Debate: Are Court Stenographers Necessary?
After a New York court reporter left behind an incomplete record, some are asking whether it still makes sense to use stenographers in legal proceedings.

Claim: Court stenographers are not necessary
Reason: They keep good records.
Warrant 0: good records can be kept by digital tools
Warrant 1: good records can't be kept by digital tools
Correct warrant: 0

Claim: Court stenographers are not necessary
Reason: They keep good records.
Warrant 0: computers could do their job for free
Warrant 1: computers could not effectively do their job for free
Correct warrant: 0

Claim: Court stenographers are not necessary
Reason: Somebody still needs to transcribe audio recordings.
Warrant 0: this can't accurately be done by computer and requires a living person
Warrant 1: this could be done by computer and doesn't require a liver person
Correct warrant: 1

Claim: Court stenographers are necessary
Reason: Stenographers' work can be put into an app.
Warrant 0: sometimes apps don't work well
Warrant 1: apps always work well
Correct warrant: 0

Claim: Court stenographers are not necessary
Reason: Somebody still needs to transcribe audio recordings.
Warrant 0: the transcription can be done by machine
Warrant 1: the transcription cannot be done by machine
Correct warrant: 0

Claim: Court stenographers are not necessary
Reason: Somebody still needs to transcribe audio recordings.
Warrant 0: we don't have the technology to have it transcribed without the use of a human
Warrant 1: we now have the technology to have it transcribed without the use of a human
Correct warrant: 1

Claim: Court stenographers are not necessary
Reason: They keep good records.
Warrant 0: iPhones do not
Warrant 1: so do iPhones
Correct warrant: 1