BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Textbooks should be replaced by technology.

Thank you for your response.I'm going to go back over that last round then point something out that applies across the debate.1) LearnersMy opponent here doesn't really provide any sort of evidence concerning the highlighting usage of a tablet.I beg to differ. I had an app called iAnnotate in high school for my iPad, which had a very easy control panel where I could click on a pen or a marker or a highlighter and mark all over my text, and I didn't have to worry about it bleeding onto the next page. It was faster and easier than using actual highlighters and such in my textbook.Aside from the above point, my school did not let us mark in our textbooks unless it was pencil and we erased it at the end of the year. So while it may be different at other schools, not all schools have the benefit of marking in the textbook, meaning that eBooks are a better option on two levels.Aside from that, lots of e-readers require you to make the motion flipping a page in order to switch pages meaning we still get the same benefit here.And my opponent attacks fonts saying that it distracts from learning. I'm not sure what my opponent means. Some people need bigger text in order to read clearly, something that can't be adjusted in a textbook. I need my opponent to further explain why font is such a negative when it comes to learning.2) PenmanshipWell to be honest, penmanship is becoming less important by the year, but my opponent did make a flawed argument here as well.I'm getting the feeling that my opponent is forgetting that eBooks are almost exactly like textbooks. That means you can have the eBook out along with a pencil and paper and take notes while referencing your eBook. There's no signficant harm here.Now allow me to address some other things that are on my side:1) Just a few more benefits of eBooks:- Tablets are light meaning that instead of carrying around 50 pounds of books and school supplies, you can just carry a 1 pound tablet and school supplies, which allows your backpack to last longer saving the students money.- Tablets do not require a forest to be cut down, while making the paper for all the textbooks in the US will require cutting down a signficant number of trees. Trees take a long time to regrow, and they give us oxygen.- The fact that we avoid cutting down trees saves us money on textbooks which can ultimately make them cheaper, which saves school's money.- The resources on the Internet or within the tablet enable students more than a textbook and paper.- Most businesses heavily rely on electronics, so having students learn how to do work on an electronic device before getting a job better prepares them.Anyway, that's all for now. 2) Dropped points Now allow me to address the debate. My opponent has dropped all of the points before round 3, meaning that he conceded the entire debate up until round three. So all of the arguments before round 3 now work for my side along with my arguments in round three. My opponent has a chance to make rebuttals in the last round.Thank you for reading.
Textbooks should be replaced by technology.

I will now state some advantages of having a textbook. 1. Learners: Visual Learners (the majority of the student population): Studies have shown that people using printed textbooks actually extract more from the content in front of them than those who use tablets or e-books. With textbooks, a visual placement of information is obtainable. Unlike a tablet, using a textbook is simple. For example, if I need to highlight, annotate, or circle different words to help me sufficiently absorb information, it's easy to snatch a pen or pencil nearby and make notes. However, with a tablet, I cannot fulfill my need to understand better the information. I cannot be as well-organized as I want to be. Just to mark something on a tablet, I would have to change tools (or even tabs). By then, I'd definitely lose my train of thought. Never-ending scrolling can be tiring and weary. Plus, words on a tablet have different fonts and sizes which take away from the overall learning experience of an individual. Kinesthetic learners: In addition, the newer textbooks are allowing students to write their answers, responses, and take notes inside their textbook. There are many students which value the kinesthetic traits of a textbook. Feeling the textbook, highlighting in it, and turning the pages allows kinesthetic learners to understand better the lesson. 2. Penmanship Textbooks encourage students to write and take notes while reading. Although tablets have apps in which you can take notes in, the lack of writing with a pencil and paper will eventually disrupt a scholar"s handwriting. (Yes, I know you can take notes on a separate paper but isn"t it kind of hard to organize physical notes with online lessons?) Anyways, most kids spend their free time on electronics so when exactly will they practice their penmanship? I have many friends who have really bad handwriting due to lack of practice.
Textbooks should be replaced by technology.

Thank you for that responseI'm going to rebut my opponent's case.1) Cognitive mappingActually an eBook can do the exact same thing my opponent describes, because the eBook is written exactly like a textbook. Meaning that the textbook benefits still exist with an eBook2) HealthE-readers weren't even damaging to eyes 5 years ago.“The new LCDs don’t affect your eyes,” Mr. Taussig said. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com...Allow me to explain why this is true, so you don't have to go digging through all that evidence to get to my point (although you can find the paragraph by hitting ctrl+f then copy and pasting the quoted text into the little box that appears).So anyway, the evidence basically says that the lights in a screen update the image every 8 to 10 milliseconds while our eyes update the image every 30 milliseconds, meaning that the screen looks constant to us. So it's essentially the same eye strain as staring at a piece of paper, except that you can adjust the text to make it easier to read.As for the color of the screen (the only thing that will really cause an sort of aches), Kindles are generally designed so that the books on there will appear in a soft light warm hue as opposed to the bright blue light a computer usually has. It basically looks like the pages of a book and causes the same amount of eye strain (I don't know about you, but I've gotten several headaches from reading my textbooks. That's just going to happen to people regardless).Screens have improved since then, meaning that we're fine to read off of screens.3) DistractionsThis is where we need to start testing the teachers. Put a teacher in front of a video of a bunch of students. Three of the students are staring at their tablets and not typing. The rest are constantly looking back and forth between the board and their tablets.Ask them which ones are taking notes.Ask them which ones are watching March Madness.If the teacher cannot figure this out, that teacher no longer qualifies to teach.My point here (and maybe I was a little too sarcastic about it) is that teachers can tell if a student isn't paying attention pretty easily. Teachers can tell if you're day dreaming or half asleep. They can tell if you're playing games on your tablet.Thank you.
Textbooks should be replaced by technology.

Hi, thank you for your response. 1) Now I will discuss the differences between the ease of use between an e-reader (a common device with electronic versions of books, newspapers, magazines, etc.) and a textbook. In 2011, Alex Thayer of the University of Washington conducted a study for academic purposes on e-readers. Each pupil was given a Kindle DX loaded with books in the fall. By the time spring came along, almost 40 percent of the students had stopped using the reader. Why? Usability issues. Although the Kindle allows one to annotate books as you read, three quarters of the students in the study still used paper to take notes. The students also found it difficult to locate information found in the text while taking tests or completing assignments, reports (etc.) Part of the problem, says Mr. Thayer, is that e-readers don't allow for "cognitive mapping." This is the process of using cues to recall where you saw the information in the first place. With textbooks; images, bold writing, and subtitles can be easy cues when looking back on particular details. However, navigation and search functions are very poor features on most e-readers. 2) Student Health Tablets contribute to eyestrain, headaches, blurred vision, and bad posture which often increases the excuses available for students not doing their homework. However with textbooks, these type of symptoms are rare. 3) Distractions Although many find features (such as a dictionary or a clock) on an electronic reader very useful, they are also distractions. It's like having your favorite dessert in front of you at the dinner table with guests over. Not only is it tempting but very distracting to just take the food for yourself. With an electronic device in place of your textbook, you may be tempted to surf the Internet or watch non-school-related videos (etc.) instead of focusing on your schoolwork. All this makes an impact on the education you receive.
Textbooks should be replaced by technology.

Thank you for this debate. I would just like to address a few issues.1) eBooksAlmost every updated scholarly source including publishers of textbooks are coming out with or have come out with e-texts for their material. The teccnological situation in America would make it extremely easy to implement the usage of eBooks across the nation.They can be downloaded or printed, they read exactly like a textbook (which seems to be my opponent's only concern), and they usually come with other resources like powerpoint slideshows and even tutorial videos for classes that require it.2) Internet resourcesGetting information from paper sources at a library is difficult for most people. Getting research from the Internet is easy. It's actually really easy. This makes it easier to find information in class for required research or out of curiousity when you have free time. If you don't believe me, type any question about something you may have to research here: www.google.com3) Wifi failureIt is true that wifi sucks sometimes. However, if schools innovated to using technology extensively for academic purposes, all technology would innovate along with it, partially out of sheer capitalism and partially out of necessity. When a need arises that a business can fix, that business is all over trying to make the best solution possible. This kind of movement could greatly improve internet servers and connection nationwide.4) Cost benefit analysis.1 cost and 3 benefits.Thank you for reading.
Textbooks should be replaced by technology.

School textbooks should not be replaced by technology. Although an Ipad may be great for recreational purposes, I do not believe it should be used in place of a book. A textbook is organized in a format to cover all the material in a specific lesson. It allows the students to follow along easily while being taught the lesson. What if the wifi goes down? What if the server crashes? If an electronic device is being used instead of a textbook during this type of situation, then the class is disrupted.
female soccer players should have higher pay. (Australia)

"I don't believe it is fair that male soccer players get payed for sitting on the bench while female soccer players get nothing. there are smaller stands for W-league games, that means that if there are lots of fans (not like that would happen with the level of publicity that the games get) they wont want to come again because of the small seating arrangements. this will decrease ticket sales making the pay go lower, yes, the pay does change depending on if you play or not. How are W-league teams going to pay their players if they don't have any money. A-league team funding isn't great but they still have enough to live by, all the Adelaide United Lady Red players have to work 2 jobs, this is hard if you are an international or inter state player. Sorry about the bad set up, I'm only 12." It is nice to see that you, at your age, are being an active thinker. However, your school should include better lessons on economics. Wages are determined by the amount of money generated by the worker for the employer. Women's sports teams bring in less revenue than men's teams do. This means the amount of money generated by each player is less, and therefore the amount of money each player can receive is going to be less. So I was able to find NFL stats for the US, here is an example : "The players receive: 55 percent of league media, which includes all broadcasting revenue"television, satellite, radio and Internet. 45 percent of NFL Ventures and the NFL postseason revenues"including all revenue from the operation of postseason NFL games, as well as revenues arising from the operation of NFL-affiliated entities, such as NFL Mobile, NFL.com, NFL Productions and the television channel NFL Network. 40 percent of local revenue"which consists of "all revenue received or to be received by the clubs or club affiliates and not included in League Media or NFL Ventures and Postseason revenue." ..." [1] Now assume there was a women's NFL league, that drew in 1/10th of the number viewers, this would mean that each of these categories would be 1/10th the men's NFL rates, and women would be paid that 1/10th. Now this doesn't include the individual contract negotiations for each player, some players are worth more to a team than others. But it goes to show exactly how wages for sports teams are determined. If you have a superstar, who can bring in bigger audiences and sell more merchandise, you will pay that player more. The sad fact is, despite people like me who prefer women's sports, men's sports are simply a much bigger draw. [2] In this example we can see women's soccer had huge ratings in the US during the US-Japan World Cup, 15.2... Sounds great right? Except that the average draw for the Olympics is around 30, and that is the daily average over the entire thing. The world cup is a single game. In short, players are paid what they are worth. This is determined by comparing the generated revenue from all streams to the overhead costs of the team. If you want women in sports to be paid more, people need to watch more. Source [1] http://www.cnbc.com... Source [2] http://ftw.usatoday.com...
female soccer players should have higher pay. (Australia)

I don't believe it is fair that male soccer players get payed for sitting on the bench while female soccer players get nothing. there are smaller stands for W-league games, that means that if there are lots of fans (not like that would happen with the level of publicity that the games get) they wont want to come again because of the small seating arrangements. this will decrease ticket sales making the pay go lower, yes, the pay does change depending on if you play or not. How are W-league teams going to pay their players if they don't have any money. A-league team funding isn't great but they still have enough to live by, all the Adelaide United Lady Red players have to work 2 jobs, this is hard if you are an international or inter state player. Sorry about the bad set up, I'm only 12.
Theory: How the our universe came to be

I think your looking for the term, existence, Nothing Existence Death Life Reality Philosophy is the exploration of the imaginary space where nothingness reigns supreme only when one wants to make existence does anything come to be, but existence comes death for existence can end into nothingness, but with death comes life, for on the timeline of beginning to exist to the end can be called life, which concludes to reality. Blank space between dimensions = Nothingness Existence = dimensions Death = the end of dimensions life = the time a dimension exists before death Reality = the beings that experience life during existence Conclusion the final state of everything is nothingness, no meaning, no existence, no god. Nothingness encompasses existence which ends with death, which is delayed by life, which is reality.
Theory: How the our universe came to be

Just messing around here and looking for someone to argue against this theory, which may have been proposed, or may have not, but I am simply theory crafting here. Just accept and post your counter and we'll go from there. How our universe was created, 1.Multiverse 2._____ star(unknown size) collapsing into a black hole 3.Causing space rip into the unknown spaces between dimensions 4.Due to everything have a polar opposite the collapse into a single point from one dimension was the big bang in creating another. 5.Causing the particles that were ripped apart when pulled into the black hole to collide into each other forming the first elements, like particle acceleration. 6.from theses newly form elements the first galaxies were formed. 7.followed by solar systems, and suns 8.which inside these solar systems form planets 9.which, if conditions allowed it, formed life.
Theory: How the our universe came to be

Nothingness = Blank space between dimensions Nothingness: the absence or cessation of life or existence. Existence = dimensions Death = the end of dimensions life = the time a dimension exists before death Reality = the beings that experience life during existence When one starts to imagine something it starts as nothing. If your going to dive into the imaginary space using philosophy, one should not bound themselves with the laws of reality, numbers, letters, definitions, individuality, time, matter, and logic all do not apply to this space. You are nothing and nothing is all, existence comes from nothing, from existence comes death, with death comes life, and reality is formed. You do not know your experience for you don't exist, in the space known as nothing, you are just a concept from nothing which made existence. One does not "I think therefor I am" for one does not know if they themselves are truly thinking. One person could be a universe at which dictates all thoughts and actions of the beings existing in this imaginary space.
Theory: How the our universe came to be

nothing=(is)information=0 you cant give me 0 sodas i can grab with my hand, but you can understand that you cant, possibly matter is Space and time, and information is the opposite of matter, and exist beyond Space and time death=sleep life=personal physical experience of now everyTHING, is not NOthing. false=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now only now is true, i know my experience of now
The United States could beat Russia in a war

Very good points. However, the economy of America in 2013 was actually 12th in the world. http://www.heritage.org... China joining in is still a big factor and a huge possibility. We are trillions of dollars in debt. China practically owns us. At any time if China would ask us for their money, we would not be able to pay it. Also, Russia is allies with North Korea as well. http://en.wikipedia.org... A nuclear weapon would completely destroy all of America except for Oregon and Washington State. I look forward to reading your response :) What has North Korea been known for? Nuclear weapons. Russia has also been known for nuclear weapons as well. For example, the Cold War and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Who is to say that something like that can't happen again, but this time, something disastrous takes place. http://en.wikipedia.org... As you can see in the link, Cuba is allies with both Russia and Cuba. If a nuclear weapon is launched at the United States from Cuba,
The United States could beat Russia in a war

Im very sorry for that miscommunication on the ports and airports. To kick off round 3 i will correct myself on the ports.US Navy Installations http://en.wikipedia.org...US AIRFORCE Installationshttp://en.wikipedia.org...Now there are the real number. Sorry Again :3Now with the economy.... The US has one of the largest economies in the world, if not THE largest. As of 2013 the United States has the LARGEST and BEST economy.Sources:http://en.wikipedia.org...(nominal)http://www.therichest.com...AlliesYou are 1000% wrong with China coming to Russias aid. The US is Chinas #1 trading partner ( http://en.wikipedia.org...;( The European Union is a group of 27 countries therefore not an independant country))and I dont think they would give that up to aid Russia.I understand communist nations coming to Russias aid excluding China. We also have helped Afghanistan build their government and I believe they would stay neutral. As for Iraq... you are correct they would come to aid of Russia. As for the US Allies:NATO: http://en.wikipedia.org...As you can see.. many nations. Reaching to almost 10 Million soldiers in all.Your turn :D
The United States could beat Russia in a war

Good luck to you as well :D Now, in the links I did not see if the ports and airports are civilian or military. If they are civilian, then those facts are irrelevant. The military doesn't have any use for those. Also, the oil obtained by the U.S. rather than gaining it internally (like Russia) will cost the U.S. a lot of money. The economy is already bad enough as it is. Now the point with the allies. Russia is allies with both China and Iran. Guess what? They all hate us! XD lol If the U.S. were to get into a war with Russia, China and Iran would more than likely get involved. Guess who is on pretty good terms with Iran right now? Afghanistan. The bad part about that? We trained Afghanistan. That's part of the reason we are actually losing the war over there. They took what we taught them and perfected it. While we have our allies, half of the four countries I listed are communists who more than likely have their own ideas of wanting America gone. And as we all know, communism is very harsh. I will leave it at this so I still have things to talk about in the next few rounds :P
The United States could beat Russia in a war

I can see why you say this. The military, the cold enviorment, the culture, and the allies. First off... Lets look at the numbers. Russia vs USRussiahttp://www.globalfirepower.com...UShttp://www.globalfirepower.com... First of all the US has nearly double of active manpower than Russia. (US having 145,212,012 manpower while Russia has 69,117,271 manpower. Nearly half of the US right? Next and most important...Resources. I see that the Russians have more petroleum for use on the battlefield. But the number shown is how much petroleum is made in the countries themselves. The US imports a lot more than it makes which can match or even take over the amount of petroleum made by Russia. Ports and Airports (Where Boats Leave, Where Planes Leave). The US has nearly 14,000 Airports for deport while the Russians have about 1.25k. The major ports is a big gap also. The Russians have 7 major ports to depart from while the US having triple that at 24 ports. Only some numbers that the US has beating Russia by. I look forward to the rest of this debate. Good Luck :D
Homo Sapiens (Modern Humans) evolved

My opponent , be a little more simpler for the sake of some people. I'll say the average human says "this thing of weird freak me out" Though I do understand what you're trying to say,modern humans are most certainly evolving even though most of them have kids anyway excluding natural selection. As a person posted ,- 'Sigh... copy paste... including plagiarism of at least one source. Also, the resolution is vague. Very easy to get an auto win with semantics.' Humans are evolving whether you like it or not. We will always evolve. If you look, now the average Indian lives longer, sicker and more resistant to heat (in terms of food). I don't want long arguments so.. http://content.time.com... Humans are still evolving, albeit slower than ever.