Harrumph, but you are certainly not the last person to type that you are incorrect and it all boils down to the dialectic.

"Dialectic" means something different from "dialect". I have no idea which you meant.

Nevertheless, "use" is a better word. Using longer words, when shorter words are available that mean the same thing, comes across as pompous or pretentious.

Sometimes, the longer word has a connotation that more clearly expresses our intention. Sometimes we want Hemmingway and other times we want Faulkner.

They're not quite the same thing. One example I see online is using "utilize" to suggest that something is used beyond its intended purpose. (I'm not sure I even completely buy that.) But, in general, "use" is shorter and sounds less jargony.

>All of those words mean to use.

"The teachers were unable to utilize the new computers" means something different from "The teachers were unable to use the new computers"

Sorry, but what is the difference? "To utilize" is literally defined as "to use".

"utilize" - the teacher wasn't able to use the computers for the intended purpose of teaching the children.

"use" - the teacher was unable to operate the computer at all (maybe they couldn't use the mouse, for example).

No part of your example indicated the intent was to use the computers to teach children. Teachers can teach adults and they can use computers to do other things. In your examples, excepting your hidden intent, they were synonyms. Do you have a better example demonstrating this?