BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Go Green with Ebooks

Computers require energy and resources to build, ship, and recycle and/or dispose of. In addition, when computers and other electronics are disposed of, they can release harmful chemical substances into the surrounding environment, making them substantially less green than paper books, which can be recycled in easier and more environmentally friendly ways. Having an entire library at your fingertips may also decrease reading levels as people start a book, but do not finish it, deciding instead to move on to another book, and another, etc.
reading a screen isn't as comfortable

People like to sit down and read a book from cover to cover, and to stare at a screen for that long feels uncomfortable, damages your eyes and gives you neck cramps. A book can be held in the hand more easily than a laptop, even a netbook, because paper is a flexible material. Also for the people that don't have laptops you have to sit at the computer desk and many people enjoy reading a book while lying in bed before you go to bed because it is more relaxing. Vision problems have skyrocketed due to increased time spent staring at a computer screen. In addition to being uncomfortable, reading a book on a computer screen actually has a serious negative effect on the health and abilities of your eyes.
digital media has too many copyright issues and is less trustworthy

Replacing books with e-Books entirely will create a similar problem to that faced by the music industry with MP3s. Digital information is entirely too easy to copy and redistribute for free. Academic publications can be hacked and plagiarised easily, and with online material being continuously updated and the copyright laws not entirely clear with digital material, it will make it difficult to prove that the work was plagiarised. In general, information found on the Internet is generally from unverifiable sources and may be extremely biased or incorrect. It is not useful for writing essays.
Old versions of e-books may not be compatible with new software systems

Technology is currently in a constant state of improvement. New software for electronics are continually being developed, and are often incompatible with data from other software systems. For example, computers that have old versions of Microsoft Word, or Adobe Reader, cannot open or read files from the new versions. This would be the same for e-books, as they are data and file-based, meaning that they may have to be re-loaded or re-purchased as software improves. This makes e-books inefficient and potentially more costly than print books.
digital media is replacing the old media in other areas

Music CDs replaced records and MP3s are replacing music CDs. Terrestrial TV has been mostly replaced by digital TV. Books themselves descended from parchment, which descended from papyrus scrolls and before that, stone tablets. Digital publications are the next technological step and so if the pattern is uniform, they will also replace the last step almost entirely. The thing you are saying is wrong typing and printing is a compelete different thing we used to write with our hands until the computer came out Now people type more than they used to printing is a differnt method
much easier to search for information

Even a simple search tool on a word processor is much more efficient than trying to find information in a book, even if the index is really well written. The opposite point about dedication is a strawman argument at best, dedication is not simply shown through the acceptance and use of outdated technology but the application and use of whatever technology is available. Time organisation is no longer taught because it is implied and made so simple by the advances in technology; that is not to be abhored but rather cherished.
textbooks are geting more and more expensive whilst universities are bringing the goods online

Free information means free/'at least cheap' education. Sites like http://www.rapidlibrary.com, Google(search free textbooks in your subject area) and Google books, permit students with a limited budget to get what they want without having to spend exorbitant amounts of cash. http://www.youtube.com/edu is also a great source of information, people who cannot afford tuition fees at prestigious universities like Stanford(or aren't smart enough to get in) can access lectures online and since you don't get accreditation for taking these courses (since you're not paying tuition fee) it doesn't make sense to buy a bunch of expensive tangible textbooks. Free e-books make education accessible and cheap thus more widespread.
Society should always try to reward its citizens for vital work in some degree at least. Under a ca...

Society should always try to reward its citizens for vital work in some degree at least. Under a capitalist system the value of goods and services is recognised in financial terms, so a wage would recognise the important contribution of homemakers. As well as being important, housework is physically taxing, time consuming and in balancing the needs of a household, a relatively specialised task. These features are all valued highly by the marketplace, and it is a pure accident of history that homekeepers have not been included in this.
No-one knows for sure what they are signing up for upon entering a marriage or relationship. The ci...

No-one knows for sure what they are signing up for upon entering a marriage or relationship. The circumstances of a family can change dramatically over time so one member may end up doing work they never expected. If so, then their work may be voluntary in the sense they are not physically coerced, but it is not a situation they previously gave any consent to. If business partners sign a contract which circumstance means is no longer representative of the work they do, then the partners should have a right to re-negotiate. It is the same with a partner in a relationship.
Firstly, physical coercion is still regrettably common in the home, and rarely reported when it exis...

Firstly, physical coercion is still regrettably common in the home, and rarely reported when it exists. Secondly there are more subtle forms of power imbalances between family units. It is estimated that men own over 90% of the property in the world, and they are almost always still the dominant wage earners in a household, both in amount and likelihood of working. This means women in particular can be left in an unequal bargaining position when compared to their partner. This means the voluntariness of domestic agreements can be highly questionable. Even if divorce is possible, it is understandable that the more vulnerable partner may want to avoid it at all costs, for cultural reasons, or to prevent harm to children. So it does not constitute the element of consent the opposition is looking for. As such it is important that we give homekeepers at least the option of recompense.
The improvements in the rights of women all stem from the state 'interfering' in social matters. Pr...

The improvements in the rights of women all stem from the state 'interfering' in social matters. Pre-nuptial agreements, custody and property sharing upon divorce are all legal measures in family law. Equalising the rights, roles and access to wealth in the household is an important step towards empowering women, and ensuring equal opportunity for future generations by showing that household roles are not defined by gender.
Conservatives are always keen in public on promoting the family and on the advantages of mothers bei...

Conservatives are always keen in public on promoting the family and on the advantages of mothers being able to stay at home to bring up young children. This proposal would provide positive encouragement for couples to make the decision that one of them should stay at home to care for their children, as it provides an economic incentive for one of them (typically the woman) to do so. At the same time it ensures that although family income will be the same, the homekeeper retains their own income and so receives proper recognition for their work. This will serve to maintain their status within the relationship, and make it easier for them to return to the workplace in the future if they so choose.
The running of a home, far from being just simple chores, has been and remains one of the bedrocks o...

Whilst the essentialness of work can sometimes influence the amount it is paid, it is by no means the only variable we use in society and the market. Look for example at how nurses and doctors are paid compared to footballers. And the proposition admits themselves that the work is done, and has always been done this way, so it's not as if a failure to pay homekeepers will mean a crash in the amount of work carried out. As such there is no threat of economic problems. It is merely a case of entitlement, and there seems to be little grounds for that.
Society should always try to reward its citizens for vital work in some degree at least. Under a ca...

The key fact about homekeeping is that even if it is hard work, and demanding - it is voluntary. Charity work can be taxing and specialised, but society recognises this does not require payment either. The entrance into a marriage or relationship implies a similar voluntary attitude towards the work that must be done to sustain it as with those who work unpaid for charities like Oxfam.
No-one knows for sure what they are signing up for upon entering a marriage or relationship. The ci...

Even if every future contingency is not planned upon the entrance to a marriage or relationship, what is agreed is that any changes will be discussed and mutually agreed. This is the fundamental part of the marriage or relationship contract. As long as this happens then the homekeeper has no grounds for complaint, unless there is physical coercion, which is illegal anyway. In these and other cases the option of exiting the relationship is always available too – divorce laws now make vastly improved provision for women in such situations.
Firstly, physical coercion is still regrettably common in the home, and rarely reported when it exis...

Even if there are some marginal cases where power imbalances affect agreements within relationships, it is not right, or useful, for the state to interfere in this private and personal sphere. Families will always know their situation better than the state. In the vast majority of units where the current situation works fine this risks contractualising the family, which greatly undermines the principles of shared purpose, love and agreement which make it unique and valuable in the first place.
The improvements in the rights of women all stem from the state 'interfering' in social matters. Pr...

Even if we agree there shouldn't be overt gender discrimination in the workplace, it is not the role of state to enforce its conceptions of gender roles on the household. Many cultural and religious groups base their societies squarely on the traditional family unit. Many of the women involved in these are comfortable with that. To enforce a subjectively 'progressive' model both violates their cultural rights, and risks causing havoc in these established structures.
Conservatives are always keen in public on promoting the family and on the advantages of mothers bei...

In reality this proposal would undermine the traditional family, as it attempts to put an economic value upon something that is really a vocation. Many people believe that although men and women are equal, they have different roles in life. Men are seen as more career-orientated and occupy the economic sphere, while women are more nurturing and so occupy a more domestic role. By monetarising the domestic sphere the different roles of the genders are ignored and family relationships will come under strain. For example, should a wife have the right to strike if she does not think her husband is paying her enough? \ From another point of view, this measure is highly discriminatory, as it assumes that couples are all in stable partnerships along the lines of the traditional two-parent famly. Many family are headed by a lone-parent who has no option but to go out to work, and they would be both ignored and demeaned by this proposal.
The running of a home, far from being just simple chores, has been and remains one of the bedrocks o...

The running of a home, far from being just simple chores, has been and remains one of the bedrocks of a functional society. Without the work of a homekeeper, other family members would not be free to go to work and invest in a career for themselves. This would harm the family structure and the economy. The importance of this role means that the home labourer is entitled to some compensation. If the work had to be provided at market rates the cost would run to hundreds of billions of pounds or dollars a year.
Legalisation Can Be A Part of a Wider Education Program

The problem with the opposition proposal is that it is not mutually exclusive to legalising prostitution. It is perfectly possible for a Government to provide an education program and legalise prostitution at the same time, in fact that is what is done in places like New Zealand where prostitution is legal and we provide sex education in schools. In fact, legalising prostitution actually helps a wider education program. If the opp wants people to be properly educated about AIDS, then they should not want to exclude and stigmatise sex workers. If you continue to ban prostitution, then it actually entrenches the idea that prostitutes are somehow lesser people whose welfare we shouldn't care about when it comes to HIV. As it is, countries that ban prostitution make no effort to protect prostitutes at all. To have a free and open discussion, it is necessary to allow a free discussion about prostitution, which can only happen if it is legal. If it is not, it is much more difficult to acquire information about prostitutes and about the conditions in which they work, because they are less willing to come forward and admit to what they are doing. The opp has conceded that there is a problem of people having unsafe sex with prostitutes, and yet it seems like the only group of people they want to exclude from their education program are the prostitutes themselves. If we can identify who the prostitutes are, then we can educate them. If prostitution is illegal and forced underground, we can't provide them with info. In addition, we can't provide information with people who use prostitutes, both because they won't admit to committing an illegal act and because banning prostitution increases the stigma on these people. The prop has missed the point entirely when they say we will be unable to enforce regulation, because it will be in the interests of the prostitutes and brothels to abide by regulations and report those who don't.
Costs of the proposal outweigh the benefits

Making a job legal and telling people not to give other people AIDS is hardly a 'stringent criteria’. Through this debate the Opp has agreed with us on several points we made. They agreed that there was high demand for prostitutes which currently make a black market; we showed how this would be beneficial when legalised. They agreed that sex workers are a cause of the spread of AIDS, they agreed that abuse was a problem, we showed how under our model these harms would deminish. They have agreed that using condoms and practising safe sex is for the best, under our model this would become the new status quo. They even agreed that there wil be recourse for abused workers. We have proposed a model which makes a better life for sex-workers, customers and society as a whole. The Opp asserts that the costs will outweigh the benefits. What costs are they specifically targeting? Their entire case started by saying we needed more education, we proved this as not mutually exclusive and showed how education would be a flow on effect of our model. The Opp then attacked our model on the harms it will cause, the only harms being stated by the Opp are that more people will become sex workers and this increases the danger. These harms ignore our substantive arguments on how our model wants to see sex workers accepted, we see this as a legitimate job and business, we explained how our model would increase the safety of the workers by making their job stigma free and encouraging quality service through legislation and competition, this hasn’t been addressed. We also discussed how the customers would be safe, because they would be paying for such a quality (and AIDS free) service. Workers with AIDS would be able to be found and treated by the Government as businesses would feel obliged to dob them in. The Opp has failed to show any harms at all, clearly this does not outweigh the benefits.
Summary

The first basic claim made by prop was that the prostitution industry is only abusive because of its illegality; the abuses highlighted were drugs, assault, and STIs. But in order to demonstrate that their proposal is effective, they would need to show that there would be no more people desperate enough to subject themselves to atrocious conditions, there would be no more demand for these prostitutes, or that this new law enforcement would somehow be more effective than current law enforcement which they spent their entire first argument discrediting. But prop failed to do that, all they did was give a list of requirements legal brothels must abide by with no explanation as to how they would enforce them. Their self-regulation model does not work either because if these brothels are gang run as prop asserts, then they also told us that these gangs are involved in other illegal businesses as well, so even if one gang knew of another that wasn’t following the regulations, they would not report for fear of being reported as well for something else they did was illegal. So if regulation cannot work, then are prop reducing the drugs violence and STIs at least? NO! The assumption made on STIs was that prostitutes either do not have access to or are ignorant about facilities that could help them preserve their health. On ignorance we explained how THAT is the major problem, and that status quo is dealing with it, Prop needed to show how they are going to educate people better than now which they failed to do. As for the accessibility, we explained how South Africa (which seemed to be their prominent example) is extremely advanced in dealing with HIV; they have education programs, free ARVs, free condom dispensers at convenient locations, so obviously if a prostitute wanted a condom they could get one. If they need to get tested (which the government already encourages) they can do so for free, so seeing as they cannot enforce their regulations and all the precautions they are taking already exist in status quo, it is clear that the proposal will have none of its alleged benefits.
Everyone has AIDS. AIDS, AIDS, AIDS.

As we’ve mentioned in our previous point, prostitution will take place whether it is legal or not. We believe prostitution should be legal. By regulating brothels and the conditions for prostitution through regular health checks, condoms et cetera, we can make sure prostitutes are safe from HIV. In places where prostitution is illegal, it is merely driven underground; controlled by cartels and gangs. In this situation prostitutes live under no rights[[http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/content/47/3/515.full]] Moreover they tend to be associated with drugs, they are hooked by dealers who force them into prostitution to fund thri habit, through multiple sexual partners and needle sharing there is significant risks of HIV.[[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_4_35/ai_53390350/]]. If a sex worker contracts AIDS, a man or woman client using them will be at risk of contracting the virus, they then run the risk of not knowing that they have it, infecting other sexual partners and the cycle continues. Also let us not forget future children who contract the disease while in the uterus. So it is in countries where prostitution is illegal where we can’t keep sex workers safe from AIDS. In these countries prostitutes aren’t even allowed to be prostitutes. They tend to enter the profession because they have no other way of earning money or they may be forced to do it. On the other hand, if prostitution is legal and regulations are put in place, sex workers will be safer from STI’s and HIV/AIDS. Regular health checks will pick up any possible infections and there will be laws to protect the well-being of sex workers. What’s more, these laws will not only protect sex workers, but their clients too. Making prostitution legal will improve the work conditions of people who have to go into prostitution for one reason or another and will protect society from a further spreading of HIV/AIDS. This is a signifcant benefit to greater society and individual workers and cl
Prostitutes will be safer under legalisation

As we have shown, prostitution will always exist whether it is legal or not. Therefore, we need to look at whether prostitutes will be safer with legalisation. They most definitely will be. It is important that prostitutes and safe and free from harm. There are many reasons why women go into prostitution. Often it is due to financial desperation and/or children commitments. These women are in a very vulnerable position and it is very important that we ensure they are as safe and healthy as can be. Prostitutes are subject to gangs, violence, drugs and rape. Prostitutes are often forced to take drugs by the gangs who employ (or own) them so as to make them addicted. This means they have no way to escape.[[http://www.un.org/rights/dpi1772e.htm]] There is also no regulation, which means prostitutes are subject to unprotected sex and rape from countless people, which means they invariably become infected with AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases[[http://www.caps.ucsf.edu/pubs/FS/revsexworkers.php]]. When the market is legalised, it is no longer controlled by gangs. This is because legal businesses operate the industry instead. This is better for prostitutes as they no longer suffer the horrific abuses that they face under a system of illegal prostitution. This is because legal businesses face regulation. They are required by law to ensure that contraception is used by their employees. They are also required to ensure that their employees are healthy by directing them to appropriate medical treatment when it is necessary. When legal its easier to monitor. This is because the government knows how many prostitutes there are, where they are located, and what issues are affecting the industry. This is beneficial as the government can better plan appropriate health and social policies. Prostitutes are legitimate stakeholders that need protection. Under our model, we better protect prostitutes. They are safer, they are healthier, and they are happier