also, 12% of college students said they prefer eBooks because of convenience and cheapness. Someday, print books will be what most record players are now: antiques. Second, the risk of stealing is higher in digital media, but many books rare already available online. Although companies might not enjoy hackers infringing their copyrights, the also mighty not enjoy a decrease in customer demand due to no support for electronic copies. Furthermore, not all schools specifically need iPads for schoolwork. Let's imagine this scenario: Sony develops a device specifically designed for student use. Unlike iPads, this device does not include an App Store, a Map function, and a Weather reporter. Rather, it includes school-related applications such as note taking, schedules, to-do lists, etc. Such a device might not require a large color display, but rather a durable, cheap, and energy effective LED display. Many Kindle eBook readers cost less than $125. Although crashes, malfunctions, and data loss may happen, schools using computers have for many years taught their students to "back up" their data on flash drives or disks. A common feature on many eBook stores is a trial copy, which is an abridged sample of a book available for free. I disagree with my opponent that libraries will never become obsolete. Many video stores, such as Blockbuster, are already closing down in response to online video rental companies, such as Netflix and Redbox. Why not books? As evolution grows, it impresses us more and more each day. Amazing feats, such as flying and instant long-distance communication, once thought to be impossible, were proved possible with technology. One day, print books will end up in antique shops, replaced by the durable, fast, and convenient eBook readers.
iPads should replace papers and books in schools.

In my many years of attending school, I have always found it much more convenient to read eBooks instead of paper books, to type essays rather than write them by hand, and to not have to carry heavy stacks of textbooks around. Technology makes schoolwork, as well as office work, easier for two main reasons: convenience and cheapness. We all have done it in our lifetimes. We have forgotten folders, lost documents, and misplaced stationery every once in a while. An amazing advantage of computers is that they compress large amounts of information into small sizes. Some computer disks and flash drives can store entire volumes of Shakespeare's works within a couple inches. World Book Encyclopedia is now available on the Internet, when before it was available in large books at the library. iPads don't require pencils, papers, books, or any other office supplies. Compressed information results in a lower chance of misplacing something and an easier time trying to find a specific document. Furthermore, iPads are faster and more productive. The average typing speed of a regular human is around 25 words per minute. Many professional computer users type up to 50 words per minute, and others can type even faster. At such speeds, lessons go by faster and more content can fit into one school semester. Additionally, iPads fit well within the budget of many schools. Digital copies of textbooks are much easier to access and are much more affordable to purchase than print copies. Backpacks and lockers would be rendered obsolete. iPads also save trees, as they cut down on waste products from paper. In conclusion, iPads are the ideal system of organization in schools and offices. They are convenient, in which much information is stored in small sizes and kept together in one place, and cheap, as digital information is now becoming more affordable than print. As evolution continues to rock the modern world, digital devices will become more and more reliable. Someday, they will entirely replace print books, and hopefully, that day will come soon. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Life has more meaning with God

Hello! I will try to prove life is more meaning without god. I will use the definition of meaning from my debate, as you didn't offer a different definition. 1) How significant is life? Gods are strongly connected to religions. Every religion worships one or more gods, and there are no gods without a religion to worship them. So it is safe to say believing in any god means following a certain religion associated with that god. Religions give people what they wish the most: eternal life - every religion in the world guarantees the eternal existence of our souls. Theism means believing in eternal life. Now, from a theistic perspective, life is a minor portion of our existence. Believing in a god means believing in the eternal existence of our souls, so all theists believe they are going to exist forever, not in their earthly form, but they will continue to exist forever. In this case, life becomes an insignificant portion of your existence, because life ends in under 100 years, but your soul has no end. According to any modern religion, after we die we continue to exist as the same individual, only our physical form changes, but everything else stays the same. So, for a theist, life is just 0.(0)1% of his existence. So, how significant is life when you compare it to eternity? Think how significant is a nanosecond compared to your whole life - that is roughly the significance of life from a theistic perspective. Now, from a non-religious point of view, there is no eternity, so our existence is the same as our life, because it starts and ends when our life does. This means life from a non-religious perspective is 100% of our whole existence, thus making life a lot more significant, as it signifies our entire existence as opposed to 0.(0)1% of it. 2) Why are we here? The simple answer theism gives is : because god created us; So our life is the decision of a supreme being. Our life is nothing more than a creation of a greater being. Atheism means life started from atoms. Without god, life is only possible in very few places compared to the size of the universe. From this point of view, life has no reason to exist, as it wasn't created, but somehow it exists and it is complex. There is no reason for us to exist, yet we do and we are fully aware of our existence. Life is a result of natural processes rather than a creation of a higher being. So what is more meaningful? Life as the creation of a higher being or life as a result of billions of years of natural processes? Compare a painting painted by a human with a painting that appeared from leaves that fell from a tree. What do you consider more meaningful or significant: a painted that was easily created by a human or a painting that formed for no reason by a naturally-occurring process ?
Life has more meaning with God

I am challenging con to this debate. I observed how he has done this debate earlier, and instead of me having to ask to debate about this, I decided to straight out challenge him. I will be in favour of life having more meaning with God (Christian God) than without him. There are a few rules I would like to establish however. First of all, this will concern the Christian God. You have 72 hours to debate, and a maximum of 10,000 characters The debate round will go as the following: Round 1 Pro: explanation Con: opening statements Round 2 Pro: opening statements Con: rebuttals Round 3 Pro: rebuttals, further contentions Con: rebuttals, further contentions Round 4 pro: rebuttals, further contentions con: rebuttals, closing statements Round 5: Pro: rebuttals, closing statements Con: types "no argument this round" Accepting this debate, you are accepting the rules and guidelines established. Failure to comply to the rules established will result in a 7 point loss. I hope we endure a fruitful debate, and I urge to hear your opinions. Good luck ! :D
Life has more meaning with God

1) My argument wasn't about Christianity being right or wrong. I said most people don't share the same beliefs and therefore have a different meaning of life, and it is unreasonable to claim most people live with no real meaning because they follow a wrong religion. Claiming the meaning of life is given by the Bible is claiming only Christians know the meaning of life and for everyone else (5 billion people) life doesn't have a meaning at all. I hope you can understand my argument now and debunk it next round. 2) "Our meaning is also to love God, because we need to love our holy creator. This is also a meaning. We also need to love God's creation, we need to love others, and bring them back to God. We need to not commit sin. So our meaning is also to live a good life. Living a good life has so much meaning in it, including being nice, having character etc.. " Look at how many times you used the word "God" to describe the meaning of life. For a Christians the meaning of life is dictated by the Bible. A Christian has no meaning for life without the Bible. "With God, Infinite meaning." True, if by infinite you mean limited by the Bible. "Without God, infinite possibilities, no true meaning." By true meaning, you mean divine meaning, or a meaning given by a god. In the scenario I presented, there is no god, and therefore the idea of a divine meaning doesn't exist in the first place. This is very similar to objective morality. Objective morality can only exist if there is a god to provide the moral code. In a universe with no god, objective morality can still exist, but not as a divine moral code, but a man-made one. If there is no god at all, there is no one to give us that moral code, so we have to make one up. With or without a god, our moral code would be the same and it would have the same significance. The same goes for the meaning of life. If there is no god, there is no divine meaning, but that doesn't mean we can't find our own meaning of life, just like we can find our own moral standards without divine guidance. To use your text analogy : A teacher gives you a text with a single question and 100 possible answers. If the question has a clear answer (2+2=?), then you only have one correct answer, just like God gives you only one meaning. But if the question doesn't have a clear answer (How many atoms are there in the universe?) then any answer would be correct, because there is no way to ever have a clear answer to that. The meaning of life without god is not precise, witch make any meaning true if you believe in it.
Life has more meaning with God

1) Blindly following the plan of a superior being doesn't give our life too much meaning. You said our purpose is to bring people to Jesus, but why? Most Christians don't even study about other religions and never even think that another religion could be right. For 5 billion people, this is not a noble purpose. Most people don't believe the purpose of life is bringing people to Jesus or following his plan. Does that mean a Buddhism monk has less meaning for his life than any random Christian? You are arguing that the purpose or meaning of life is to follow Jesus. This means there are only 2 billion people out there who know the true meaning of life. When you reduce the meaning of life to a single religion, you reduce the meaning of life to a single doctrine, a single purpose, you basically give life a single, strictly defined meaning. 2) Maybe eating bacon is not the meaning of life, but without a meaning that is dictated by a supreme being, it's up to us to decide what the meaning of our life is. If God exists, then the meaning of life he gave us is 100% right, because he knows everything and is the one who created the meaning of life in the first place. If there is no God, there is no omniscient supreme deity that can give us a clear meaning, so we have to make something up. Of course, when you compare the meaning of life given by a supreme deity with the meaning of life given by an ordinary human, the first meaning seems a lot better. The thing we have to consider is that in a non-theistic universe, where there is no god, there is no deity-given meaning of life. In this scenario, we are the only ones capable of giving life a meaning. So, this is the reason why I wanted to debate this: there are 2 possible scenarios: I. God exists. Life has ONE and only ONE meaning II. God doesn't exist. Life has INFINITE meaning. In a god-less universe, anyone can decide the meaning of life. Every human that ever lived and will ever live can come up with a huge number of meanings. Eating bacon might not be the best meaning, but take a look at Buddhism. In a universe with no God, the meaning of life can be to attain enlightenment. Buddhism gives a huge meaning to life without the need of a god. It's a great example of how meaningful life can be without any supreme deity. The meaning of life is not conditioned by God. Life can still have meaning without God. Even more, without a clear meaning defined by a supreme being, we are free to give life as much meaning as we want.
Life has more meaning with God

Thanks for the response.Rebuttals"The debate is about what has more meaning. So, as a Christian "their meaning in life is to follow God's plan ". So if there is a god, the only meaning of life is to obey a set of laws and have certain beliefs in order to please an all-powerful, all-knowing being. We are nothing more than puppets, obeying divine orders, this is how you defined the meaning of life." Yes, but behind this is much more. We follow the orders of a supreme being, of greatest power. Now we follow his rules, and he uses us, so basically our meaning is about following his plan. The meaning alongside this is to make the world a better place for salvation. We bring more and more people to Jesus, the one true God. So in doing so, our meaning is to change lives, to create more, and better meanings. So not only are we pleasing God, but much more. We create new meanings that are properly confirmed by God. The one I explained is just a peek through the key hole, which has many, many more meaning hidden behind."If there is no god, none at all, there is no actual meaning, so eating bacon is a worthy purpose, because there is no supreme being that is able to give us another clear purpose." Think about it like this however. If in such a case we had no belief in God, we may believe our purpose its to eat the bacon, however this is not true. We can believe thousands of theories on what our meaning is, but we will never have true meaning without God. To add on, when you eat bacon, do you actually think in a philishophical way to which we try to relate bacon to the meaning of life? Most likely not, I am convinced when you eat bacon, your only purpose is to taste bacon, and fill your stomach. "Don't forget the meaning of life also means the significance of life. With a god, life is merely a creation of a supreme being that can create anything, and we are simple puppets, trying to please our creator. We are an insignificant creation and we have an insignificant purpose." Insignaficant? I think not! God uses us, but however not like puppets. See he gives us freedom to make our choices, however we must prepare for the consequences. He does not control us completly. As it as said it the bible."Galatians 5:1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery." Our meaning is great, and huge. We are meant to do great things with the light the lord gave us. Now with God, our meaning is great, without God we have no meaning. Because of such, life with God has much greater meaning that life without God.
Life has more meaning with God

The debate is about what has more meaning. So, as a Christian "their meaning in life is to follow God's plan ". So if there is a god, the only meaning of life is to obey a set of laws and have certain beliefs in order to please an all-powerful, all-knowing being. We are nothing more than puppets, obeying divine orders, this is how you defined the meaning of life. Without god the meaning of life is indeed hard to find. If you are searching for the purpose of life, atheism doesn't give you one. But that doesn't mean you can't make your own. Christianity limits the purpose of life to earning salvation. Without god, you can decide what you want to do in this life and then do your best to achieve it. "People can make up meanings, but they will never get them right. It's as if I said that my meaning in life is to eat bacon. I may think this, but this is not my meaning. " If there is no god, none at all, there is no actual meaning, so eating bacon is a worthy purpose, because there is no supreme being that is able to give us another clear purpose. Don't forget the meaning of life also means the significance of life. With a god, life is merely a creation of a supreme being that can create anything, and we are simple puppets, trying to please our creator. We are an insignificant creation and we have an insignificant purpose.
Obama Care is a disaster

I just want to say a few words about our economy. In 2013 our businesses created another 2 million jobs, adding up to more than 8 million in just over the past 45 months. This morning we learned that over the summer our economy grew at its strongest pace in nearly two years. The unemployment rate has steadily fallen to its lowest point in five years. Our tax code is fairer and our fiscal situation is firmer, with deficits that are now less than half of what they were when I took office. For the first time in nearly two decades, we now produce more oil here at home than we buy from the rest of the world, and our all-of- the-above strategy for new American energy means lower energy costs. The Affordable Care Act has helped keep health care costs growing at their slowest rate in 50 years. Combined, that means bigger paychecks for middle class families and bigger savings for businesses looking to invest and hire here in America. And, for all the challenges we've had and all the challenges that we've been working on diligently in dealing with both the ACA and the website these past couple months, more than half a million Americans have enrolled through healthcare.gov in the first three weeks of December alone. In California, for example, a state operating its own marketplace, more than 15,000 Americans are enrolling every single day. And in the federal website, tens of thousands are enrolling every single day. Since October 1st, more than 1 million Americans have selected new health insurance plans through the federal and state marketplaces, so all told, millions of Americans, despite the problems with the website, are now poised to be covered by quality affordable health insurance come New Year's Day. Now, this holiday season there are mothers and fathers and entrepreneurs and workers who have something new to celebrate: the security of knowing that when the unexpected or misfortune strikes, hardship no longer has to. And you add that all up and what it means is: We head into the year with an economy that's stronger than it was when we started the last year, more Americans. More Americans are finding work and experiencing the pride of a paycheck. Our businesses are positioned for new growth and new jobs. And I firmly believe that 2014 will be a breakthrough year for America. I'm taking this very seriously, because I think, as I've said before, this is debate that needed to be had. All right, have a great holiday, everybody. Appreciate you.