BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
science is more important than the arts

That's a shame. I really do wish you would give definitions, but I'll post an argument just in case you come back for the next round. Post 'em if you do come back though, please! Art is human expression of emotion, thoughts, ideas, and feelings. Art has been around for thousands of years. Think of how empty our lives would be without any form of art. No music. No paintings. No photography. No dancing. No singing. No films. No plays. No fiction writing of any form, since that can easily be considered an art. Life devoid of all these things is near animalistic. Sure, we stay alive because of science, but we ENJOY being alive because of art. If you stripped the world away of all art right now, this world would be an very non-human place. Music and paintings and films and fiction connect people in the human experience from all over the world. We have an innate need to create art, as well. It is as natural as scientific curiosity in the human condition. To say science is more important than the arts is to deny how significant this part of humanity truly is. Humans might need science for medicine in order to keep living, but what's the point of living in a world without anything human that you can share? Sure, maybe one day I could live to 150 with the help of science, but I would rather live to 50 WITH art in my life than live to 150 without it. It's a question of quality. 50 years of life enriched by Monet, Dali, Orwell, Faulkner, Ansel Adams, Astaire, Brando, Kubrick, Hammerstein, Bach, The Beatles and thousands more is a better life than 150 years of life with no art of any kind. This is just an opening. Thank you very much.
Sexual Reassignment Should Require A Positive Brain Scan To Proceed

Is pro being serious? The option number 2 presented not only does not provide perfect protection, but also it provides NO protection. What the fork is this?? "But it's ridiculous to say that because it's not completely reliable that a non-physical questionaire is better." Brain scanning is not better because it's practical methodology does NOT exist at ALL! I didn't think I'd need to go into the logistics of this, but pro, being so insistent, is forcing me to do so. How ridiculous are pro's claims? By saying we should put something nonexistent into practice, pro has made a debacle of himself. It is similar to suggesting that we should put into practical use a time travel machine because of its given advantages. Time travel machines would decimate global warming, destroy the transportation problems, indefinitely speed up nearly all processes in the world, it'd be f***ing stupid to deny it. All opponents of the time machines are ridiculously dumb. What ingenuity! My opponent deserves an applause. I have successfully disproved all of my opponent's statements. I have also disproved a faulty resolution. Pro, in flailing aimlessly, has lost this debate. I've been repeating the same assault many times over while my opponent ran around on a tangent. My statements, being uncontested, stand firm. Con wins.
Sexual Reassignment Should Require A Positive Brain Scan To Proceed

Con treats the questionability of the brain scans as a black-and-white absolute and says that therefore it is useless. This is nonsense. We currently have two options:1. Sex changes are allowed when the person answers correctly on a questionaire.2. Sex changes are allowed after a brain scan is performed. My contention is that 2>1. Yes there is questionability about the reliability of 2 but it is clearly more reliable than 1. With 1 a person is obviously going to answer all the questions in such a way as to make sure they get the surgery. With 2 some people may be turned down.1 does not protect people who may be confused and not really transsexul from going ahead with one of the biggest mistakes of their lives. 2 offers some imperfect protection but it's better than 1. If another study comes along and there is something with even more evidence than we can replace 2. But it's ridiculous to say that because it's not completely reliable that a non-physical questionaire is better.
Sexual Reassignment Should Require A Positive Brain Scan To Proceed

"Yes if the brain scans are invalid it is a SCAM. Not on the part of the surgeons, on the part of the people who market and promote it, and even then not all of them just those who know it's bogus and unnecessary." Since brain scans are invalid, the resolution has been successfully proven to be untenable. "But until then we should still make sure the people getting the surgery have real gender identity disorder. We don't have to do it perfectly, and it is not possible to do it perfectly. But it is possible to do it and we should do it in the best way we know how" I agree. We SHOULD do it the best way we know how, but this is irrelevant to brain scans. "There has to be some standard other than a person taking a survey, since all that information is subjective as well as easy to fake." Again, I am in accordance with your statement. BUT AGAIN: it is irrelevant to the original contention. My opponent's entire last round attempting to justify the existence of an non-subjective method to confirming GID does not support the imposition of brain scanning. I have proven the brain scan method to be ineffective and have been met with a near nonexistent resistance. "1. Achieving a positive brain scan is unrelated to sexual reassignment 2. The field of study my opponent seeks to promote into practice is relatively undeveloped and therefore should not be forced into application. 3. Enforcing a positive brain scan prior to sexual reassignment is impractical The counter resolution stands: A positive brain scan should not be required before sexual reassignment."
Sexual Reassignment Should Require A Positive Brain Scan To Proceed

ScamYes if the brain scans are invalid it is a SCAM. Not on the part of the surgeons, on the part of the people who market and promote it, and even then not all of them just those who know it's bogus and unnecessary.Giving the benefit of the doubt is good, though if in fact it is a real condition that needs treatment. Maybe someday when the science is more conclusive we will be able to determine that it isn't and discontinue it or that it is.But until then we should still make sure the people getting the surgery have real gender identity disorder. We don't have to do it perfectly, and it is not possible to do it perfectly. But it is possible to do it and we should do it in the best way we know how, and currently that would be with a brain scan. Just because there are a few "iffy" things about it doesn't mean we shouldn't use it given the alternative is to use nothing which inevitably results in a lot more people getting this operation who don't really need it.There has to be some standard other than a person taking a survey, since all that information is subjective as well as easy to fake. A person who thinks they have GID is likely to only give answers that they know will more likely lead the doctor to approve surgery, thinking "why risk the doctor misunderstanding me and denying me the surgery?". We can't just go on words alone, we need physical evidence of transsexuality.
Sexual Reassignment Should Require A Positive Brain Scan To Proceed

"If it is a valid condition as con claims" Quote me. I did not claim anything to be a valid condition. This entire paragraph is a complete waste of time. "If the brain scans are invalid then "sex change operations" are a big SCAM." Scam (n.) - a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation There is no deception on the part of the conductors of the sex change operation. This is just silly...It's as if pro was stating that surgeons are conniving to do something. They are not a scam in that the ones who apply for it get EXACTLY what they ask for. There is no deception running under the operation. It's plain and simple: male -> female female -> male. "Giving the benefit of the doubt and yielding to the science we have on it if it is indeed real then these brain scans show how it works, and given they are observable we should require a brain scan to confirm it." I've already logically refuted the practicality of brain scans in this area of operation. Pro states that brain scans are plausible in this area without any logical or data support. If it turns out there is a different reason and that gains more credibility then we should instead require a test for that instead but for now we should either A. Use the most valid ressarch available to get a test to determine eligibility. OR B. Not allow sex changes. "If it turns out there is a different reason and that gains more credibility then we should instead require a test for that instead but for now we should either A. Use the most valid ressarch available to get a test to determine eligibility. OR B. Not allow sex changes." Research and application are two very different things. Research into the structure of the DNA performed many decades earlier was not to manifest into actual application in medical science until more recent years. Just because something is in research doesn't mean it should be applied. Since this is the case, these two things my opponent thinks we 'should' do are irrelevant to the context of this debate. My opponent continues failing to prove his resolution to be a necessity.
Sexual Reassignment Should Require A Positive Brain Scan To Proceed

Physical Test Needed to Prove This Is A Valid ConditionIf it is a valid condition as con claims and as the American Psychiatric Association agrees then it must have a physical basis, therefore we must either go with the brain scan for diagnosis or we have no just claim that there is any disorder and not just a bunch of people who mistakenly think they should've been the opposite sex.If the brain scans are invalid then "sex change operations" are a big SCAM. Giving the benefit of the doubt and yielding to the science we have on it if it is indeed real then these brain scans show how it works, and given they are observable we should require a brain scan to confirm it.If it turns out there is a different reason and that gains more credibility then we should instead require a test for that instead but for now we should either A. Use the most valid ressarch available to get a test to determine eligibility. OR B. Not allow sex changes.
Sexual Reassignment Should Require A Positive Brain Scan To Proceed

My opponent has conceded. Points dropped: 1. Achieving a positive brain scan is unrelated to sexual reassignment 2. The field of study my opponent seeks to promote into practice is relatively undeveloped and therefore should not be forced into application. 3. Enforcing a positive brain scan prior to sexual reassignment is impractical The counter resolution stands: A positive brain scan should not be required before sexual reassignment.
Sexual Reassignment Should Require A Positive Brain Scan To Proceed

Your only link providing possible scientific ability to determine "gender dysphoria." has been scoured and picked clean. Unfortunately, even the scientists who have conducted the field of study sourced above are not confident enough to push this research into actual practice. Why?? I will quote your source: "Guillamon[, the scientist,] isn't sure whether the four regions [of the brain] are at all associated with notions of gender" "Guillamon thinks such scans may not help in all cases. 'Research has shown that white matter matures during the first 20 to 30 years of life,' he says. 'People may experience early or late onset of transsexuality and we don't know what causes this difference.'" As you can see, this form of research is relatively new. Even the scientists of this study are somewhat doubtful and unsure of their research (they require further testing). The test was performed on subjects who were already transgendered. No data has been provided in correlation to the practical application of the transgendered people's brain structures to the detection of 'gender dyphoria' in non-transitioned people. This means that the data has no real impact on non-transitioned people. If you were to perform this form of diagnostic test on the 'unchanged', there would be a problem: While there is a standard for detection of anomalous brain structure for those who are transgendered, there is no basic standard of detection for those who aren't. Positive Diagnosis of trans-sexuality is impossible as of yet and is therefore unnecessary. If such a requirement were to be enforced, applicants for gender change will never EVER fulfill their need. There would be no way to change one's gender, making it impractical to the cause of transsexuality. http://portal.uned.es... www.newscientist.com/article/dn20032-transsexual-differences-caught-on-brain-scan.html
Sexual Reassignment Should Require A Positive Brain Scan To Proceed

Sexual reassignment is not a small decision to make. It involves irreversible changes to the human body. Fortunately, science can now see "gender dysphoria" on brain scans. http://www.newscientist.com... So, to prevent people from making some serious mistakes positive diagnosis of transsexuality and subsequent sexual reassignment should only be approved if there is a positive brain scan.
Pokemon is better than yu gi oh

To start of: "None of these points are relevant. Yu-Gi-Oh! also has many lifelong fans" You explain how there are lifelong fans, however the majority of these children start playing at the age of 8 years old. The majority seem to fully understand the game at the age of 12. Since the game is so complicated, it is difficult for children to enjoy it as well. Also, the average yugioh players stop investing or playing by the age of 35. Not so life long now is it? http://www.virtualpet.com... Secondly: And in fact, Yu-Gi-Oh! has just as many games as Pok"mon. Though this is true, pokemon games are much more popular and receive more money per game. Pokemon X and Y alone sold over 1 million units in a day. "Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's Wheelie Breakers" Only sold 0.10 million. http://ca.ign.com... http://www.vgchartz.com... thirdly: " Yu-Gi-Oh! has better artwork" The art does not make it better. Also, art is opinionated, some people see pokemon's anime art better. Also you did not mention if you meant the card's art or the anime. And I believe in the anime, pokemon has better artwork. Fourthly:" Yu-Gi-Oh! is a more social activity" When I play pokemon with my friends, we usually compare pokemon, trade a talk about other players on-line we have faced. Usually we are amazed by each others pokemon and speak about strategies to catch the best pokemon, or how we should set up our team. And usually we yell in amazement on how powerfull they are. When I play yugioh, it's usually putting card's down, and occasionally saying "good move" or "nice card". And then stating your attack. This isn't very social if you ask me. Now for my points: Pokemon has a better anime. Though both animes aren't very good, pokemon is better. It is more entertaining, and follows one story, with a variety of interesting rivals and side characters. Yugioh keeps changing, and everyone loses interrest. Look at yugioh zexal, it is just terrible. The manga is all connected. In Yugioh, all the series are separated. In pokemon adventures, the trainers meet. For example when yellow and gold met. This makes the manga more interesting. A pokemon team can be good with any pokemon if you play the game properly. In Yugioh, the better the deck you have, the better you are, which doesn't measure the skill of the player, but how rich he is, or how lucky he got with the deck he got.
Pokemon is better than yu gi oh

Pokemon demonstrates a fun, entertaining way to spend your time for all ages. People live their entire lives with Pokemon, that is how fun it is. You challenge yourself to level up, and work hard to catch rare and cool friends to go on a journey with you. In yu gi oh, you buy cards and set it up in a strategic deck, which you use to defeat others. You pay a lot of money for these cards to, some people who are so invested in this spend over 80$ for their decks. It is a waste of money, and also you don't always play. You only play when you have a friend with you, or a opponent of any kind. In pokemon, you can face computers and face various challenges pre programmed in the game. Also you can play with people all over the world, and play with you friends. In yu gi oh, you buy decks, and usually the more money spent the better deck, which I believe is unfair. If someone doesn't have as much as money as the others, they can never become the best. In pokemon video games, you can catch all sorts of pokemon and train them specifically, with no extra money having to be spent. If a kid has 40$ dollars, he is good to go, he doesn't need to keep buying more pokemon, because the pokemon are already in the game. Pokemon also has a bigger franchise. Think about it, if you go up to a normal person, which one will he know? A pikachu or winged dragon of Ra? Pokemon has a longer chain of games and activities. Yu gi oh only has the card game, and video games that involve the card game. Pokemon has video games, more video games, toys, a card game (however this card game is bad, we all know that yu gi oh has a better card game) and much more. Also, though people think that yu gi oh has more strategy, that is not necessarily true. In pokemon, you catch specific pokemon that will complement others, just like in yu gi oh where you have ritual cards to summon special monsters. Also in pokemon, your pokemon can be things like hasty, modest and brave which boost their stats in some areas and lowers them in others, and you choose which one complements your pokemon, his abillity, his moveset and his item. Not so non-strategic now is it? Also, EV training is another way to specifically train your pokemon. There is also breeding moves, where you breed to pokemon so that you get a pokemon that has specific moves, where do you see that in yu gi oh? And there is also happiness, which gives your pokemon specific moves, or helps them evolve. And there are also pokemon that evolve into more than 1 other pokemon, so you need to strategically choose the perfect match for your team. And don't forget type match-ups, which type is stronger against other types, which pokemon have the least weaknesses etc. For now, I await for my opponent to respond.
Being realistic is more logical than being optimistic

Anyway, The Pro side gave a very weird argument indeed. Arguing that Optimists will only look at good sides. Since when did the Optimism had taken such an explanation? Well, I guess from you then. As my opponent had quoted, I said "Optimistic means showing hope for the future. " What the heck has that have to do with judging people? Being Optimistic doesn't influence one's judgement of another, And that is simply as good as done. What is being Optimistic? Being Optimistic is to have a better outlook for life. My opponent failed to provide any evidence or argument that shows being Optimism is bad. Being Optimistic is to have a better altitude in life, Not to looking toward every good thing in anybody's life. Perhaps one scenario I am going to provide here is going nail it: Suppose we have a panel of Optimistic personnel who are judging Japanese war criminals who had committed horrible crimes in the Nanking Massacre. Will these people look at the positive side? No, Because all evidence shows that they have done terrible wrongs. How are they different from realist panels? I will say, None. Overall, Being optimistic and being realistic is both a person's choice to view their life. There is no better or worser, It is simply a kind of trait people have taken on. Pro side/my Opponent twists words into unconceivable scenarios, And that is regrettable as I hope for a better debate.
Being realistic is more logical than being optimistic

Alright, Back to your first argument. Optimism is like just a one way of seeing things. It is only the one side of the Morality Coin. And I did not say that "everyone" has to be realistic, It is an opinion that I promote Realism over Optimism, But it doesn't mean that EVERYONE has to be realistic. A balance of two opposing sides is needed for the world to run properly. Let's say you bring a criminal (who has done a number of crimes) to a court, Now, In our this court, Everyone is an optimist except the criminal, Of course. When it comes to announcing his crimes, Wouldn't the optimists tend to view the positive aspects of his life? Now, As you said and I quote, " Optimistic means showing hope for the future. " We'll get back to the optimists later, Now let's switch the optimists into realists. Being a realist you see both the sides of the Morality Coin and the criminal. Therefore, You as a realistic judge, Will view the criminal as not only a normal human (that optimists might; hoping he may be a good person if given a second chance, But not every person is the same), But as a threat to the society (pessimism). Now, If a judge views only positive expects of everything, How will he/she make a proper judgement? Being a realist you see both, The pros AND the cons. Suppose you buy a car, But before buying, You ask them only the pros of it, Like the car's excellent features, But not that for how many years the car will be durable and will be functioning as exactly as on the day you bought it, Then what's really the profit in buying it? Or suppose not asking anything about it's insurance. . . Realism is a set of facts while optimism is a set of only "good stuff". If all the people on the Earth were optimistic, Nobody would mourn when someone would die, We would totally ignore natural disasters and the world would be in chaos without even itself being aware of it.
Being realistic is more logical than being optimistic

My Opponent talks about "extreme optimism" that refers to parenting issue. However, Is that really what Extreme Optimism means? According to Dictionary. Com, Extreme optimism might be best described by a word: Panglossian, Which means: "characterized by or given to extreme optimism, Especially in the face of unrelieved hardship or adversity. " - "Panglossian. " Dictionary. Com, Dictionary. Com, Www. Dictionary. Com/browse/panglossian. Clearly, My opponent did not answer the question correctly. The true answer is, The point my opponent gave is called Parenting Issue. The parents always thought they gave the best advice. Despite in many ways they don't, My opponent's argument is still not related to the topic.
Being realistic is more logical than being optimistic

Well, You do have a point. I was trying to refer to extreme optimism where your kid is not even allowed to play first person shooter games or watch action movies(like any Marvel movie)/ TV shows when parents are in your room, Because they "damage the peace in the mind" or hang humorous posters but they say to remove it and hang something "positive" instead. But seems like I have failed badly. But those mentioned things do happen to me.