BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Are adolescent equivalent mature to an adult in cognitive maturity

Empircal show adolescent decision-making is on par with adults decision-making Slovenia 07Mary Irene Sloniniat ,JD from Case Western ´´State v.Physicians et al : Legal standards guiding the Mature minor doctrine and the Bioethical judgment of Pediatricians in life-sustaining Medical treatment ´´17 Health Matrix 181 2007 - The limit amount of empirical research on cognitive development and medical decision support piagetian theory that around age 15 children have the same decision-making capabilities as an adult.In 1982 study ,two researchers wanted to test the proposition of the late Supreme Court Justice,Douglas that " moral and intellectual maturity of 14 years old approaches of adult level..They hypothesize an empirical comparison of the competency of 14 years old and adult would support Douglas statement.They took a test group 96 subjects ,and devided them into four groups of twenty -four subjects by age (1) eight and a half to nine and a half,(2) fourteen,(3)eighteen,(4) twenty-one.The subjects response question were evaluated and scored by a panel of twenty expert on four standards of competency ;(1) evidence of choice,(2) reasonable outcomes,(3)rational reason,and understanding.The result indicate that fourteen years old demonstrated a competency equal to that of eighteen and twenty one years old.Comparison of adolescent and adult decision-making with regard of risky behaviours (substance of abuse,alcohol use,unprotected sex)have demonstrated that adolescent and adults are equally able to identify possible consequence of risky behaviour.In addition adolescent and adults assess the consequence smiliar ; they estimate similar probability or likehoods of consequences.Source : (http://www.premierdebate.com...)Another research by Laurence Steinberg,temple university study on Juvenile Competency to stand on trial revealed that that age16-17did not differed significiantly from young adult in competency those with low IQ and younger than age 14 are at greatest risk to be incompetent to stand trial.This study suggest that children younger than age 14 should be exempt from criminal prosecution while recommend those age 14 and older to held criminal responsibility like an adult.Source (https://www.google.de...)
Are adolescent equivalent mature to an adult in cognitive maturity

The brain, as you may know, processes information. The subconscious processes every single bit of information and makes you sometimes do things without you being aware of it. Some teenagers prefer to have sex with older men or older women that they consider attractive. Because of this, many teenagers form sexual relationships with adults. Like I said in the previous round, the problem with this is that it may make the teenager only want to form relationships with adults and not people who are in their age range. This is because the teenager may have consensual sex with this adult but feel more horny around other adults who they consider attractive. Adults can be affected by this sexual relationship too because the adult may feel more attracted to children than people in their age range. This may or may not lead to the adult raping children that refuse to have sex with them. Prepubescent children are less able than teenagers to resist unwanted sexual advances because prepubescent children don't yet have the social and intellectual abilities and capabilities that are obtained in the mid-teens. Because of this, prepubescent children don't yet have fully functioning cognitive abilities and like I said in Round 1, cognition is associated with thinking, learning, understanding, and perceiving. The prepubescent brain may not really know what sex is yet and so it might think that getting groped or sexually harassed is just a sign of affection. Of course, not all prepubescent children are like this. The age of consent is mostly to protect prepubescent children, teenagers, and even adults by basically acting as a barrier between the three age groups and acting as a way to allow people to give out their consent during sexual relationships. Plus, the age of consent is against pedophilia, especially female-on-child or male-on-child rape.
Are adolescent equivalent mature to an adult in cognitive maturity

-My argument comply to legitimate adult-child sex because it is a normal human sexual behavior which shouldn"t constitute as a sexual deviance just because society dissaproval ? Homosexual are use to be discriminated against their sexual orientation from middle age up until early 20 th century and even continue to criminalize in 50 countries around the world-10 countries reinstated death penalty. - Teenage are different from prepubescent children in a way that they are more sexual mature,reproductive,and are able more to resist unwanted sexual advance. - Regardless of the arbitrary sexual age limit whether we like it or not,they will have sex anyway so what"t is point of setting high upper age limit.Lowering age of consent or abolish would at least be benefical in reducing the number of criminalizing consenting under age teens ,teen pregnancy,and sexual transmitted disease. USA should revised the law and reform the age of consent.
Are adolescent equivalent mature to an adult in cognitive maturity

Thanks for joining my debate challenge. -It's true that MRI Scan reveals that our brain especially frontal lobe aren't fully developed until 25 but contrary to this,DR.Jean piaget,a swiss child psychologist,formulate his comprehensive theory that when a child reach formal operational stage,then they had approach fully moral and intelluctual maturity that are equivalent to young adults. - Even the APA asserted ,,by middle adolescent (age 14-15) young people developed similar abilities to adults in reasoning about moral dilemmas,understanding social rules and laws and reasoning about interpersonal relationships and interpersonal relationship problems By age 14 most adolescent have developed adult-like intellectual and social capacities including specific abilities outline in laws as necessary for understanding treatment alternatives considering risk and benefit and giving legally competent consent -If children and adolescent are competent to make medical decision and stand on trial as an adult in criminal court,then why would you concure that they cannot consent to sex or have sexual relation ? - This what i find it"s most illogical about criminal common law while the common law allow children to make decision outline on medical treatment and held criminal responsibility but the law don"t allow them to have sex ? -If sex between adult and child is consensual and then why does it stirred the government,they didn't even have a right to invade in people privacy.
Are adolescent equivalent mature to an adult in cognitive maturity

As you may know, most teenagers go through a really long hormonal phase where they start to feel more moody, more hungry, and more horny. Moody- Yes, there are plenty of moody adults but the truth is most teenagers go through a very moody phase because they don't really know to handle their emotions yet. As a teenager, your brain is still trying to process things and comprehend things. Because of this, many teenagers may feel like they're bipolar. However, this usually isn't a case of Bipolar Disorder. It's just a case of the brain not yet fully comprehending the many human emotions. This is why high schools are so full of drama. It's because the teenage brain is still learning how to process and analyze all the human emotions. It's better for the brain to do this at a very young age because once the teenager becomes an adult, they're expected to be more mature, intelligent, wise, and responsible. Although, not all adults are like this. Hungry- Everyone loves food. But teenagers especially love food and this is because teenagers are still growing until age 16, age 18, or age 21 for late bloomers. In order to grow and become a little taller, you need to eat. If you starve yourself or resort to eating disorders, you will not grow very much as a teenager and your body will not function properly. Plus, you'll turn into a skeleton-like figure. The brain associates food with pleasure and satisfaction, which is why people sometimes have foodgasms. A foodgasm is when someone eats food and starts to make groaning or moaning noises similar to if it was actual sexual intercourse. Horny- Both males and females go through a horny phase, especially as a teenager. Once someone goes from little kid to teenager, they're a little more aware of sex and so, their brain and their individual self start to develop a curiosity about sex and what it feels like. Everyone, both male and female, has thought about sex. The reason for this is because the brain starts to develop a cognitive curiosity of sex. A horny phase may lead to temporary/permanent perverted behaviors, frequent/infrequent masturbation, more digital interaction with pornographic websites and videos, sexual arousal around people or strangers who the person considers attractive, urge to grope certain people, wet dreams, a permanent/temporary stage of bi-curiousness, and more. In other words, teenagers have more time to "experiment" because they are just learning about sex and starting to understand and comprehend what exactly sex is. Cognition is associated with thinking, learning, perceiving, and understanding and the teenage brain is still learning how to think, learn, and understand things properly without jumping to irrational, illogical, or impractical conclusions. This is why teenagers usually go through a long hormonal phase, depending on the individual and what level their brain is at.
Are adolescent equivalent mature to an adult in cognitive maturity

Hi foodiesoul i want to challenge you to my debate.In my position according to adolescent intellectual maturity,i doubt that they are as mature as adult,therefore i advocate for abolish all sexual age of consent because the law is abitary,discriminatory against gender and sexual orientation,and needless.Consent should based on absence of coercion and willingness of teenager.Many psychologist and scientific schloar has approved the empiral evidence that mid-adolescent around age14-16 are competent to make informed hypothetical medical decision,so if they are able to make informed decision on medicine then why they cannot make decision on sexual activity ?
Chocolate is better than sour candy

My thing though is I cannot really agree with you. I think that chocolate is the thing that I would eat first before any thing, Sour candy. . . Its just not a good thing to really have often. Ya its good but just think about this, Chocolate over candy, 46 people chose chocolate over sour candy. It is so good to have chocolate and it comes in so many different flavors. Milk, Dark, Salty, Sea salt, ECT. My conclusion is, Chocolate is so much better than sour candy.
Chocolate is better than sour candy

Sour candy being hard to get used to doesn't make it worse than chocolate. The sourness you taste initially works to enhance the sweet flavors that come after you bite past the sour layer. I like to earn my sweetness, And sometimes, You gotta break past the sour to reach the beauty of the sweet, You feel me? Also, It isn't healthy to eat either all day. Remember kids, Eat your candy in reasonable amounts, And make sure it's sour candy that you're eating! I'm facts, Chief.
Chocolate is better than sour candy

Well, Pal, I think sour candy is better than chocolate. It gives you a nice kick before filling your mouth with intense flavory goodness. The harsh sour taste makes the sweetness that hits you afterwards that much sweeter. On top of that, Sour candy is not nearly as messy as chocolate. You can eat sour candy on a hot day and not worry about it becoming a goopy mess because of the temperature. And on cold days, You need not worry about biting into an icy rock, Instead, You can heat up your gob with the spicy sensation of sour candy. Sour candy is bomb and chocolate don't got nothin' on it. Big facts.
Chocolate is better than sour candy

So, I think that chocolate is so much better than sour candy, It has so much flavor and richness you can't put it down. One time i went to the movie theater and got some sour skittles, While i was eating them, I began to have a raw tongue and it hurt to eat any thing. My mouth was so beat up, I could not even finish my sweets. It was so bad. O ya and when you eat the candy, There is usually a stuff called citric acid in it and you cannot have things like milk because it can give you a stomach ache. While I agree that sour candy is good. Chocolate it so much better.
Chocolate is better than sour candy

It is fine for you to disagree with me, However, I trust the voters to decide and make the best decision: Sour Candy > Chocolate! Sour candy's distinct contrast of flavors is true perfection that cannot be topped. While chocolate is always sweet, It usually causes more problems than what it's worth to eat it. It becomes a goopy mess when it gets to hot and rock-solid block of ice when it gets too cold. It can be extremely messy while sour candy provides no headache and is always ready to be eaten when needed. Sour candy is the best.
God is NOT Pro-Life

I find it strange that God commands His people to not murder and then proceeds to kill anyone He wants, I guess that is why they call Him God. The point of this debate is to prove simply that the God of the Holy Bible kills and or allows the killing of unborn children of women for the purpose of punishment. To which we will call Holy abortion. This is Holy abortion by the God of the Christians. So why do Christians rail against abortion so much, when their own God is a God of abortion. The first text under scrutiny is Hosea 9: 16 Ephraim is stricken, Their root is dried up; They shall bear no fruit. Yes, were they to bear children, I would kill the darlings of their womb." (NIV) The context of the passage is the punishment of Israel for being unfaithful to God. This passage makes God a hypocrite. He commands man to not murder, then murders whom ever He wants. This is the God of love that Christians follow. The second text: In the context of the previous passage we have this stated: Hosea 13:16 [a]Samaria will be held guilty, For she has rebelled against her God. They will fall by the sword, Their little ones will be dashed in pieces, And their pregnant women will be ripped open. (NASB) These two passages are sufficient to prove that God either permits the killing of unborn children and or kills unborn children Himself. But there is more: In the case of a suspected adulterous women: Numbers 5:21 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse""may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. Here God will make the women miscarry. In Second Kings, we learn that Menahem, leader of the Israelites, smote all the people who refused to follow him "and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up" (2 Kings 15:16). This is God turning His head and allowing these monstrosities to happen. Christians claim that it is an abomination to abort a child for any reason, but in these passages we see that God allows it to happen and even gets in on it Himself. God is NOT pro-life
Students should be required to take art classes in highschool

I thank the contender for submitting his argument. On to my rebuttal.Rebuttal: Students need exposure to art.My opponent has made an argument that in order to be prepared for future confrontations with art you must be exposed to it in high school. This is not true. 1.) The introduction to the arts that they give in middle school would be enough to establish that there is indeed a thing called art and would teach any basics that they might need. 2.) A job or career that uses a form of art would, most likely, require a college art class, not a high school art class.3.) If someone came up to you and said "Draw me a picture of a dog" or "Recite this dramatic piece of prose with emotion" would a single high school art class leave you any more prepared than plain ol' living? It hasn't done so for me, I still can't draw more than basic stick figures!Rebuttal: Art is a form of communication.I agree with my opponent on the fact that art is indeed a form of communication. It can, in my opinion, be one of the most emotional and expressive forms of communication. Also, just as my opponent says, art can be relaxing for the artist and, if the artist is good enough, for others. These are both reasons why art should be an option for students, here's why it should not be a requirement.1.) Art is not a practical means of communication in our everyday lives and careers. We will never go to a business conference and sing out our report or draw out a customer's order in a restaurant. 2.) Art, unless refined, can actually be the opposite of relaxing. I had to take a music class in middle school and I hated it, but as much as I hated it, my parents hated it even more. I was quite terrible with (if my memory serves me right) the flute and my parents encouraged, even begged, me to not practice it.Rebuttal: Art gives an alternative for forms of genius.As true as this may be..1.) An artistic genius would have recognized their gift and willingly taken any art classes that they could.2.) A academic genius looking for a challenge most likely has finished all required courses and has plenty of room for chosen electives such as art.I look forward to the contender's rebuttal.
Students should be required to take art classes in highschool

Students need exposure 1.) Although you may not use art in your future life/career, nor is it everybody"s cup of tea, same as you may not need and or like other core required academics, it is helpful that students are at least exposed to the subject, for it may come up in future ventures. Art is a form of communication Your primary academic class for communication is English, in which you get four credits. But, art and design are also effective and alternative forms of communication, like for different forms of advertising. It is difficult to avoid using this skill in anyone"s life. Art is also is a form of relaxation and is exceptional when in practice. Gives an alternative for forms of genius This applies more to students who excel at art and gives the desired student better self-esteem and gives perfect-A students who excel at computing a challenge in the academic field.
Students should be required to take art classes in highschool

I appreciate the swift acceptance.As a senior student taking Arts & Humanities as a night class, I must set aside time each week to do the course online. This leads me to question why students are forced to take an art class in order to graduate.Art classes should be optional, not required.1.) Art is a wonderful thing. It brings happiness and passion to many. For this reason I do not disagree with it being taught in schools, but it should be up to the individual to decide whether or not take up their educational time with it.One or two art classes will not benefit the average person after school.1.) Not trying to be offensive, but art is relatively useless. The only people that benefit are the people that are naturally passionate or skilled and may go on to use art in their career. These people are the ones that would be likely to choose to take the classes as electives even if they were not forced to in order to graduate.Art classes take up time that could be used for other educational purposes.1.) Art takes up an entire period of class time that could be used for a choice elective. I would much rather take Spanish III (a class that would actually benefit me in my chosen career) than Arts & Humanities.2.) Many art classes (such as, dance, drama, and band) require after-school attention. The time spent during this could be used for doing homework, working a job, or getting the necessary sleep.
Students should be required to take art classes in highschool

Thank you to my contender for posting a worthwhile debate I felt like I could argue I hope the voters will see my main arguments If students don't Have to take it. 1. ) They won't and may miss out on undiscovered passions Need exposure 1. ) To at least know what there just like many of your core classes imply form of communication 1. ) No matter what job you have you're going to have to use advertising which art can help you Save time in college 1. ) even if you're not planning on taking art in college taking a high school class will save time in college Art classes generally only involve practice 1. ) It's not required that you have interest in the art class (but I understand recorders suck) It's a form of genius 1. ) Students who excel at art and gives the desired student better self-esteem 2. ) It also gives perfect-A students who excel at computing a challenge in the academic field.
Students should be required to take art classes in highschool

I thank the contender for going through the entire debate, always appreciated. The final round will be for the closing statements. I hope that voters will see the reasoning in my main arguments. Choice. 1. ) The student should be able to decide whether they take art or something else more suited to their liking. Lack of use. 1. ) Art is not used in everyday life or in most careers.2. ) A single high school art class will not do much good for someone lacking any inborn talent or passion. Cuts into educational time.1. ) The student could take classes that would benefit their everyday life or their career.2. ) Time spent after school practicing could be instead used to do homework, study, work, or catch up on sleep. And see the reasoning in my rebuttal. Lack of depth.1. ) Simple middle school art classes are enough to give the cursory knowledge of the subject and to give the student an idea of if it is their "cup of tea".2. ) If a person was going into a career for art they would have to take college level art courses regardless of whether they took high school art courses or not. Impractical.1. ) See "Lack of use". Stressful.1. ) Unless you have talent, art can be bothersome for you and for others. Choice.1. ) Again, any student that wishes to take art, whether it be because they enjoy it or because they are looking for a challenge, is free to take it.
Students should be required to take art classes in highschool

I thank my competitor for the rebuttal Art is a wonderful thing and that's a main reason why it should be required I don't believe it is a waste of time, because even though if your career involves art and you do need that art course on college the high school class will give you a head start and may cause you to use less time & possibly less money. I see the validity in your third statement, but I feel like the application of everyday encounters it would be beneficial in the sense of understanding what their conveying. But leaving this as an optional class most students would choose to deny the class and it gives the opportunity for the students to become interested, It is not Required that you must be interested in that area. Maybe to discover a hidden talent that a student might pass up because they chose not to take the class. It's true that it takes time after school to give full effort, but high school is the biggest part of your adolescent life, & it is out of my control of how much homework the American school system gives, and generally speaking, art classes don't give much homework other than practice. I assume next is closing statement?