BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Internet vs Electricity

Electric power is far more important to the state of our modern world than the internet.What comprises the modern world? Instant communications, immense production power, and a lifestyle humans three centuries ago could only dream of. Is the internet responsible for these? Of course not.A. Instant communicationsAlthough we like to think that the internet is largely responsible for this in the form of email and IM services, the ability to send information at light speed has existed for over a century and a half, beginning with Samuel Morse, who invented the telegraph in the 1830s. In 1844, the technology went commercial and telegraph lines spanned the country by the 1850s. By 1866, a telegraph line extended across the Atlantic ocean, and a man in New York could send a message to a man in London and get a reply the same day. This technology would not exist without electricity, only further emphasizing its importance. If you think that the telegraph is too old-fashioned to be "modern" then just know that in 1956 telephone cables replaced their older counterparts, allowing for easier communications. Oh but wasn't email just so much more convenient, being wireless and all? Email was first used on ARPANET, not the internet. It would later be adapted to the internet, but its origins are elsewhere. Do you notice a common theme here? In all of these devices, electric power was essential and the internet was not.B. Production powerHeavy industry has its beginnings placed in the first Industrial Revolution (1750-1825), where neither electric power nor the internet were instrumental. However, all industries are ultimately most impactful on food production, which is instrumental to population growth. Government census on agricultural changes says:"In 1900, the farmer performed chores by hand, plowed with a walking plow, forked hay, milked by hand, and went to town once a week on horsebac or by wagon to obtain the few necessities not produced on the farm. The power needed for farm operations was suppled by work animals and humans...the flickering kerosene lamp furnished the light. The hand pump and the windmill pumped water...by 1950, most farm operations had greatly changed. Electricity and other power equipment performed many chores...milking machines had lightened the burden of milk production...electricity provided lights on four out of five farms."These changes were brought about not only by electric power, but also by increased steel production, which itself was brought about by electric power and the use of oil.C. Modern lifestyleDespite what your idea of a modern lifestyle is, checking twitter and instant messaging on facebook are but activities we sometimes do. The true making of the modern lifestyle is in the automobile, the radio and the television, the refrigerator, the office job, the electric house. These things all required the immense industrialization and steel production brought about by electricity.In addition, the internet could not exist without electricity, whereas electric power existed for almost two centuries without the internet.[1]http://www2.census.gov...;
Internet vs Electricity

Why do you keep characterizing electricity as nothing but flashlights and batteries? I've already listed the enormous plethora of functions it serves. It is the basis on which our modern world stands. Everything in a modern home from the lights to the television to the computer to practically every machine in the entire house runs on electricity, not internet. And that's just the home. The entire world economy is based on electric communications and machinery, and the large production that facilitates everything we use.I feel as though you haven't bothered to read anything I've written.In addition, the internet is not the largest use of electricity. According to the US Energy Information Administration, the largest portion of energy is used in the Residential Sector (36%) and the largest portion of that is used to power appliances (63%). This is because the internet's electricity use mainly comes from running servers and internet connection devices, which use a negligible amount of electricity compared to everything else.I've essentially addressed everything there is to be addressed, but you haven't bothered to actually process any of the points I've made.
Internet vs Electricity

The electricity would help piggy pack the internet. Yes. But if you don't know, the internet is basically electricity's biggest use. The flashlight and batteries aren't even anything compared to the internet. Right now, we are using the internet and electricity. Electricity can only go so far when it comes to doing things. The internet can just keep evolving and evolving and it will help everyone. Internet helps everyday lives because of the ease and convenience it has.
Internet vs Electricity

You seem to misunderstand how electricity works. It is not a source of power, it transmits power. Fuel and oil cannot transmit power by themselves, and we do not have any other method of energy transmission that is nearly as efficient to build and maintain. Consider the machines of the first industrial revolution, which predated the use of electric transmission.The mining drills and steam engines used purely mechanical movements such as gears, pulleys, etc. These were certainly revolutionary machines at the time, but they required coal to be used directly where the machine was. This meant that transmission of power was just the movement of coal from one place to another in a cart.The idea of using electricity as a transferral of energy method had existed in the early 19th century. But there was no need at the time, as energy use was too low to require a complex method of energy transferral. When the second industrial revolution began in the late 19th century, oil was the new kingpin of energy sources. The efficiency of electricity was the perfect match, and soon newer, more powerful machines began.Although the method of transferring electricity would change in the 1950s with the invention of the transistor, most of the changes to electric power grids have been to increase the efficiency and decrease space taken up by transmission. With that in mind, it is important to recognize that the modern developments in technology have been more about how we use electricity than electricity itself.Similarly, the only significant way that the internet has changed over time is in its capability to transmit information efficiently. Don't let the fancy new GUIs fool you, information transmission speed is the only way the internet has adapted over time. That, and people have come up with new ways to use it.The internet and electricity are similar in their methods of changing over time; they've both become more efficient at their intended purpose, but otherwise the only important developments are in the way we use them.In addition, do not forget that even if the internet did somehow evolve into a hyper-advanced energy technology, it would still be piggybacking off of electric power. While we certainly enjoy Kindles, we can't forget that the printing press was more important.
pregnancy sex

"Do you think sex during pregnancy could harm your baby? If your changing mood and changing body permits you, then it is always safe" Pro's opening argument only restricts those with the certain criteria of their changing mood and changing body permitting them to engage in sexual intercourse while pregnant. However, there may be other women whose changing mood or body permits them. And the statement of "If your changing mood and changing body permits you, then it is always safe" I would like to focus on the words "always safe." Nothing is guaranteed, and the use of the word "always" is generalizing a specific argument, making it invalid.
THBT: modern technology does more harm than good

Good day Mr. Patrick, Too bad that you were forfeited but I guess that you're busy. But since you didn't make any feedback, I would proceed to the crystallization/ conclusion. I still strongly believe that modern technology does more harm than good because: 1.)Modern technology makes a person sluggard 2.)Pollution, Global warming etc. is done by modern technology 3.)Influence has worse effects on children and adults 3.a) radiation from computers and cellphone 3.b) if you text through a cellphone you do not type on the cellphone, the real word, like if you type on the cellphone "Where are you? I've been waiting here for so long" Now that cellphone was introduced, we, do the shortcut when texting, instead of typing exact words, this is typed "Wer r u? I've been w8ting hir 4 so long" And because of this, we get weak in spelling because we are used to use shortcuts, common in students. 3.c) age meter goes dow 4.) Synthetic foods which harm us are produced through technology Points that I successfully defended till the end: 1.)Technology adds the entropy and makes students lazy 2.)Pollution etc. are produced 3.)Effects to all people 4.)Effects of technology to the lowered life span 5.)Synthetic foods do harm Points that I successfully clashed: 1.) The fault does not lie within the tool but with the user. So, you were saying that it was the problem of humans that made technology turn this way 2.) They were dependent on technology since the start of everything. Early years, the loss of technology resulted to their demises. 3.) Technology must not be blamed because even if we know the problem it does, we do nothing 4.) We owe it all to technology You are such a good writer and as you said on your first argument, a historian. I admired you on how you write your arguments. I enjoyed debating with you. Wish that I could debate you in the future. And with that I end my speech
THBT: modern technology does more harm than good

Good day Mr. Patrick and thanks for considering my parameters. I would like to do the rebuttal on this cross-examination part. 1.)Lazy students used to not go to the library. Fewer sources were requested for papers. Students using calculators are using them to do math their parents were never taught. Technology makes it possible to do more. We can get more from libraries because there are a lot of books in it while if you search in the internet (like google or Encarta), there is no credible source because it is internet while books there are authors. It is better to work than to depend on technology and be lazy. Calculators are one of the reasons why children become lazy, before, people use long multiplication, addition, rooting etc. but now that we have calculators, we become lazy and depend on it. Some math problems aren't solved by calculators (long divisions or polynomial division), so if we are used or dependent to calculators, we get more difficult in learning and answering 2.)All light is a form of radiation. Working outside in the sun will also harm your vision. Libraries rely on technology too. The modern printing press makes books affordable. The lighting system is usually some kind of modern electrical system. Compare the radiant energy of the two. I refer this one to students/kids, do kids work outside? No. they just play outside, but not so long, but if a child uses a computer, he is focused in radiation which can lead to visual problems. Show me a proof that working outside and using a computer share the same amount of radiation. 3.)What are your sources for this magical 120 number? 120 years has never been the typical life span, in spite of what the bible might say. Even you yourself can observe this. Have you noticed that a lifespan of a person gets lower and lower since the technology started? Bible says that persons live up to the age of 500+. I meant the present day (1940's) they reach the age of 120+ but as years passed by, it went lower to 74 (2007 estimate) 4.)Not every activity we do as students is going to be education. We've found ways to waste our time for thousands of years. For example, we've known how to produce alcohol for thousands of years. The negative effects of going to a "bad" website are highly over rated. "Synthetic food" is still food. We eat a lot of processed food that is less healthy, but in most cases our food came from the same farm type establishment as always. We are more unhealthy on account of the great abundance of food available. Alcohol is produced in the present times, how can you make a liquid of different solution that form like a sanitizer? Obviously, thru technology. It is not "over rated" because it is usually the tendency of teens to go thru, they can gather information from their friends or thru curiousity. "processed food" means that it came from a machinery, so it is technology that brought the synthesized food which are hazardous to our health. A very popular example is softdrinks. Studies show that a glass of it can clean a bath room with its acidity. And with that I end my speech.
THBT: modern technology does more harm than good

Sorry for the flowery words. I wasn't aware that English was not your native language. Sadly, you do better with English than most Americans do. To clarify 2.) Their demise happened in spite of the influence of technology. To respond to your points 1.) Lazy students used to not go to the library. Fewer sources were requested for papers. Students using calculators are using them to do math their parents were never taught. Technology makes it possible to do more. 2.) All light is a form of radiation. Working outside in the sun will also harm your vision. Libraries rely on technology too. The modern printing press makes books affordable. The lighting system is usually some kind of modern electrical system. 3.) What are your sources for this magical 120 number? 120 years has never been the typical life span, in spite of what the bible might say. 4.) Not every activity we do as students is going to be education. We've found ways to waste our time for thousands of years. For example, we've known how to produce alcohol for thousands of years. The negative effects of going to a "bad" website are highly over rated. "Synthetic food" is still food. We eat a lot of processed food that is less healthy, but in most cases our food came from the same farm type establishment as always. We are more unhealthy on account of the great abundance of food available. 5.) Your argument is similar to "Spears should have never been made because spears kill people." Technology will not be the cause of the downfall of this modern era of humanity. The failure for us to use our technology, or to regulate our own behavior will be.
THBT: modern technology does more harm than good

As a classical historian, there was really no way I could turn down this debate. Your definition of technology is acceptable, and ironically it is only fit to define modern technology. I would, however, like to define the phrase modern technologies as being technologies that began to develop in the late age of discovery, through the age of reason and into the industrial era and now the post-industrial era which is frequently referred to as the info age, or computer age in spite of the lack of accuracy both of those terms bear. Or, the last 350 years. 1.) The level of technology cannot be blamed for the mishaps of humanity, or the destruction of our civilization, species, or environment. The fault does not lie within the tool, but within the user. Humanity is solely to blame for the problems that their irresponsible use of technology has caused. 2.) In all of recorded history humanity has always been dependent on technology. From the simplest plow, to the most complicated combine, or agriculture has dependent on tools and the proper use of them. Cities, nations, peoples, and civilizations have in the past risen and fallen in the past without having the advantages of modern technology to accelerate their demises, or to aid them in sustaining themselves. 3.) We have the scientific understanding of the damage that we are doing to ourselves, there is a large portion of the population that accepts the damage that we're doing to ourselves, and yet we do nothing. Technology cannot be the cause of our demise when we are aware of its destructive forces, and have the ability to curb the destruction and choose not to act. 4.) Not only can we not blame technology for our downfall, we owe every achievement of the last two centuries, good or bad, to the advancement of technology. I will, however, concede that individuals living thousands of years ago were likely happier with their stations in life and that technology has stripped some of the simplest pleasures from our lives. They had much more realistic expectations.
THBT: modern technology does more harm than good

First and foremost I would like to define some terms that I would be including in this debate proper What is modern technology? Technology is a systematic knowledge and action, usually of industrial processes but applicable to any recurrent activity. Technology is closely related to science and to engineering. Science deals with humans' understanding of the real world about them—the inherent properties of space, matter, energy, and their interactions. Engineering is the application of objective knowledge to the creation of plans, designs, and means for achieving desired objectives. Technology deals with the tools and techniques for carrying out the plans. (I don't need to define what modern (duh?!) is because debaters should already know it). Global Warming, Pollution etc. They are some disorders or to specific, products from technology that destroy a humans immune system because of bacteriae and viruses. Points of reasoning why it does more harm than good 1.) Dependence of peoples (all around the world) in technology 2.) side effects which lead to disastrous end 3.) age bracket goes down 4.) Effects of technology to humans (kids --> adults) and 5.) More lost than gained These lines of reasoning will be explained at round 2 and if possible i can do the rebuttal. Waiting for someone to take my challenge (and I hope that you will surely love to debate with me and I hope that i will to)
Resolved: High School Start Times In Virginia (Our Purposes: 7:00 AM) Should Be Moved 1 Hour Later

I choose him to debate because he is apparently a teacher at a Newport News High School. >I will be negating the resolution: Resolved: High School Start Times In Virginia (Our Purposes: 7:00 AM) Should Be Moved 1 Hour Later >The round structure will be as follows: Neg 1: Rules/Procedures Aff 1: Constructive (limited to 6,000 characters) Neg 2: Constructive and Rebuttal (limited to 7,000 characters) Aff 2: Rebuttal (limited to 4,000 characters) Neg 3: Rebuttal (limited to 6,000 characters) Aff 3: Rebuttal (limited to 3,000 characters) Violations of the character limits (not that I expect any) should lead to deductions in the "conduct" section of voting. *Note: This is a free-form debate. No specific structure is required. Each debater should have 13,000 characters (not including Neg 1).
wavelength is not color

Thanks for accepting. The following passage is taken from Isaac Newtons Optiks 1704. The homogeneal light and rays which appear red, or rather make Objects appear so, I call rubrifick or red-making; those which make Objects appear yellow, green, blue, and violet, I call yellow-making, green-making, blue-making, violet-making, and so of the rest. And if at any time I speak of light and rays as coloured or endued with Colours, I would be understood to speak not philosophically and properly, but grossly, and accordingly to such conceptions as vulgar People in seeing all these Experiments would be apt to frame. For the rays to speak properly are not coloured. In them there is nothing else than a certain power and disposition to stir up a sensation of this or that Colour. For as Sound in a Bell or musical String, or other sounding Body, is nothing but a trembling Motion, and in the Air nothing but that Motion propagated from the Object, and in the Sensorium 'tis a Sense of that Motion under the form of sound; so Colours in the Object are nothing but a disposition to reflect this or that sort of rays more copiously than the rest; in the rays they are nothing but their dispositions to propagate this or that Motion into the Sensorium, and in the Sensorium they are sensations of those Motions under the forms of Colours. http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk... Newton clearly states that light itself is not coloured and neither is color a property of an object but that different wavelengths cause different sensations to be experienced. The following insert from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy referencing David Hume's remark and listing the many philosophers and scientists who agree. Not only does the scientific mainstream tradition conflict with the common-sense understanding of color in this way, but as well, the scientific tradition contains a very counter-intuitive conception of color. There is, to illustrate, the celebrated remark by David Hume: Sounds, colors, heat and cold, according to modern philosophy are not qualities in objects, but perceptions in the mind. (Hume 1738/1911, Bk III, part I, Sect. 1, p. 177; Bk I, IV, IV, p. 216) Physicists who have subscribed to this doctrine include the luminaries: Galileo, Boyle, Descartes, Newton, Young, Maxwell and Helmholtz. Maxwell, for example, wrote: It seems almost a truism to say that color is a sensation; and yet Young, by honestly recognizing this elementary truth, established the first consistent theory of color. (Maxwell 1890/1970, p. 75) http://plato.stanford.edu... I rest here and await my opponents counter arguments.
Law Vs Chaos in the context of SMT 4's Apocalyptic Tokyo (Pro is law Con is Chaos)

>Merkabah, the angel proposes the way of Law, to ultimately make the ways of mikado the ways of the world. They would eliminate those in Tokyo, expand gods control and create a safe world where people had to follow strict codes resulting in a loss of freedom and in most cases pleasure. However, they would be safe. They would be protected. They would know love and comfort. What strict code would they have to follow? In the law ending Merkabah and the angels destroy the social caste and intended to salvage whatever technology they could from Tokyo before they destroyed it. Most of what people would identify as Mikado before the law ending wasn't apart of the angels' plan. The game recognizes the fact that it will take time for Mikado to revert back to the way the angels' intended Mikado to be, but it makes it clear that Mikado will not be under the same way of living as the old Mikado. >So lucifer instead proposed to increase the amount of demons exponentially, forcing humanity to evolve and ultimately find a new king through the chaos, Flynn. What do demons have to do with evolution? Putting pressure on humanity through violence and suffering doesn't inspire change in the long-term. As shown by the alternate chaotic Tokyo, kings can be overthrown and their policies undermined regardless of whether that would be for the benefit of the land they rule over or not. Even if Flynn were to become a well-intentioned king he is still limited by the fact that he is a human with a short life span. Whatever change he brings about either has the possibility of being reverted or wouldn't be ingrained enough in their culture to last longer than his own lifespan. The law ending offers a long-term solution to the demon problem and social degeneracy at the cost of thousands of lives. Approaching this situation with a utilitarian mindset, a kingdom that would likely remain peaceful for many thousands of years after the death of Tokyo, the lives of the already tortured and battered Tokyo people is worth less. The only reason that the angels' plan never came into fruition and the problem of Mikado's caste system never solved is because of Mastema and the protagonist's influence. It is also implied that the souls of Tokyo could be reincarnated in Mikado if God willed it. Which he likely would, in the same fashion that the Goddess of Tokyo revives people.