BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Sexualising women in the mainstream media damages their psychological state.

I feel this argument is based on the assumption that women themselves do not want to be sexualised. I simplify my argument by categorising women into three main categories: those unaffected by the media portrayal, those affected and those who embrace and/or make a successful career because of it. Of course this is over simplistic but I have categorized these to demonstrate there are different reactions to the portrayal. For example, a large bulk of the mainstream media that would be seen to sexualise women are in fact targeted at women themselves. Perhaps this is not to reduce self esteem but to increase it. To be able to show that women can be feminine and be interested in beauty yet still be independent and be career focused. The director of Cosmopoliton, which arguably sexualises women to a high degree is a women who bases a bulk of her content to 'debating and questioning the world', however, also bases a lot of it on 'how to please your man in bed' or 'sexy dresses to get you noticed'. These articles are based at the same target audience which aims to legitimize that women do not have to choose brains or sexuality. We can and do have both. To assume that women or girls are 'brainwashed' by these images is to assume they do not have the capacity to question what we see portrayed in the media as truth. It is possible to view these images as a distorted fantasy but to appreciate them regardless. Also, sexuality is closely linked with confidence. If a women wants to mimic that of the mainstream media and embrace her own sexuality, boost her confidence and make her feel desirable then good on her. It is assumed because the average woman will never look quite like the images she sees then this is damaging, however, if she were to find to find the images appealing and strives on some level to recreate them by using the beauty products etc then in turn she would feel more confident and comfortable in her own skin which cannot be anything but good for society. I am not arguing that women need make up and beauty products to feel confident, merely if she wants to experiment and channel individual expression then this is a positive for both the individual and society. What I think is damaging to society is women and girls being constantly told what oppresses them. This era of women is strong and opinionated, if they don't like what the mainstream media has to offer then they can stand up for themselves. At last we are in an era where the strong career woman doesn't have to act masculine, or unfeminine or asexual to be taken seriously. Finally, we have reached a point where we can embrace our sexuality through the media whilst being taken seriously as individuals.
Sexualising women in the mainstream media damages their psychological state.

The continual sexualisation of women, and even men, in the media is damaging to women. It encourages women to harken to the sexual side of their nature above all else, and then makes them feel inferior about their sexual appeal through the portrayal of unrealistically attractive women using photo effects. Because they see sexual appeal as their most important trait, and they fail at it, they are depressed. This makes them obsessively buy beauty products and stay distracted from the true issue, which is the fact that rich people own too much. I'm talking generally, I'm sure women on here are less controlled by such shallow brainwashing, as its more effective on those who don't debate and question the world (which is the majority). And I know many women reject this worldview, but none the less one would be a fool to deny that it's what the vast majority of women are consumed by to a large extent. My argument is that sexualisation is bad for women in society. Not that women are not sexualised.
Attributing Human Consciousness to the Theory of Evolution is false and invalid

Very insightful! Thank you for all that information, and indeed I believe we are zoning in on the central questions and key points. And on that note, I would like to say that perhaps my title for this debate is overly pretentious and strong. A more proper title should have been something like "Did Human Conciousness Arise Solely from Evolution?" Regardless I still would have picked the side I'm on. I like your puddle analogy which correlated with the question "At what point does conciousness become human concioussness?"May I propose a mark of reference to establish that 'point'? - When said conciousnesss asks its first question! (Some people would like to see the worlds first kiss, I would like to know the first question, I dont even care if it was answered. When and what was the very first question ever conceieved?)Is it your argument then, that at some point along the quantitive steps, all life forms (if allowed to evolve) will attain, or emerge, the capacity to start asking questions? (Maybe not literally ALL lifeforms, for practical sake we can stick to 'advanced animals' if you wish [dolphins, apes, etc..) I will assert again my agreement with evolution pertaining to intellect, but resort back to my analogy, the intellect is gold, but reason (self-reflecting, introspective, and question asking) is the philosophers stone.So you asked a practical, fair, and demanded question (at what point do you say conciousness becomes 'human conciousness?) My response: When a question is asked, an inquiry made. Is this acceptable? So please elaborate from this point.Now, the capacity to ask a question, or make an inquiry, I have a hard time imagining arising gradually in an animal, but perhaps you have resources to enlighten me on the matter.Now I imagine it can't help but be asked "Well if not by means of emergence? Then what else?"How about, bestowment? Isn't it peculiar that we seemed to have elevated so quickly, compared to lifeforms who have seemingly stayed the same since the dinosaur age? (sharks, crocs)
Attributing Human Consciousness to the Theory of Evolution is false and invalid

Thanks to Pro for offering the debate. My objective in this debate is to show that Human conciousness is something that could have, and probably did arise via Evolution. Furthermore, since the resolution is worded as a positive statement, then I will allow Pro to make his opening arguments and concentrate on rebuttals. I am especially interested to see what model of mind Pro will put forth that is not wholly dependant on the brain. I will lay out briefly my own presuppositions and biases, and I would liek pro to list which ones he does not agree with so I may tailor my rebuttals accordingly:1. The natural world exists2. Evolution is true at least for the diversification of life (I presume the evolution of brain, and mind is what Pro holds in contention)3. Natural selection is real evolutionary mechanism4. The Earth is 4.5 bn years old5. Other Human beings have independant conciousness (i.e. I reject Hard Sollopsism).I am sure there are more we will run into, but it would be good to clear these out ASAP, even if my opponent doesnt agree with them.Back to Pro!
Attributing Human Consciousness to the Theory of Evolution is false and invalid

From my side of the debate I will expound that the theory of evolution does not apply to the cause of human consciousness, in further detail; gradual accumulation of cognitive faculties throughout the course of time by means of ‘natural selection’ is not responsible for the difference between our self awareness and the seemingly lack thereof abound in the rest of the animal (or creature) kingdom. My argument will be bolstered by one crucial idea: The difference between the nature of our (humankind) consciousness (or the self-aware/question asking mind) and that of those deemed ‘lower’ animals (or creatures) is not of a quantitative difference, but of a qualitative difference. And possibly supplemented with the argument that consciousness (or mind) is not just a mere manifestation (or emergence) of the brain organ, but can reasonably be suspected to be an element of its own given the proper insight. Put in another way: If a rat (or any other so called ‘low’ animal), evolves for millions, or billions, or even quintillions of years, its consciousness will not ‘gradually accumulate’ bringing it closer to our level; strictly because of a misapprehension (or false assessment) of what is suspected to be the true nature of our consciousness.
Attributing Human Consciousness to the Theory of Evolution is false and invalid

Thanks Pro. Closing Statement: I would like to close by returning to Pro’s original contention: “The difference between the nature of our (humankind) consciousness (or the self-aware/question asking mind) and that of those deemed ‘lower’ animals (or creatures) is not of a quantitative difference, but of a qualitative difference.“ Satisfaction (or lack thereof) of the BoP Pro holds the Burden of Proof in this debate, the burden of demonstrating that ‘attributing human consciousness to the theory of evolution is false and invalid’. However throughout this debate Pro has not provided the reasons nor evidence to demonstrate that this is true. Pro has presented several thoughts and ideas in which it might be difficult to explain where human consciousness cannot be explained by a result of evolutionary processes. However he has never, not once, in this debate actually satisfied the positive burden of demonstrating this. A suitable demonstration would have been a philosophical or mechanistic prohibition which prevents human consciousness from arising via evolution. We haven’t seen any such thing in this exchange. Positive Anti-Resolution Arguments: In my own responses I have detailed the evolutionary pressures that would have contributed in the causation of our need to develop larger and more intelligent brains, and ultimately why we are as intelligent as we are today. Much of this comes down to our history, as well as ‘quantum leaps’ which greatly accelerated the process, including the advent of cooking and the hold of language and written communication. Further still I have demonstrated that many of the attributes we associate with purely human consciousness are present albeit less impressively in other members of the animal kingdom, most notable in the Chimpanzee, although others have been studied. Therefore I hold that the resolution is negated, and that I have even put together a reasonable case for the flipside of the resolution (that consciousness was an attribute of evolution) to be true. Final Remarks: I would like to thank Pro for this unique debate, as well as his excellent conduct and polite demeanour. I hope to cross swords with him in future, best regards.
Attributing Human Consciousness to the Theory of Evolution is false and invalid

The water in the tube was very impressive and satisfactory in convincing me of your point, “our current intellect is a reducible quality accessible by evolution”. Though this doesn’t really touch upon my argument that reason and intellect are two intrinsically different things, perhaps you disagree with that presupposition? (Which could possibly merit its own debate?) Now, wouldn’t the quantum leap which arose from “complex” language and physical recording need to be preceded by another, smaller quantum leap? To explain how the positive ‘net’ accumulation began? How the physical recording began? And even if that was answered, wouldn’t that also require then a smaller beginning responsible for it as well? I am glad you recognize I concede to the idea that we have ‘become awake’ or conscious, in the most elementary sense, by evolutionary means, but that our alleged dominance over the Earth and the animals was not an effect which arose from ‘advancing past them’ in some evolutionary Achilles and tortoise race of the intellect. I liken this scenario to Zeno’s paradoxes; philosophical problems to support a doctrine that plurality, and change is mistaken or illusion like, especially motion. http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_paradoxes To me, the model of evolution requires a dimension, a line representing the passage of time “from one moment to the next” with points along measuring change in distance across that line, which can then be used gauge a quantum measurement pertaining to increased intellect, or further adapted or conditioned responses. Is not fair to think of said intellect as the arrow, changing, or moving through time seemingly, yet not logically, as argued by Zeno with his flying arrow?
Attributing Human Consciousness to the Theory of Evolution is false and invalid

Alrighty, soI asked for extrapolation from cons point of view regarding using the moment of "asking a question, or making an enquiry" as a milestone along the gradual intellectual development of a creature that would indicate a quanititive progression towards a conciousness and awareness akin to our own (humankind). Which would further imply we obtained our own conciousness and its aspects by the same means. He procured a couple examples: A mother calling for its young, and mating rituals. And further submits these scenarios are "but a reduction of the same mechanisms that could have led to the intelligence that asks abstract linguistic questions today. "Quick Recap:Pythagoras quote "Humankind (soul/conciousness) can be divided into three parts: Passion, Intellect, and Reason. Passion and Intellect are possessed by the other animals, but reason is for man alone" bolsters my point of view: (that there is an, dare i say - 'inherent', quality to our conciousness apart from the other animals "i.e. reason" that I argue cannot be attributed to evolution because the qualities of reason (inquiry, question asking, and discernment) does not emerge from the gradual advancedment of the animals intellect in accordance with evolutionary natural selective law.I accept his submissions, and would like to add that searching for a lost mate is similar behavior of which im going to extrapolate from.Now it is indeed a wonder, does the said mother actually ask herself "Where is my child, why can't I find my child?" Which would make possible a creative response? (indicating a birth to reason) Or could it be merely be a systematic reaction whereas an instinctive protocol is followed given a particular circumstance (no child= call out, run around with eyes peeled, destroy potential threats (secure perimeter) etc.)Which would mean only a conditioned response, although very much animate, is still just a cold machine like computer (brain) exercise of information processing.What I would like to point to is the question of: If this same scenario happens over and over for a countless number of times across a countless number of lifetimes, across a countless number of species. Will the subject begin to reflect and think "How can I prevent from losing my child?" or "Should I just accept the loss of my mate as a cycle of life and become vital again?! (various animals, especially mammal-marine and birds, will change behavior radically after losing a mate, will look for them, stop eating, sometimes become lethargic till death, or even sometimes seemingly suicidal[depressed])Now the reaction is the sign of intelligence, but reacting creatively to it is a sign of reason, which is still not apparent enough to me to be arising from advancing intelligence.
Being a Vegetarian is better than being a Non-veg

I accept your challenge. Good luck to my opponent. First of all, please choose your exact definition. It's either vegetarian or vegan; there's a difference. But for this purpose, because it was indicated in the title of the debate itself, I choose vegetarian. Yes, there are certain vegetables that are rich in calcium and proteins. But there have been surveys, one of which I will give you a link to, that clearly show that vegetarians lack in zinc, a mineral that helps in cell production, protect the liver from chemical damage, formation of bones, etc. Also, red meat, specifically beef, provides your body and mind with Vitamin B12, which the blood uses to create erythrocytes (red blood cells) and more or less maintain the nervous system. One effect is that without this, it can cause memory loss as well. Science also shows us that heart disease is caused by unsaturated fats, specifically polyunsaturated, which is found mainly in vegetable oil. Pretty ironic, huh? And don't tell me that you can substitute meat and dairy with merely soy. Only fermented soy products such as miso, tempeh, natto and tampari are actually qualified as healthy. The other soy foods that you vegetarians consume are predominantly tofu, in which is actually ingrained an anti-nutrient, which carries out the nutrients out of your system. Now, to your point about killing innocent animals. Personally, I like to think of myself as an animal-lover and environmentalist. But if we all become vegetarian, we'd also be killing those animals. If a great portion of the U.S. became vegetarian, then, of course, we'd consume way more plants than we usually would in this present day. We would deprive those animals of food, given that most of the food that we non-vegetarians eat are grass-fed. Plus, if we consume more enormous quantities of plants as a result of becoming vegetarian, then we'd dispossess herbivorous animals of their main source of food as well, now would we? And I don't think that would be very beneficial to the environment, either. Unfortunately, life for multiple species cannot go on without consuming life of other species as well. http://www.mnwelldir.org... May God bless you as well. (Are you Catholic? If so, hi five!)
Being a Vegetarian is better than being a Non-veg

Yes, being a Vegan is definitely better than being a non-veg. You may say that meat has proteins, calcium, and so on. But if you take a closer look, vegetables and milk has the necessary vitamins, too! This is supported by the number of vegans in U.S.A which adds up to over 2.5 Million people, according to https://opinionessoftheworld.com... So aren't these people healthy? They do have the necessary nutrients and vitamins for the day. Besides, why would you want to kill innocent animals that suffer pain and still eat it? So, guys please consider this debate and change your lifestyle. It may be difficult at first, but slowly you can be a full veg. Start of with two days per week, then gradually change yourselves. I beg you to become a vegetarian. If any queries, you can ask me through this debate session. Thank you and may god bless you!
Communism doesn't work? Nor does Capitalism!

I just wanted to briefly talk about your opening argument, since I have nothing new to debate with. There are some things that we don't have an example for, yet we wee that they will work because we know other truths. There are some truths, like the fact that people act. There is no way around this. Even if people were fed and bathed and lived in a house that kept them warm, they would get bored. We have to act. And when we act, we move only for ourselves. We do only what we believe will benefit us the most in the end. Even when we do ‘selfless' acts, we are thinking for ourselves. Because we are always giving away something in order to get something more valuable to us back. Whether we give money to charities, or give our time as our jobs, we are getting in return, wages or the joy of knowing that we gave to an organization that will help starving children. Since we know that men act and that they act only out of their own desires, we need to know how to harness these truths and make the most ideal society. People that are able to choose are the people that are going to make this world better off. When we allow people to be able to express their own desires, the whole is benefited. Because as long as there are rules that enforce private property and contractual agreements, then we will always be striving to make the most use of the resources in this scarce world. As long as we have signs of what goods and services are in greater supply and less supply, by sound money producing pricing signals, we can make the right decisions. And even if we fail to make the right decision, we can fix ourselves and make the correct one the next time. But it is not in our best interest and in the interest of others to lead us to the ‘right' decision. We are all people that can take responsibility for ourselves. If we are able to assume responsibility and let free men make mistakes, then we will have capitalism at its finest. Since we know these truths, we don't need an example of an ideal capitalistic system. We know that it will work, because it is our only choice if we recognize our own tendencies. We don't have to prosper at the expense of other nations. We prosper because we make the right decisions for us. Capitalism does not take advantage of other peoples, as the misconception goes. Everyone is useful in a capitalistic state. There will be no race to the bottom. Capitalism is there to make us better off. Why would we willingly go back to Stone Age living conditions? We need to be realistic and realize that we are not a stupid people. We only take advantages of others now because we are misled by bad informants on how to run a country. It will take a little while, but we will eventually realize that we are not where we should be. Thanks Bryce
Communism doesn't work? Nor does Capitalism!

What do you mean by the fact that there must be an imbalance in capitalism? If we keep true to the principles of capitalism, then there is a large middle class and small lower and upper classes. People seem to believe that capitalism means that everyone wins and that if there are any failures, than capitalism has failed. Capitalism creates winners and losers, just like any other system. The difference is that there are more winners in capitalism than in other system. The losers don't lose as they do in communism or socialism, or fascism. I don't care whether you cite your last ‘fact' or not. That fact only measures monetary values anyways. The real issue is that there people that are more rewarded for their job than many others are. And that is not with money. An example would be teachers. Almost all people going into teaching know that there is not a high rate of return in monetary values. There is a high value otherwise. That is why they choose to teach. Some teachers want to see the kids learn, smile; have someone care for them. That is why they become teachers, not for the money. Because again, it's not about the money. Free-market economists know that more than anybody else. I have more wealth in telling someone about the free market than I do in trading stocks and making a lot more money. One to the next point…communism. I agree that large communist nations fail, but so do the smallest ones. Because the principles are the same. People know what they need and want more than the government ever will. The sooner we realize that, the sooner we will stop accepting handouts from the government. Al l communism fails and anything less than capitalism, or free-market, is a pathway to communism. So there is no other system to pick from. Socialism, fascism, anarchy, will all eventually lead to communism. Capitalism is not what we have in America. We have some eclectic system of capitalism, socialism, and fascism. Therefore, we are being led to COMMUNISM. Capitalism doesn't fail in other countries. The precursors for capitalism to be there are private property rights and upholding contracts. This is not the case in many third-world nations. The government owns much of the land and people do not keep contracts made with others, so stealing is prevalent. If these two principles are upheld, then capitalism will prosper and so will the people.