BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
has computer typing taken away the art of writing

This question is vague and must be defined to eliminate any obscurity. The "art of writing" refers to both the structure/content of the material being constructed and how that construction appears; ie. neat handwriting. With regard to the appearance and integrity of handwriting, standards have been decreasing steadily in most Western countries over the past 50 years. Of course, it is no surprise that these countries also have the highest rates of computer literacy and Internet access in the entire world. Computers in essence obliterate the need for neat handwriting, or even handwriting at all because they allow the utmost level of editing - including language translation, spell-checking and is legible by everyone capable human. Granted, one must also acknowledge that the way in which handwriting is taught has also changed with the steady uptake of different teaching methods in the 20th and 21st centuries. These new teaching methods have aimed at quickness and clarity over eye-candy. However they have achieved quite the opposite of that with often people having chicken scratch handwriting. In addition, one must also consider the fact that although these teaching methods changed, illegible handwriting has only be truly evident in the past 30 years - ironically the same time personal computers hit big. Hence forth one can logically deduce that bad handwriting has been exacerbated and compounded through the generations as a result of computers degrading the handwriting of the soon-to-be teachers and hence as the aphorism goes - bad habits never die. Therefore it is the amalgamation of both computers and different teaching methods that resulted in the death of neat handwriting; but in truth the usage of computers has corrupted the teaching methods via negatively influencing the teachers and hence computers are solely the issue with illegible handwriting. In terms of structure, yes one can argue that the usage of texting and Internet chat has negatively influenced the vocabulary and structure of people's written works - however, the majority of the work done on computers is properly structured (as is this response) and holds professional purpose.
has computer typing taken away the art of writing

you dont understand my problems .i cant explain them here .please help me . i will be very very very very very very grateful if you help me .please try to understand and do it as a last favour .pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Bill is a liability to Hillary's Campaign

The problem with your rebuttal is the facts. The American population sees no hope for change in George Bush or his policies and that is why the Democrats control both the House and the Senate now. The problem now lies that the Democrats really haven't accomplished much themselves and now our Nation is looking for a leader to lead us towards the future. I find it interesting that we debate this because in this week's issue of Newsweek, they have a story about Bill Clinton's rage. Not only that, but the article also agrees with me in saying that voting Hillary in would mean a copresidency with Bill by her side. Our country doesn't need to have Bill Clinton back in Office, but he is campaigning "for his wife" like he is running for the Office himself. As I stated before, he clearly cost his wife the votes in both New Hampshire and South Carolina with his comments. In South Carolina particularly, she had a double digit lead over Obama heading in. If Hillary loses the Primaries and Obama gets the Democratic Nomination, you can rest some of the blame on Bill Clinton and his lack of self control.
Bill is a liability to Hillary's Campaign

Yes, They want Change, but not from a extremely liberal senator, which by the way he was written, by a poll as being the most liberal senator. People want a change from Bush, not democrats, it doesn't matter who it is to the voters,just as long as they aren't Bush. They want a change from George Bush, not the Clintons. People always saw why can't it by like it use to be, They saw it should be like it was when a Clinton, was in Office. Thus, they will Vote for her, because People don't want a extremely Liberal, President, because many are moderates in this country. That is why Bush won last Year, Kerry was very liberal, but Hillary, is not as liberal as Kerry. That is why she is winning delegates, because the people saw, Hey She has a bit of everything, just as her husband had.
Bill is a liability to Hillary's Campaign

True, everyone does know Bill. Everyone also knows that if they elect Hillary, they will get alot of the same things they got from Bill. The majority of Americans are looking for a fresh change. That is why they are so fascinated with Obama promising a new era. More evidence of Bill's liability in the campaign came yesterday when it was said that he wasn't allowed to speak with the media for the remainder of the campaign. That isn't very positive for a man who is supposedly of value to the Clinton campaign. The fact is that Bill at this point is saying more than his wife. I, along with many Americans, are not interested in Bill's Presidency, I want to hear about what Hillary is going to do different that Bill didn't already do. Apparently, it isn't much.
Bill is a liability to Hillary's Campaign

Bill is not a liability as I said before Bill is a Rock Star and because of him, he gives Hillary delegates from virtually every state, Primaries help, but when Hillary has 200 plus strong delegates just because of Bill's pull of the Democratic party, it isn't a liability. Bill is not going to be a liability and yes. Bill is only critizing Barack, because of his record, Everyone knows the Clinton's, Who is Barack Obama.
Bill is a liability to Hillary's Campaign

Bill Clinton has proven to be a serious detriment to the Clinton Campaign. His White House record is very foretelling and his mouth just doesn't know when to stop. When people go to the rallies or watch them on television, we want to see the CANDIDATE talking about the ISSUES. Not a former President talking about his "legacy" that included scandals and a missed opportunity to take out bin Laden. Most recently, Clinton and Obama have been on a back and forth verbal war over Bill calling Obama's Campaign a "fairy tale". It has seriously put a dent in Hilary's campaign as she is no longer the focus. Bill has once again stolen the spotlight and as a result, Obama just pulled off a very convincing defeat in South Carolina. People are just plain sick and tired of Bill Clinton and his mouth. He has switched tactics at every state. In New Hampshire he said he couldn't make his wife a "younger, taller male.". and in South Carolina he basically said he couldn't make his wife black. (Source: http://www.boston.com...). The fcat is that Bill is a lowballer when it comes to debating and will stop at no limits to what he will say about the opposition. Bill should be respected for being a President in our Nation's past, but he has greatly hurt Hilar's Campaign.
Death Penalty

The death penalty gives closure to the victim's families who have suffered so much. It creates another form of crime deterrent. Justice is better served. Our justice system shows more sympathy for criminals than it does victims. It provides a deterrent for prisoners already serving a life sentence. DNA testing and other methods of modern crime scene science can now effectively eliminate almost all uncertainty as to a person's guilt or innocence. Prisoner parole or escapes can give criminals another chance to kill. It contributes to the problem of overpopulation in the prison system. It gives prosecutors another bargaining chip in the plea bargain process, which is essential in cutting costs in an overcrowded court system.
Should Government fund for schools to get technology for each students.

Technology, if used correctly, is completely safe and it is easier to keep then a ton of textbooks. Also you can buy a carrying case and a normal case for protection. While the student does have some pressure, they have much less than having to lug around 3-4 large and expensive textbooks. All textbooks can be put online, this save a lot of trees and habitats. Not to mention the animals that are endangered because of logging will also be saved. This will also slow and maybe, eventually, stop global warming. So in conclusion Technology is more helpful than it is harmful.
Christianity is a Disease

I will answer my opponent's questions: 1. Why are the laws of the universe unchanging? Why is mathematics consistent?- -The laws of the Universe are set in stone. It is by these laws that the Universe stays on course. Mathematics is man-made, the question has no point. 2. How could everything start from literally nothing? -This is something we do not yet know. How did God come into existence? 3. If atheism is true, then our minds are reducible to physics. Since physics is fundamentally deterministic, we have no free will. Is this true? -This is another thing that we simply have no answer for. That doesn't mean its not correct, it just means we don't know. 4. If God doesn't exist because He's immaterial, does that mean love doesn't exist? What about thought? What is thought? -We evolved these traits of love and thought to encourage survival. We love others, and that makes us protect them. We think so we can solve problems. 5. If our IQ is a product of evolution and survival then why are humans the only ones with the higher intelligence? Why do people with higher IQ's not have longer life spans that others? -We evolved this way. You're questions really show how dumb you are. If this were the wild, higher IQ people would survive longer because they can think better. 6. Are there absolutes? Can something be absolutely proven/disproven? -There are no absolutes. We cannot really be sure of anything. 7. Without God, how do you know right from wrong? -You do what feels right. 8. Is murder wrong? If so, is it wrong for everyone or just some people, why? -Yes murder is wrong. And yes it is wrong for everyone. Why? Because no one has the right to kill. 9. If God is false, that implies a standard of truth, correct? What is truth? -Truth is something that accords to reality. These questions were very unnecessary. Maybe my opponent will respond to my answers.
Christianity is a Disease

I understand my opponent has changed the format of the debate. I am disappointed, however, that he did not use the time he had to argue my points. Moving on, it is now my responsibility to prove the Christian God exists. Please see my statement in Round 1. "I am not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. " (Albert Einstein). Mister Einstein has a very valid point. Why is it that a man can look at a building and know there is a builder, or look at a painting and know there is a painter, yet not look at the creation and know there is a creator? If the universe had come into existence naturalistically, everything would be reducible to materialism. There would be no love, because it is immaterial. Some will say that love is simply a chemical reaction to make us want to reproduce, yet they fail to answer why we can love friends. Why would we love friends? we won't mate with them, so they are actually a roadblock in our progression. Survival of the fittest, right? Please show me the chemicals that form "love". Also show me thought. Can you actually show someone thought? Of course not. God has given us immaterial things. I will ask my opponent another question: Is murder wrong? If so, is it wrong for everyone or just some people, why? Another: If God is false, that implies a standard of truth, correct? What is truth? I request that my opponent will answer these questions along with the others I asked.
Christianity is a Disease

If my opponent has heard these questions before, than surely he will have no trouble giving answers. My opponent has again failed to present any evidence, or even cite his source, that "Historians agree that ancient writings supporting the existence of Jesus of Nazareth were fabricated by the church." Many historians, Christian and pagan alike, have written on the historical existence of Jesus. While they may disagree on whether He is the Messiah or not, that is not the argument. Cornelius Tacitus (Roman, c. A.D. 55-120, writing on Nero, Fire of Rome, and Christ): "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judï¿½a, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired." (Annals XV. 44) Norman Anderson holds that "a most mischievous superstition" may refer to the Resurrection (Anderson, JC, 20) See also: Lucian of Samosata: The Death of Peregrine, 11-13. Pliny the Younger: Epistles X.96. There are many more. Jesus is found in the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a; cf. t. Sanh. 10-11; y. Sanh. 7:12; Tg. Esther 7:9). Also in this Talmud, the disciples are found named (Sanh 107b), as is Mary (Sabb. 104b, Sanh 106a). These claim that Mary committed adultery in an attempt to explain away the virgin birth. The fact that the non-Christian Talmud has to try and explain away the virgin birth implies that Christ truly lived. For Jewish confirmation of Jesus, see Joshephus (Antiquities, XVIII, 33). Jesus' historical existence can be reduced to a simple logical argument: When did Christianity begin?: About 2000 years ago Was it a prominent religious belief?: Yes, thousands were killed for being Christian Did it spread through Rome?: Yes, it became so popular that Emperor Constantine claimed to convert to it Did it begin within the Roman Empire?: Yes Is it logical, then, to claim that Jesus Christ did not exist, even though people living during His lifetime would come to believe in Him?: No. The Romans could simply look and see if Pilate was governor over Judea at the time and if he had truly crucified a man named Jesus. In short, if Jesus did not exist, Christianity wouldn't have lasted 100 years.
Christianity is a Disease

My opponent claims that God is not scientific, yet he fails to give one single example of the "claimed evidence of god [that] has been disproved". I, however, can give scientific evidence that does support the existence of the Christian God, along with the validity of the Bible. 1. The size of planet earth is perfect for sustaining life. If the earth were any smaller, it would have free oxygen like Jupiter (R. E. D. Clark, Creation (London: Tyndale Press, 1946), p. 20). Earth is the only known planet that has an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain life. 2. Earth is the perfect distance from the sun. The planet maintains temperatures between roughly -30 to 120 degrees. If we were any closer to the sun, we would burn; if we were farther, we would freeze. "The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day" (. http://www.everystudent.com...). 3. The moons remains the perfect distance from earth. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over across the continents (The Wonders of God's Creation, Moody Institute of Science (Chicago, IL)) These are three of many evidences supporting the existence of God. The God of the Bible is not "little". In fact, the Bible declares the universe as God's glorious creation: Psalm 19:1, Psalm 97:6, Isaiah 40:26, Romans 1:18-20. My God is not little, but a god that would use evolution is. He would be wasteful and irresponsible, and by no means omnipotent. The true God gets it right first time. Virgin Mary did not protect Pope John Paul II. This idea is completely paganistic. See my debates on why Catholicism is not real Christianity. I ask my opponent to answer the following questions in his Round 5 conclusion: 1. Why are the laws of the universe unchanging? Why is mathematics consistent? 2. How could everything start from literally nothing? 3. If atheism is true, then our minds are reducible to physics. Since physics is fundamentally deterministic, we have no free will. Is this true? 4. If God doesn't exist because He's immaterial, does that mean love doesn't exist? What about thought? What is thought? 5. If our IQ is a product of evolution and survival then why are humans the only ones with the higher intelligence? Why do people with higher IQ's not have longer life spans that others? 6. Are there absolutes? Can something be absolutely proven/disproven? 7. Without God, how do you know right from wrong? God Bless
Christianity is a Disease

The basic point of this argument is to discredit Christianity. The Christianity I will particularly disprove is ring-wing Christianity. The debate will be divided into 5 rounds, each with a different topic. Round 1: God is not scientific Round 2: Jesus did not historically exist Round 3: Christianity is not philosophically and intellectually plausible Round 4: Evolution is a fact, creationism is not even a science Round 5: Conclusion ------------------- God is Not Scientific: Belief in "God" is based only in faith. There is absolutely no good evidence that there is a god. All claimed evidence of god has been disproved and is only accepted by desperate believers. No credible scientist is a Christian, let alone a conservative Christian. As Richard Dawkins points out in chapter one of "The God Delusion", the Christian god is a little god. Christians refuse to say "wow, the universe is bigger that Moses said". Instead, they maintain that god is small; the universe is only 6000 years old, and that the sun rotates around the earth. The Christians say that their god is "trinitarian". Is this logical? How can one god also be three? This simple idea brings Christianity toppling down. Pope John Paul II claimed that the reason he survived his assassination attempt because "Virgin Mary" saved him. Why did she not just make the bullet miss him completely? I know my argument on this particular argument is short, as the burden of proof lies with my opponent. Thank you.
The principle of Utility is true

SummaryWe know that moral behavior starts in the brain and we know that that behavior is determined by logical processes in the brain. These processes are real. The truth claims that these processes make are based on axioms and intuitions unique to morality but are nevertheless morally true. Immoral beliefs are those that contradict the logic of this system.The principle of utility is the only theory that accounts sufficiently for the logic of moral thinking. I demonstrated that the other theories on offer, such as deontology, natural law theory and divine command theory fail terribly when compared to the elegant explanatory power of the PoU.As I pointed out, when other theories declare slavery, genocide, etc. to be morally good, we know there is something wrong with these theories. This is because we see clearly that such evils decrease the well-being of sentient beings, i.e., they don't conform the very definition of morality and therefore don't conform to the PoU. When an action violates the PoU, it is instantlyrecognized as immoral and when an action conforms to the PoU it is instantly recognizable as a moral. Thanks to socialpinko for an awesome debate!
The principle of Utility is true

===Definitions===The principle of utility refers to the ethical principle that "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness," with happiness understood as "pleasure and the absence of pain"[1]. The principle of utility is a main tenet of utilitarianism as forwarded by Jeremy Bentham and J.S. Mill. The definition of true will be pretty straightforward and will refer to the common sense definition of the word. I want this debate to focus on ethics, not epistemology.===Resolution and BoP===The burden for this debate will be for the Pro to provide and defend a case in favor of the validity of the principle of utility, whereas Con's burden will be to refute Pro's case. I will ask that Pro provide their argument in R1, but that they refrain from posting in the last round so as to provide equality of case length.===Rules===1. Drops will count as concessions.2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted.3. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted.4. R1 is for acceptance or, if they choose, my opponent may introduce a preliminary argument here.===Sources===[1] http://www.philosophy.umd.edu...;
volunteer fire services should be harassed by news crews about money they have used

Oh my goodness I have been arguing the wrong side of this debate. I apologize deeply for my utter stupidity. I read and read the question and your position over and over again, and I didn't realize what mistake I was making. Firefighters do not deserve harassment from the news. Your arguments are very true and I myself wish to be a volunteer firefighter. I apologize for the confusion, and I would like it to be known I agree 100% with you and your position
volunteer fire services should be harassed by news crews about money they have used

I know what you mean about troops over the seas but first of all the fire service voulenteers actualy donate some of their funds towards operation wounded warrior. Second of all the money for the items that the fire service uses for their back rooms is indeed only fundraising mone that they worked for by selling items, having pancake breakfasts , and other things. They then save this money and manage what it goes to for the fire fighters.if you dont believe this there is a reason why my screename is enginegirl126. I am a volunteer fire fighter and have sat through meetings budget requests etc. The back rooms are paid for by fundraisers some of the equiptment that we want to supply our company can benifit from, this is also paid for through the fundraisers. We as voulenteer firefighters have to request to the villiage if we need new apparatuses and equiptment but it can be denied because of lack of funds or knowledge of the fire service. This can change how long fire fighters have to use outdated equiptment. This can cause safety issues because some departments including my own have gear that can be condemed due to how outdated. Outside of this all the other stuff we vote on what is needed to make sure that we had a safe place to have standby or house people if necessary.