BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should humans be logical or faithful orientated? (Against logical or for logical)

"My question is should humanity be accepting the safer option or taking the risk in trusting their own species? Or, another way to put it is: how far should a person's faith in humanity as a whole go?" My apologies! You didn't make the topic quite clear at first, so I assumed you were talking about religion. But it's still fine because I have very little faith in humanity, and can argue as to why this is better. Con keeps using Nash's Equilibrium as an example of "logical" thinking. Obviously, if cooperating would result in the best possible solution, then humans will naturally cooperate. However, this doesn't imply faith in human nature so much as trust that humans are self-serving. If A and B do the most good for themselves by working together, then what reason does either A or B have to stop working? Nash's Equilibrium proves nothing but the selfishness of man, trust has nothing to do with it. Humans evolved to satisfy their own needs and wants, and should they conflict with the wants of others, the individual will normally come first. Besides, as plenty of social experiments have shown, humans have a disturbing tedency towards violence (when put in a position of power) and blind obedience (when given commands by an authority figure). Look at the Stanford prison experiment [1], where out of 24 participants (with complete psychological stability and no criminal background), 12 were assigned the role of "prisoner" and the other 12 were assigned the role of "guard". After only a few days, the guards had resorted to cruel, humiliating, and sadistic tactics to assert their dominance over the prisoners, even though they had not been instructed to do any such thing. This experiment shows the horrific exploitation of power that humans are prone to. Also observe the Milgram experiments [2], where participants, believing they were taking part in a memory test, were instructed by an authority figure to press a button whenever the subject missed an answer. This button, they were told, would deliver an electric shock to the subject, who was actually an actor who would make contortions of pain whenever the button was pressed. Almost every participant simply did what they were told, with a massive 65 percent delivering what they were told was 450 volts - a fatal shock. Humans, it can be concluded, will usually follow whatever any authority figure tells them, even going so far as to take a human life for the sake of an experiment. I hope that this pertains more to what you had in mind, Con, and I will now let you make your final argument. SOURCES: 1. http://www.newyorker.com... 2. https://aeon.co...
Should humans be logical or faithful orientated? (Against logical or for logical)

Alright :) sorry about that! Still getting the hang of this thing. I would have to agree that faith in a higher power can be good as a reviving factor but also extremely dangerous when someone has to defend it. But I guess that's not exactly what I was asking/arguing. In Nash's Equilibrium* both parties have a chance to be "faithful" or trust worthy in one another, and in result end up with a better outcome. Although that comes with a risk factor. In the Equilibrium both parties play it "safe" and end up choosing the concrete option that is not as appealing as the former, but is much less risky. My question is should humanity be accepting the safer option or taking the risk in trusting their own species? Or, another way to put it is: how far should a person's faith in humanity as a whole go? Logical being not at all and faithful being extremely. (I really didn't make any of that clear but if you want you can take either side.) *"the Nash equilibrium is a solution concept of a non-cooperative game involving two or more players, in which each player is assumed to know the equilibrium strategies of the other players, and no player has anything to gain by changing only his or her own strategy."
Any form of Chronophilia should be considered a disorder and not a crime.

"In order to make sure the person can continue having a lasting relationship, the person needs to increase his age and does so naturally over time." While it can be said that most people do normally tend to stick within a certain age range relative to their own for the duration of their lives, it should not be considered abnormal (therefore a disorder) to cap the age limits universally in contrast to the "unlimited preferential attraction" which to state. This is due, in part, to the biological reason for sexual attraction. Sexual attraction is there to aid the continuation of a species by encouraging the act of sex for the purpose of reproduction. If the would-be mate is infertile, than the courting mate would have no biological reason to mate with them, as no child would develop. It is for this reason that most of the worlds societies (Africa excluded due to the misrepresentation of how AIDS is spread) look down upon the sexual attraction to prepubescent children, as the male is incapable of pregnancy, and the female, while able to be impregnated, has a very weak reproductive system that has been known to tear in child sexual assault cases. Secondly, at least one study has shown that the age at which women are found to be most attractive is 29 [1]. This coincides with the fact that on average, women tend to be most fertile between the ages of 23 and 31 [2]. Men are found to be most attractive around 31, while the age of maximum male fertility is around the early 20's [3]. The aforesaid reasoning about why human beings are naturally not attracted to non-fertile humans is also backed up by the ages at which humans are most fertile. Thirdly, in somewhat of a contrast, the average age of a male Playboy magazine consumer can be as low as 18, while the mean age for the first online pornographic experience can be as low as 14.3 [4][5]. This results in an age gap, between the most fertile age and when humans (more specifically males) show sexual attraction of up to 17 years. In conclusion, Chronophilia in general, should not be considered a disorder, because there are psychologically created age-caps for sexual attraction, which therefore means that there is a universal age range of possible, and logical sexual attractiveness independent of the persons true age. Also, even if uses the definition of Chronophilia as "one of a group of paraphilias .... in which the paraphile's sexuoerotic age is discordant with his/her true chronological-age , but is concordant with the age of the partner.[6]", Chronophilia still shouldn't be considered a disorder, because there is a 17 year gap between the age at which males are first exposed to pornography, and the age at which males find women to be most attractive. 1. http://www.allure.com... 2. http://www.webmd.com... 3. http://www.nhs.uk... 4. http://books.google.com... 5. Chiara Sabina, Janis Wolak, David Finkelhor, "The Nature and Dynamics of Internet Pornography Exposure for Youth," CyberPsychology & Behavior. December 2008, 11(6): 691-693 6. http://www.sex-lexis.com...
Any form of Chronophilia should be considered a disorder and not a crime.

I'd like to welcome my competitor themohawkninja. Nice name BTW.I'll open by why It should be considered a mental disorder :Normal age based attraction have an unlimited preferential attraction to a chrono stage*, that's because In order to make sure the person can continue having a lasting relationship, the person needs to increase his age and does so naturally over time.However Chronophilia unlike normal age based attraction doesn't change, which makes the person unable to hold the sexual base in a relationship for longer than the length of the chrono stage.* I'm changing it to "Chrono stage" had a small typo.
Any form of Chronophilia should be considered a disorder and not a crime.

Whom ever going to join the debate. I salute you. so explanation: I'd like to address anyone who has encountered the definition Chronophilia. The definition is not yet complete and rarely is used. So the definition the chronophilia that we're going to debate is : 1. Limited attraction to a specific age based state (Child, adolescent, adult. .. etc') I'll call the age of attraction as "chrono state" just to clear confusion.
Any form of Chronophilia should be considered a disorder and not a crime.

"It is considered normal and is not a Chronophilia because even when the people are preferably attracted to women in their 20s or men in their 30s the Chrono stage is not limited and does expand over time." When one looks up the definition of Chronophilia from the source which you state, we find that the definition: "an individual [who] experiences sexual attraction limited to individuals of particular age ranges.", the term individual is singular, while the term "ranges" is used in plural form, therefore there are multiple ranges of ages that a individual can have to be considered Chronophilic. Therefore, a person with Chronophilia can start with one or two age ranges (say that of a teenage boy, attracted to the more matured women in a pornography video). "I really don't understand what your tried to bring up. I looked it up with the references. Please elaborate what's your point here." I was pointing out that there is an age gap, which intern could lead to a range of ages apart from that which the individual belongs in (that is to say, the 14 year old boy being attracted to females of a median age 17 years more than he is). Therefore, the definition of Chronophilia as stated by your source indicates that there can be more than one age range per individual without limit to the age of the person in question, and therefore almost anyone's attraction would be defined by Chronophilia. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P.S. I didn't bother arguing about it being a crime, because it would be illogical to say that it shouldn't be a disorder, but it should be a crime.
Evolution is a lie

"It takes one fact to debunk a theory so I will use facts."The problem is: no that's not true, and my opponent did not use any facts to begin with.Let's look at these arguments again-"If humans begain 50,000 years ago then there would be 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 people." (sic)I'm suspicious of this number. And I will show quite simply why this makes zero sense.1. It relies on, as I thought, modern population estimates of the last 150 years... and that's it. And that is primarily based on, as I said, modern technology and medicine. 2. It took 1,000 years from the aproximate population of the world to go from 170,000,000 to 254,000,000. That's an increase of only only about 67%... in a thousand years. Far behind the 200% increase every 150 years my opponent offers. Bad argument-FROM TWO PEOPLE, CREATED ABOUT 6,000 YEARS AGO, AND THEN THE EIGHT PEOPLE, PRESERVED ON THE ARK ABOUT 4,500 YEARS AGO, THE WORLD"S POPULATION COULD EASILY HAVE GROWN TO THE EXTENT WE NOW SEE IT"OVER 6.5 BILLION.Same population issue as before. It's not just math. There's a lot of factors that go into it. -Evolutionists teach that giraffes kept stretching their necks to each higher branches, so their necks became longer. In other words, need promotes evolution. However, August Friedrich Leopold Weismann cut off the tails of 901 young white mice in 19 successive generations, yet each new generation was born with a full-length tail. The final generation, he reported, had tails as long as those originally measured on the first. There's also the fact that circumcision of Jewish males for 4,000 years had not affected the foreskin.I am a little... put off by this argument. So I will explain it as simply as possibleIt takes far longer than 19 generations or 4,000 years to see changes.And not only that, this is a complete misunderstanding of evolution.But I do not want to explain it to my opponent, I'd rather have him explain evolution.All humans, until the 8th week of development, have a tail. After which the WNT3A gene takes over and they tail is lost... in other words... we have a gene to make a tail and a gene that destroys the tail the other genes made.So if God created us in our present form, why is it that he created us to have a tail and then make a gene to destroy it.Doesn't it make more sense we changed genetically to lose the tail?Sources:http://worldpopulationhistory.org...http://www.genecards.org...http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Evolution is a lie

It takes one fact to debunk a theory so I will use facts. -If humans begain 50,000 years ago then there would be 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 people. -FROM TWO PEOPLE, CREATED ABOUT 6,000 YEARS AGO, AND THEN THE EIGHT PEOPLE, PRESERVED ON THE ARK ABOUT 4,500 YEARS AGO, THE WORLD"S POPULATION COULD EASILY HAVE GROWN TO THE EXTENT WE NOW SEE IT"OVER 6.5 BILLION. -Evolutionists teach that giraffes kept stretching their necks to each higher branches, so their necks became longer. In other words, need promotes evolution. However, August Friedrich Leopold Weismann cut off the tails of 901 young white mice in 19 successive generations, yet each new generation was born with a full-length tail. The final generation, he reported, had tails as long as those originally measured on the first. There's also the fact that circumcision of Jewish males for 4,000 years had not affected the foreskin. Those are my three points http://allendra3.deviantart.com... https://answersingenesis.org...
Evolution is a lie

Before we begin, I would like to point out my opponent has the burden of proof for this.Let me address his points1) If humans were evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys (sic)Evolution does not teach that we evolved from monkeys, but it does teach that monkeys and humans come from a common ancestor far in the past. Then, we split off. Totally different idea. 2) If humans were evolved from monkeys wouldn't monkeys be turning to humans today (sic)Again... the monkeys-are-not-our-ancestors thing. 3) Homo Sapien was found about 100,00 years ago in southwest Asia (sic)Yes, this is consistent with migration theories... so I am not sure how this shows evolution is a lie... especially since that 100,000 years is way before the YEC views my opponent seems to hold.4) about 4000 years ago if you start with 7 people you add all major wars and diseases you will get about 7 billion people (sic) Ok? How do you know that? What math did you come up with for that? The primary reason for our high population is our sudden explosion in technological and medical advances... nothing to do with some bunk form of population compound interest.5) 4000 years ago isn't when evolution startedYes... you are correct. It started with the first life form over a billion years ago.I await my opponent's response.
Evolution is a lie

Evolution can be easily debunked as a theory My points -If humans were evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys -If humans were evolved from monkeys wouldn't monkeys be turning to humans today -Homo Sapien was found about 100,00 years ago in southwest Asia -about 4000 years ago if you start with 7 people you add all major wars and diseases you will get about 7 billion people -4000 years ago isn't when evolution started Evolution is a hoax and should be thought in school because its invalid.
Flag burning should be allowed

Before I begin, I will answer my opponents question: Q."In this instance, do you refer to flag burning in general or flag burning out of hate (rather more often out of hate)?" A.We will be discussing two different instances. One instance a person does it without hate and in another instance the person does it due to hate. ::Flag Burning without hate:: Why would anyone burn it if there's no hate involved ? If there's no hate then the person doesn't want to burn it ,namely , the flag burning is a means to an end. So we conclude that the American flag is better burned because it helps the person to survive or do some other good deed. ::Flag Burning with hate:: Why would anyone burn the flag ? The wrongdoer is obviously expressing himself. Can he express himself ? Yes he can. Is it disrespectful ? Absolutely but disrespect is expressed nowadays regularly. ::Elaboration:: I made these vague points so that we would be debating my opponents ideas and not mine principally because he has the burden of proof. Thank you all and I wish good luck to my opponent.
Flag burning should be allowed

::Definitions:: Flag burning: Burning a flag which represents a country, more often than not its done due to hate. Should: Its better if it would be that way. Allowed: Be legal. Does not mean encourage or make it popular but it does mean that it should be legal. ::Exceptions:: 1. If the burning flag starts a war. 2. If the burning flag is used like a weapon. 3. If the burning flag is used to damage people in any other way or their property. What I am trying to say is that my stance supports flag burning per se only. ::Opponent:: We will post our arguments in Round 2 only. ::Rules:: You must accept the rules and definitions or you will by default loose on all 7 points. ::Final words:: Thank you for accepting the debate in advance and I wish you good luck. Cheerio
Flag burning should be allowed

Since this is round three and we are not supposed to post arguments, all I will say is that my opponent has not actually disproved anything. I would like to thank Pro for starting this interesting debate: A recap of my position: 1. Good deeds can be done without the use of flag burning. I would urge you to look up the definition of 'good' and 'deed'. 2. Flag burning can cause war 3. Flag burning is a form of harm unto others; psychologically and emotionally. 4. Flag burning can be used to manipulate, much as religion is. Please deliberate while remaining objective.
Marjuana should be legal

My apologies. When you said "the good stuff", I thought you were just talking about weed in general. Surely you can forgive me for that? 1) Once weed is legal for recreational use, people will begin to buy it from hemp shops and other designated places for it to be sold. These places will be just opening and thus need employees. Drug dealers could hop on board. There will be no hemp shops. If the sale of marijuana is legalised it will just become another thing that you've to ask for over the counter in shops and off licences. Also, some products of the plant might even make good alternatives for things we already use in everyday life, and might even replace them, possibly taking from the number of jobs to be had instead of increasing them. The only people certain to profit are the already wealthy farmers. "2) Yes, the crappy weed is grown in dirt and soil, but as my link above shows, the dank, as its called, is not." I've probably never smoked weed grown by that method and I love it dearly. "3) Marijuana causes no major health problems and is far less dangerous than alcohol." Nor does heroin apparently: http://www.debate.org... That was fun.
Marjuana should be legal

You are dead wrong about the way good marijuana is grown. Here is a link to hydroponics. http://en.wikipedia.org... 1) Once weed is legal for recreational use, people will begin to buy it from hemp shops and other designated places for it to be sold. These places will be just opening and thus need employees. Drug dealers could hop on board. 2) Yes, the crappy weed is grown in dirt and soil, but as my link above shows, the dank, as its called, is not. 3) Marijuana causes no major health problems and is far less dangerous than alcohol.
Marjuana should be legal

"Drug dealers are not the friendly neighborhood drug dealers, they are the "I'm only interested in that money" drug dealers." How do you know their intentions? And even if some of them are only interested in money, what do you think these peope who are obviously criminally inclined are going to do for it when selling weed goes down the drain for them? Dealing weed is a victimless crime. What if they move on to selling heroin, or robbing people? It's good to have a harmless option for criminals. "If they want to stay in business, they can start growing, or running hemp shops." My second argument shows how this would not be an option. "clearly my opponent does not understand how the good stuff is grown. It can't be grown outside on a farm by some farmer that grows corn and grain. It is grown using hydroponics, a system that doesn't use dirt but instead only water and minerals." Clearly my opponent hasn't got the first clue what he's talking about. He claims that plants don't grow in the ground and obviously doesn't know what a farmer is. "Your last agruement seems a bit unfair to the people wanting to smoke some harmless weed. Just because of other drugs, weed needs to be illegal also? Is it not even more unfair on people who just want to take some of the other harmless, higher classed drugs? These people suffer far greater punishments if they get caught, which shows that it is primarily these people that our tax euros are going towards getting rid of. As I've already shown, having marijuana as an illegal substance could help us find these people quicker, which might alleviate the tax quicker. "Why not make tobacco and alcohol illgal also?" Why not make everything legal?
Marjuana should be legal

1) Drug dealers are not the friendly neighborhood drug dealers, they are the "I'm only interested in that money" drug dealers. If they want to stay in business, they can start growing, or running hemp shops. 2) clearly my opponent does not understand how the good stuff is grown. It can't be grown outside on a farm by some farmer that grows corn and grain. It is grown using hydroponics, a system that doesn't use dirt but instead only water and minerals. 3) Your last agruement seems a bit unfair to the people wanting to smoke some harmless weed. Just because of other drugs, weed needs to be illegal also? Why not make tobacco and alcohol illgal also?
Marjuana should be legal

Right, first I must say that I'm only debating this for a laugh and that I agree 100% with my opponent. I do, however, believe that there would be some negative effects to legalising weed and I will explain these below. 1. Legalising weed would take much needed profit from the lowly drug dealer who has put him/herself at risk all this time to get me what I want. If, like me, you're a bit of a pothead, then you owe these people as much as I do. If it were not for these people our days would be a lot less colourful; movies, games and music would be a lot less enthralling; food wouldn't taste as good and our girlfriends would be a lot more annoying. And this is how you would repay them? You should be ashamed of yourself. 2. Not only would legalising weed take profit from the lowly drug dealer, but it would give it to the wealthy. Without a doubt if weed was legalised wealthy famers would immeadiately start growing the cash crop and putting it on the market at prices so low that they couldn't be competed it. Is this really what you want? To steal from the poor and give to the rich? That's a bit backwards, isn't it? You make me sick. Also, the penalties for being caught in possession of marijuana are nothing to get worked up about. I have been caught on several occasions and I still hold a clean record. Fair enough, only one of those times was when I was over 18, but I was let off anyway. They did try and scare me into ratting first, but when I refused their threats were shown to be empty. This is another way in which having marijuana as an illegal substance could benefit society. We all know that there are much more dangerous drugs than weed out there and much more dangerous dealers than those that sell weed. Having weed as an illegal substance is a point of infiltration for the police into this dangerous underground world. I said I'd go with something new... lol