BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
technology is on the rise

I will first acknowledge my opponent's arguments and then move on to present my own. I. Definitions - My opponent offers a new definition for "rise. " I reject this for one reason. By choosing not to define it in his constructive speech, he passed on the responsibility to me. He had every opportunity in the world to define it before I had accepted the speech. We are now in the middle of our debate and he suddenly proposes that we change the definition. I believe it it too late for my opponent to make that move. II. My opponent has kindly clarified what he meant by "It is also done the following tasks by increasing by the day: taking tasks off people's hands, entertaining people, protecting people, and saving people. " He states that what he was trying to say was "that technology, by increasing, has helped humanity. " I thank my opponent very much for clearing this up for me. Now I will kindly say, so what? The resolution clearly states "technology is on the rise. " Rise has already been defined as to "return from death. " Therefore your argument has no relevancy to the topic, nor does it support your case, what so ever and should be ignored. Moving on, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding but I did not state that you do not have any contentions. I simply said that none of your arguments were relevant to the topic. I will admit though, your contentions were not very clear and I thank you again for enlightening me. Now I am glad to know that you can copy and paste your entire argument. Thank you so much for providing the link to the site you plagiarized as well. I'm sorry if my thankfulness is annoying you, I feel like thanksgiving has never ended. My opponent finished up by stating that "my opponent's definition of rise is insuffic[i]ent and is not what I meant," and then providing his/her own definition. He/she did not say why my definition was insufficient. Also, it is quite late into the debate to add new definitions. Therefore, I believe my definition still stands. III. My opponent's only contention, still, is not relevant. He, as Pro/Aff, has the burden of proof in this debate. He has the task of proving that technology has returned from death. He simply copy & pasted the words of Mr. "I am America" from yahoo answers. This poor soul was just listing many important inventions from the 1960s and on. He is now a victim of plagiarism. I ask you all to take a moment of silence for him. .. .. [several moments later] Moving on, my opponent did not refute either of my contentions. He did not say how technology can return from death or when it has ever died, and therefore, he concedes on both accounts. IV. Conclusion - The Pro has chosen not to refute either of my contentions and instead conceding both. His only contention is not related in any way, shape, or form to the topic. I believe that this is enough of a reason for you to vote Con. Thank you for your time.
technology is on the rise

My opponent is saying I'm off topic and i apologize if i had strayed. My opponent has said that i was not specific and i will now clarify this. What i ment by "on the rise" is, technology has and still is increasing. He/she also said that i needed to clarify "It is also done the following tasks by increasing by the day: taking tasks off people's hands, entertaining people, protecting people, and saving people." What i meant was that technology, by increasing, has helped humanity. If there was any confusion i apologize. He/she also argued that i did not state any contentions and i will also clarify this as well. Contention I Technology is increasing by http://in.answers.yahoo.com... There are so many, but here are a few: 1964-- BASIC, the computer language from which all computer languages emerged was invented by John George Kemeny and Tom Kurtz, led to development of the calculator (1967), the first video game (1972), word processing (1972), the Cray super computer (1979), MS DOS (1981), PC (1981), Apples (1983), Macintosh (1984), Windows (1985), and Java (1995) 1969-- Bar Scanner, because it has changed our ability to inventory, track, ship, and even make purchases 1969-- ARPANET, an early version of the internet for the US Military, allowed for the creation of ethernet (1973), email, the public internet (1981) and WWW (1990) that permeate society today 1973-- Gene Splicing and all the amazing issues of Genetic manipulation, including Genetically Modified foods that make up 60% of US foods, Genetically modified animals, cloning, designer babies, etc. 1978-- The Artificial Heart, Jarvik 7 by Dr. Robert K Jarvik, was a milestone and set a mark in artificial organs 1979-- Cell phones and the walkman for obvious reasons. 1986-- Scanning Tunneling Microscope, invented by Gerd Binning and Heinrich Rohrer, led to the creation of nano technology 1988-- Doppler Radar, invented by Christian Andreas Doppler, has revolutionzed our ability to predict and forecast weather patterns 1989-- HIDEF TV, possible a early trigger of the demise of sports bars, pubs, and taverns 2003-- Translucent Concrete, developed by Aron Losonczi which will likely change architecture in the future These advances in technology have helped humanity, period. Also, my opponent's definition of rise is insufficent and is not what i meant. I will clarify. Rise-(v.) 7. to spring up or grow, as plants: Weeds rose overnight. http://dictionary.reference.com...
technology is on the rise

I would like to wish him good luck. I will first state my case and then refute me opponent's. I. Definitions - I accept both of my opponent's definitions, however, I have noticed that he had failed to define "rise. " Therefore, I shall offer my own definition. Rise: to return from death (. http://m-w.com...) Knowledge: the sum of what is known (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) II. A. The topic is stated as "technology is on the rise. " Technology, based on my opponent's definition, is a "branch of knowledge. " Knowledge is the sum of what is known. It therefore can not return from death. Since technology can not return from death then it can not possibly be "on the rise. " B. In order to return from death, you must first die. Technology has never died and therefore can not return from death. III. My opponent has failed to make a single argument of any relevancy to the topic. He has stated that "technology is everywhere. " Whether it is here or there has nothing to do with returning from death. Even if it had, the very statement is wrong. Technology does not exist inside of a volcano. My opponent has stated that "It is also done the following tasks by increasing by the day: taking tasks off people's hands, entertaining people, protecting people, and saving people. " The very statement does not make any sense. I ask my opponent to clarify what he means by this in the following round so I can properly refute it. He follows up by saying "However, I did not include all the magnificent thing that technology has done for the world. " Whatever technology may have done is irrelevant to the topic. The topic is "technology is on the rise. " By taking the pro side of the argument my opponent has the burden on proving that technology is returning from death. Whatever it may or may not have done for the world does not prove that is has returned from death. I have already stated that knowledge can not die, and therefore can not return from death. My opponent then states that you should vote for him "because I resolve that technology has substantially increased since 1960. " It is not within his power to change the topic of the debate once it has started. The topic, at the moment of creation, was "technology is on the rise. " He cannot change this and must debate the original topic. IV. In conclusion, knowledge can not die. Also, you must first die to return from death. Technology has done neither the first nor the latter. Therefore, technology cannot be "on the rise. " Also my opponent has failed to present a proper case and does not have a single contention in support of his case.
technology is on the rise

As you may all know technology is everywhere. It is also done the following tasks by increasing by the day: taking tasks off people's hands, entertaining people, protecting people, and saving people. However, I did not include all the magnificent thing that technology has done for the world. This is why you should vote for the pro because I resolve that technology has substantially increased since 1960. Definitions technology-–noun 1. the branch of knowledge that deals with the creation and use of technical means and their interrelation with life, society, and the environment, drawing upon such subjects as industrial arts, engineering, applied science, and pure science. http://dictionary.reference.com... substantially-–adjective 1. of ample or considerable amount, quantity, size, etc.: a substantial sum of money. Related forms: substantialty, substantialness, noun substantially, adverb http://dictionary.reference.com...
Why elder scrolls series is better than the Witcher series

The Witcher has better graphics, gameplay mechanics and a more stuctured storyline, with the decisions you make having a greater impact on the game. There is also less bugs then Skyrim as the Witcher is a more posslished, completed game. Individual charater development allows a close bond to form between character and player allowing overall a more immersive gameplay experience. For example the 300+ sidequests in Witcher 3 offers hours of extra gamepley and a more detalied story which provides insight into the characters life. The combat sytem is also less repetative and has a lot more playstyles then the Elder Scrolls series.
Music streaming services are bad for the music industry

Depends on what you consider to be mainstream. Most people do not have a strong interest in music so it doesn't pay off to be innovative, You risk alienating some of the huge target audience for which almost by definition is the sole reason mainstream music is made. My opponent brings up the fact that popular music is now designed for instant gratification and sounds too predictable, I agree but I think it has always been this way. Take surf music for example, Songs were always very short so that you wouldn't lose attention so easily and shared the same cliches. The I-V-vi-IV chord progression has been done to death for decades, It's nothing new. I think the fact that people tend to go for the instant gratification option is not the fault of streaming but a symptom of another problem, Reminds me of those who blame fast food restaurants for making them fat. Mainstream music is certainly not destroying the art, It just exists in a slightly separate world, For example there are plenty of popular musicians making artistically valuable music today like Ariel Pink, Flying Lotus and Death Grips; they all make a nice living from their music, And financial incentive or not there has always been fringe artists pushing the boundaries and creating amazing work, And with streaming they are thriving more than ever before. Streaming simply highlights rather than causes the fact that most people are happy with the way mainstream music is today.
Music streaming services are bad for the music industry

The interesting question isn't whether or not music with artistic value exists, Or even how accessible that music is. The interesting question is whether or not mainstream artists have incentive to create artistically valuable music. Artists don't have a financial incentive to innovate anymore, And this is due to the industry's shift to instant gratification. In recent history, A very high percentage of the charting hits in the music industry have been written with the I, IV, V, VI chord pattern, Or with simple variations of that pattern. On the production side, The sounds and styles have become predictable and similar in many radio hits. Melodies and lyrics often feel like regurgitated versions of the previous hit. The fact is, If artists don't use those four chords, Along with predictable melodies and production sounds, The chances of their songs getting picked for radio are slim. It's virtually undeniable that popular music has become uncreative and predictable. Compare today's pop music with the pop music created in the pre-streaming service industry. The chord patterns, Melodies, Innovation, Album creation, And lyrics were significantly more sophisticated. This is because consumers were more willing to forgo immediate gratification in favor of the long- term, But more valuable, Gratification these artists offered. Even the one-hit wonders and cheap pop hits were more musically sophisticated than the majority of modern pop music. In his response, My opponent seems to reinforce some of my points. He admits that streaming services provide the option for instant gratification, But contends that instant gratification is not forced. The option remains for consumers to avoid instant gratification. I agree. Even if some consumers choose to avoid streaming services, Almost all music consumers have not. The fact that many submit to the instant gratification mindset is what drives the incentive for artists to provide instant gratification. He admits that you do not need to listen to an entire album before deciding if you like it. This is absolutely true, And it cheapens the music. It allows consumers to make a decision before taking in the entire work. This reinforces my argument. He seems to celebrate the business aspects of streaming services, But doesn't seem to recognize that this instant gratification business mindset is what is destroying the art. It is clear that today's music is made by businessmen, Rather than by artists.
Music streaming services are bad for the music industry

Listening to music using streaming services is a different experience to buying albums as my opponent described, And I think it is better in many ways. One advantage is that you have a huge selection to choose from, Money is no longer an obstacle. You are no longer limited to what you can afford, And your collection which you will inevitably enjoy less and less as time goes buy. You don't need to question whether or not you should buy an album, You can access music you never would have considered buying, And no harm is done if you don't like what you hear. You can still choose whether to invest time into letting something grow on you though, Streaming services don't force an instant gratification attitude on you, The option is simply there. My opponent argues that streaming services have decreased the quality of music produced today, I disagree; the improved accessibility of music means that artists can take from a wider variety of influences, And also promotes competition due to the need to stand out in an ocean of content; how easy is it now to get away with releasing low quality music when so many other people can easily do the same? You can only innovate and create unique music if you know what already has and hasn't been done, And it's easier than ever to research this thanks to streaming and peer to peer networks. As for the music industry, Live shows aren't going anywhere soon, And streaming gives a free worldwide platform to promote yourself. Miles Davis even said that his albums were advertisements for his live performances; they are where the money is really earnt and where, In my opinion, Music is best experienced. There is a wonderful universe of music for anyone waiting to be discovered, Whether you like superficial music with no artistic value or deep captivating jazz odysseys; streaming, P2p, And an internet connection makes all of this possible.
Music streaming services are bad for the music industry

The music industry has seen a change that has damaged the artistic value of music. Due to streaming services like iTunes and Spotify, There's been a change in what's celebrated. Before streaming services, Artistic innovation and long-term gratification was celebrated. You'd drive to the music store, Buy an album, And listen to the whole thing. You'd go on a journey with the music, And you were more willing to work to understand the music. Now, The opposite is true. It's all about instant gratification. You can immediately listen to any song from any album. If the song doesn't have an immediate hook, Or some other superficial gimmick to keep you listening, You move on to the next song. There's no willingness to work for the music. Since consumers are only paying for superficial music with less artistic value, Artists are only willing to release superficial music with no artistic value. The same chords and melodies are used over and over again. Streaming services have changed the landscape to instant gratification, And this has actually damaged the artistic value of the music.
Creationism should be taught in public schools in the US

so you think no science should be taught? should we ban math too just because a couple people might say that 2+2=5? should we not teach history because some people dispute what is taught?saying science shouldnt be taught is like saying that news should be banned because it could be propaganda. a lot of news is propaganda, but the more you news you hear, the more information you have to form your own educated opinion on what is true and what isnt, and which sources are trusted and which arent.people generally do not want to be atheists anyway, because they think it's depressing, so if they are taught things like evolution, they will not accept it until they study it with a great deal of scrutiny, and even then they sometimes dont accept it. students are also generally encouraged to study the material and the details, not to just accept an atheistic position. religious people are the ones who are against challenging teachings. educators encourage it.also, becoming an atheist doesnt make people into "immoral thugs". atheists have a disproportionately low population in prisons. atheists are also generally more intelligent, and have lower divorce rates. http://www.holysmoke.org...http://en.wikipedia.org....http://www.cnn.com...http://divorce.lovetoknow.com...
Creationism should be taught in public schools in the US

Induced made a point about how religious people (like myself) can call something fact when in fact it is not. Well, maybe modern science can't spot a giant man in a cloud, but faith can. Your "facts" can easily change the religious views against children's minds. They are still developing, and will take something their science teacher says to be absolutely true. Maybe we shouldn't teach people evolution at all. In my opinion, feeding "facts" into kids saying "this is that and that is this" is not right and is against the constitution.
Creationism should be taught in public schools in the US

the criteria for whether something should be taught in science class is whether or not it abides by the scientific method (the steps are 1. Formulation of a question, 2. Hypothesis, 3. Prediction, 4. Testing, 5. Analysis). And for it to be taught it must also be peer reviewed and a general consensus must be reached.conversely, religious teachings start with teachings that are assumed to be true, and then anything that can be used to seemingly support the religion will be used as justification. this is not a scientific process. i encourage religion to be taught in mythology classes, but unless a creationist idea qualifies as science, it should not be represented as such. also, how would you teach creationism in a science class? unless you are going to indoctrinate them with a specific religion, all you can really say is "god created everything". that takes 2 seconds. what would a test look like? the answer to every question would be "god did it".there is no global conspiracy to teach atheistic lies. religion is based on faith and dying superstitions, not a scientific unbiased process. it's not as though someone just makes up scientific facts and everyone accepts them. scientific teachings are based on a great deal of evidence. think of evolution - there is a vast amount of detailed research in many specific areas, all of which support our understanding of evolution.http://en.wikipedia.org...if scientists were making up facts to contradict god, then wouldnt they have made up some explanation a long time ago for how the big bang began? they havent reached a consensus on how the big bang was caused because they dont know yet. they arent just going to make stuff up and call it fact. that is what religious people do. how do you scientifically prove that there is a being who is all loving? or all knowing? or all powerful? or omnipresent? or that he created everything magically? that line of thought belongs in a PHILOSOPHY class, not science class.
Creationism should be taught in public schools in the US

I first want to say hello to my fellow debaters and welcome you to my debate. This topic has left me thinking me for some time now and has kept me awake for hours. Should our children be taught creationism? It goes against what the bible says, how GOD created us in his very own image. In their science class they even learn about how the board of education interprets the creation of the world. Just because some atheist scientist came up of a million reasons why GOD does not exist, and how he didn't create the world as we know it, does that mean it's really fact? Of course it doesn't, and we should be not teaching our kids something unproven is fact because a scientist said is was. It makes me sick to my stomach that they are PROMOTING atheism. It turns kids into immoral thugs. It's proved that kids with religion in their life do better in school and at home. So I say once more: Do you think we should be shoving atheistic "facts" into children's minds?
Is it important that your beliefs be true

No you are wrong my background in science i know what am talking about read about the functions of each brain loop the frontal loop is responsible for analytic thinking, decision making and lies check it, then what about the big bang , the atom, the mountain there is also the embryological stages of the embryo ancient people had their own way to treat their diseases and there is alot of diseases started to appear recently When you are inside your basement or in a place where the sun does not enter it does the sun still able to see you? If the sun created us what did she say about our purpose in this life, or what guide did she gave us? And why sun cause us harm by sending ultraviolet light that can cause skin cancer?
Is it important that your beliefs be true

Abeer are you hearing voices because that is called schizophrenia and I urge you to seek help. Also lie detectors don't detect anything useful they have even been known to read "brain waves" in carrots and jello. And also while he was expounding on important truths not one word about antibiotics. Why should a merciful God with hold basic medical knowledge that could save lives. And in comparison the sun makes the plants grow and asks nothing in return. I'm still leaning towards this sun is GOD idea
Is it important that your beliefs be true

During the night and when the sun is not shining on some parts of the earth and why the sun doesnt talk to us we are able to talk how this is GOD who we see and silent?!!, GOD has to be there all time never goes away his entire creatures has to be under his knowledge Quran is full of scientific facts that was just proven in 20th century and it was revealed 1400 years ago to a man who is in the middle of the desert who cant read or write forexample: -bigbang (21:30) And have not the ones who disbelieved seen that the heavens and the earth were an integrated (mass), then We unseamed them, and of water We have made every living thing? Would they then not believe?) - Atoms discovered in 1897 and GOD say in quran 1400 years ago : chapter 99 ( Then shall anyone who has done an atom's weight of good, see it!) - The frontal lobe of the brain responsible for lies thats why in the lie detector test they trace the brain activity of this specific part of the brain and GOD says: chapter 96 (A lying, sinful forelock!) - The mountains having deep roots introduced in 1865 by astrnomer Royal sir george airy and GOD says in quran chapter 16:15: (And the mountains as pegs?). And etc Who could told him all these information 1400 years ago