BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
ADHD is not real

That is true, many different factors influence personality. Everyone's personality is a little bit different, there is never one that is quite the same. Then why are certain people all over the world exhibiting a specific set of symptoms or "behaviors". And what about other disorders? Are they also just behaviors? What about Autism and Schizophrenia and bipolar disorder? Are those also just behaviors all caused by environment? Personality is influenced by environment, but it is all based off of genes. Some babies are more calm than others, some play better with other babies. These are just the genes that they were born with We are born with some personality traits that cannot be changed. Over time people adapt their personalities to fit their environment. Different schools teach different values, come children are taught to be sharing and giving, while others are taught to fight for everything. But over time these behaviors change as the person's environment changes. ADHD is always there, it may taper off a little as people get older but it stays with them their entire lives it does not change based on the environment. Even in schools for children with ADHD the children do not become calmer or more able to focus. In my experience they are still medicated and they still have the hyperactivity, the schools just try to unleash all of that pent up energy. They cannot change the person no matter what they do. This school was K-8 and even after nine years children still had severe ADHD. You say "perhaps over many years this would decrease", but after nine years they still have ADHD. If their "personality" cannot be changed after nine years than I think that that is a clear indicator that this is something that cannot be influenced by environment. You imply that by believing that people are born with certain unchangeable personality traits we are promoting discrimination and eugenics. By not letting people believe this we are promoting eugenics. For hundreds of years unrecognized minorities have been bullied and discriminated against because they were not publicly recognized for being different. They were outcasts and alone, they were the same group but they were not united. By not admitting that children with ADHD have a known disorder we are letting them go back to being the badly behaved kid in the classroom. By diagnosing them and telling them that they are not alone we are preventing discrimination. It is the attitude of denial that creates discrimination, not recognition of the difference.
ADHD is not real

One cannot acquire hyperactivity or the inability to focus. A particularly distracting environment might make a child less attentive, but then all children would be less attentive. ADHD is an anomaly, it is not caused by environment, it is an unnatural amount of energy and the inability to focus. Someone's environment cannot make them hyperactive to that level. you say that if they were in a different environment then they would not be like this. I have personal experience with a school for Dyslexic and ADHD children and they still act exactly the same as they do in a regular school environment. They have the same symptoms. It is not the environment that creates hyperactivity and attention deficit, it is the person.
ADHD is not real

Okay so I will go through your argument piece by piece. You say: ' It is a specific set of traits that are grouped together, it negatively affects that way that people live their day to day life' . I have already stated this pretty much, I don't understand how this suggests that it is not 'real'. For many labels for groups of traits could be devised, and these may negatively effect someone's life. It does not make them real... Also I would add that the NHS definition for ADHD, definition being the symptoms (as these are the only thing that is there), is very vague, not at all specific. 'High energy levels' 'Lack of attention' etc. These are present in all people and especially children! You say: 'Some people are unable to focus or do anything in a socially acceptable manner without medication' 'socially acceptable manner'? You mean, sit a desk and do low-grade clerical work? I'm not surprised some children find this torture, it is not natural. Not to mention all the other things in this society that influence children to be fun loving, and the stigmatization of hard work, and even the modern diet has been shown to increase all the same symptoms of ADHD. What do you say to primitive culture (or 'normal' culture as I like to call it) not having ADHD? In your view, is it a genetic mutation that is spreading quicker than thought genes could multiply? Or is it a reflection of a society not made to fit our nature? What medication would you give? http://www.youtube.com... and http://www.youtube.com... An excellent talk whereby he says that the teachers of a particular school said 'the drugs made him less attentive, less interested, less animated and more reserved, but at least he was quiet!' does that sound like a good attitude to ADHD to you? You say: 'I do not believe that drugs are the right way to solve this problem- perhaps alternative medication or natural solutions' So if drugs aren't the right way, it can only be a change in the environment and the learned cognition of the individual. Therefore it must have also of been this that caused it, surely? So if you believe this to be true we have no argument. Though you say alternative medicine or natural solutions, so I don't know if you are talking of medicine. So please answer the issues I brought up in my opening statement: Basically that it is a reflection of an unnatural life. We all live it, but I am saying ADHD is not something you are born with nor can you acquire it without relevant influence.
ADHD is not real

ADHD is a real syndrome it is not something that society has created. It is a specific set of traits that are grouped together, it negatively affects that way that people live their day to day life. Some people are unable to focus or do anything in a socially acceptable manner without medication. I do not believe that drugs are the right way to solve this problem- perhaps alternative medication or natural solutions. However, these "characteristics" can be cured or helped so that those suffering from ADHD can lead a heathy productive lifestyle.
ADHD is not real

ADHD does not occur by itself. It is not an actual thing so to speak. There are such a thing as people, with the personality traits, that fit the description of the symptoms of ADHD-but ADHD itself does not exist like for example cancer or down syndrome does. Its symptoms are merely a description of behaviours that are natural, and that a lot of people exhibit in this society. They then find a drug that alters the physiology of the hormones that are typically associated with the type of behaviour exhibited. This does not mean that it exists! By exist in itself I mean it cannot spring on you by itself and effect you, nor can you be born with it. It is merely a reaction to the society and the specific experiences of the person effected. So the term should be forgotten, and the causes of this behaviour should be dealt with. Also it makes sense that drug companies would support this form of lifelong medication, for money. Also its good for government because it takes the focus away from the underlying societal problems and doesn't undermine the system. For it cant be the system, it must be the individual. So there are major political and financial advantages of ADHD and these are the people pushing it. Also its easier for everyone to think that the problems are not their fault, but just unlucky genes or whatever logic they use.
The Hunger Games is better than Twilight

I believe that The Hunger Games movie, and books, is better than the Twilight books and movies. I won't get to into detail just yet, but my main details is better love story, better plot, and better writing and acting. Twilight is kinda dull, and The Hunger Games is brutal and exciting. A lot of twists are in THG, but in Twilight....not so much. And the love story in Twilight is weak AF. The Hunger Games love triangle is cool. A baker, who's super sweet and nice and handsome, or a hunter, who's tough, but what Katniss needs to survive. Twilight is just boring. A vampire, or a werewolf. And, TBH, Jacob gives me the creeps. Wanting to date a newborn baby, is kinda...well, how do I put this nicely...pedophileish.
There should be curfew laws for juveniles

1. Japan probably the only country (that I know of) that impose curfew law on all children in some form or another so that must have an effect on crime rate. I think it's more important to look at the "before and after." Juvenile crimes dramatically decreases after enforcing youth curfews.Correlation does not imply causation. For example, after a curfew was passed in Monrovia, California, residential burglaries declined 32%. However, residential burglaries declined in Monrovia by 40% before the adoption of the curfew. When the curfew passed, neighboring cities without curfews also experienced the same rate of crime reduction.http://wcr.sonoma.edu...2. The debate topic didn't say under which situation. Under "extreme" situations, they are clearly needed and needed the most so I used that example because con was trying to generalize saying all studies don't support curfew laws. Your example of the 2005 French riot was an extreme, and temporary situation. Under these circumstances, a curfew might work, but most juvenile curfews don't work, as I cited studies in round 2 proving they don't work. Also, most juvenile crime happens during the dayhttp://www.swfljac.org...(See myth #12).3. Staying on computers is better than being in an arcade with friends.They can simply go to an arcade with older friends. Many curfews have exceptions where a minor can be out with an adult.4. What con cited did not show that adults would be less likely to commit crime if kids are around. In fact, if children were to find out that an adult was committing a crime, the children would be more likely to get hurt than an adult when the adult tries to escape.This can happen during the day as well.5. Con keeps on mentioning what teenager does is no one's business, but that is a bad mentality. If "what they do is none of your business unless what they are doing affects you or they are committing a crime," then there wouldn't be a legal drinking age, legal driving age for the underaged.Alcohol can be problematic for teens. We have a driving age because of their inexperience. But being outside at night without an adult does not harm anyone.6. I said it does take up police effort, but it is not a waste. It is productive.Arresting someone who is not breaking the law is counter productive and can traumatize the individual being arrested. Also, curfews create a negative relationship between youth and police, meaning less cooporation from younger members of the community when crime gets high and police need people to report crime. Youth will be less likely to report crime.There are more effective strategies of reducing juvenile crime that have been proven to work, such as providing services and counseling to at risk youth and their families.
There should be curfew laws for juveniles

1. All the studies on curfews show they do not reduce or prevent crime, victimization, protect kids or make the kids and the community safer.http://www.bloomberg.com...2. People have no business telling kids when they are not allowed to be out in public, unless they are the parent of that kid. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean you have the right to intervene.3. It is often argued that everything can be done during the day. This is true, but is not a sufficient reason to restrict the activity. That is just like banning grocery shopping after 6:00 PM just because it can be done during other times of the day.4. It is often argued that teens have no business outside at midnight. What they do is none of your business unless what they are doing affects you or they are committing a crime.5. We have so many criminals not caught that police should divert their attention to criminals and violent crimes, not curfews.6. Arresting someone who is not breaking the law or disturbing anyone wastes police resources is counterproductive.
Alternative Reality

I'm confused as to whether you are saying all Neanderthals are white people or that Asians (brown and yellow) and blacks are more human than whites... Anyway, it's natural that the species of less IQ would fair better in the manual labour workforce than the white-collar jobs where brains is needed over brawn, and the brain of most Neanderthals was adapted for hunting and building. Also the issue is that if we allowed them to join our standard of jobs, obviously there would be some who were smart enough to be upgraded in school, they would merely evolve back into homosapiens... so really it would just be humans in the end.The premise of my school system is that Neanderthals have brains that probably would require far higher stimulating teaching methods, with practical activities, physical objects and diagrams being far more useful than speech and text to communicate ideas to them, since this is where they dominate homosapiens naturally. This is also, funnily enough, how we try to teach retarded human beings. This is why I suggested the swapping around. Also, a human who was too undeveloped mentally to process school wouldn't even be able to process embarrassment or social issues to a high enough level to feel ashamed. If anything the Neanderthal in the human school, Neanderthals are what homosapiens probably consider 'ugly' would probably receive more discrimination.Perhaps they would lose hair and wear clothes, but then they'd be evolving into homosapiens so really they wouldn't be Neanderthals anymore, this negates your rebuttal.The reason for the cross-breeding ban is that clearly when there is an evolutionary gap in your DNA you don't want a degenerative middle species which clearly died out for a reason...I agree that colder climate countries would suit the fat-rich Neanderthals. However, I believe they could eventually evolve to become skinnier hunched beings, thus being adapted for hotter climates.I couldn't think of much more... I'm starting to realise how difficult it is to debate this topic:There is essentially a paradox. If they integrate, the Neanderthals will evolve into homosapiens and thus there will be none left to integrate (unless we don't allow them to cross breed and let them stay in less intellectually-able schools).If they are divided and at war, the humans would thwart them with machinery in warfare. This leaves no Neanderthals left to be divided.If they are divided and at peace, they are essentially co-existing in the same way countries such as Germany and France don't fight each other.
Alternative Reality

Co-existing, I almost 100% sure.I would like this to be a purely philosophical debate, not a scientific one, so let's please not constantly relate to sources as such. We needn't vigorously analyse the behavioural patterns of either form of primates nor provide evidence for every single claim, we only need to make basic assumptions based on the probable outcomes of the scenario.. That would just make this debate ridiculously boring when it could become an extremely entertaining and intellectually stimulating philosophy debate based on probability (probability being based on past observations of things such as formations of societies etc et era).How I Claim Them To Have Evolved To Present Day Sexism is perfectly socially accepted amongst Neanderthals and they happily allow us to use their females for nursing and cooking purposes and the men for more physical and systematic purposes They are far less rebellious than humans but are equally (although not quite) capable of comprehending linguistic expressions in any language they are brought up in, however they only are able to speak one language, often growing up to be less able to speak one if taught two from a young age. They stay hunched over, they refuse to wear clothes other than to cover private parts and in warm climates and to shave (although they allow us to teach them how to trim for practical purposes, both in pubic areas and other areas, they are far hairier than homosapiens but females ended up growing less hairy due to male Neanderthals seeing female homosapiens and realising that hairlessness is more attractive) My proposed Legal System The Neanderthals should never ever mate with humans. Due to children most likely having some funny thing like Downs syndrome due to their DNA being slightly different form to ours. Also there's no point in devolving us, if that makes sense. Neanderthals have their own designated societies Each political party of any democracy must have some MPs who are Neanderthals and who make it fair for Neanderthals in that society Neanderthals have a slightly easier syllabus system than humans If a Neanderthal is seen extremely smart they can attend human school and retarded humans can go to Neanderthal etc. Ok, I don't have much more....
Alternative Reality

Ok here is how it works, there will not necessarily be a 'pro' or 'con', it will just be two different sides of the argument. At the end of round 1 Pro (Me) will pose a question about an alternate reality to Con (whoever accepts). In his/her first round Con will answer the question and provide evidence to substantiate it. You take any stance you like, as long as it addresses the question. 2nd Round - Pro will rebut cons standpoint by 1. outlining why Cons answer would not be plausible and 2. providing my own response that goes against Cons. Con now defends his original standpoint (and may make slight modifications) and disproves Pros. 3rd Round - Pro defends his standpoint. Con provides final rebuttals to defend his standpoint over cons. Arguments will go to whoever provides the best answer and defends it most effectively. All other points as per usual. Sources may be used as evidence. You can present your points from any angle that you can make seem relevant.Last thing: I want this to be a fun, intelligent, well thought through debate so please respect that. Also if you have any suggested changes to the format we can discuss in the comments. The Scene: The Neanderthals never died out and have continued to live alongside Homo Sapiens until the present day (September 2012). Like Homo Sapiens, Neanderthals have evolved cultrally and physically since their days living in caves, although I'll leave it up to you to decide on specifics. Species distribution is around 60% HS, 40% Neanderthal.The Question: Overall do both species co-exists in societies together, or do they live divided? Explain your answer.
The Gatling gun is a more effective battle field weapon than the Vickers machine gun

No recoil" You are right but what I was referring to is that the operator feels no recoil because of the mount. So the operator can fire steadily "Gatling gun is more accurate." Since no recoil is felt the gun is more accurate If you watch a Gatling gun firing in slow motion( http://www.spike.com... watch the gatling gun part) "no water is needed for operation" You are right however most machine guns today have replaceable barrel's. The idea being that wile one of the barrels is firing the other is cooling off( kind of similar to the Gatling gun don't you think ) And by the way in the middle of a waist land in Germany (when you said world war 2 in Europe, I though Germany) their is no water or supply roots And if you pee in the cooling shroud you damage the gun "endless firing with out reloading" The Vickers has to deal with this too. what I was referring to is the gravity feeding system with the Gatling gun, with the vickers you must change belts every 250 rounds "no jam trouble" I'm so sorry that I cant make things clear. lets talk hypothetical. Say that any gun action will jam after 1000 rounds. A Vickers witch only has 1 action jams after 1000 rounds. A Gatling gun has 10 actions, Because each action is being used 10 times less it will jam after 10000 rounds (plus a vickers has a ammo belt that can also jam). And if one of the actions on the gatling gun fails you can disengage that barrel and fire with the others "Up to 900 rounds per minute" We already dealt with recoil so this still stands "10 barrels" Hey ,its better than 7 "The cocking handle on the Vickers can take of a finger." What you said is true but the cocking handle is about 1/2 an inch away from your finger, and if on a Gatling gun one of the fingers that you are cranking with gets stuck you can no longer fire and you keep the finger "the Gatling design is not obsolete" I said destine didn't I, the mini gun uses the design. (the vickers design is not original) "back in WWI, a case where the British fired over 1 million rounds and wore through over 100 barrels over 12 hours of continuous use and not a single break down" The Gatling gun brakes down 10 time less than a single action weapon. As I have proved. One action brakes down so what. "burst effect, the vickers is capable of utilizing bursts of shots. The gatling gun is not capable of doing this." Just rotate the handle 10 percent for single shot, 50 percent for five round burst and 150 percent for a 15 round burst I admit you got me on size But only on size is the vickers more effective efï¿½fecï¿½tive adequate to accomplish a purpose; producing the intended or expected result Thank you