BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cruelty is the Heart of Human Nature

1st A person who does not want to sleep with you you, so you could lose your virginity, yes, my apologies for thinking that was a joke. You can always pay a slut to sleep with you. You both get what you want that way.. Not much to do with your claim of human cruelty. 2nd about the welfare system. How cruel of me to be willing to work, earn money and give money to the people that refuse to work and do nothing so they can have an apartment to live in, buy food and booze with them and have healthcare. Not bare minium, much more, Not cruel to make us pay for those people, it'd be cruel to let them suffer. Since we are not cruel, we pay for those individuals. -------------------- And yes I agree with you that humans can be cruel, and sometimes even are. But overwhelmingly towars each other humans are definitely not, in our day to day lives. A few bad apples can't make the rest of us look bad. Auf wiedersehen. Kind person.
Cruelty is the Heart of Human Nature

So my closing statements. I must first respond to three points of Con. The first being the easiest: You dismiss an experiment, and granted your reasons are real, but where is your evidence?Secondly: In the comments (oddly enough as that you have 10,000 characters with which to work) you mock one of the examples of an ideal world I offer. My quote "Those poor souls who seem unable to even get a date would find a sympathetic slut who would cure them of their virginity", and you question if this is a joke. I notice you do not think the following line is a joke. Now I propose you put that in the comments to hide your lack of empathy for a specific group, and your CRUEL mockery of them.Finally, the Welfare Argument. Of course the welfare system is held up by many as a testament of Human progress, but it's not. First, the economics of welfare do very little good for those on it, providing them with only the basic necessities and often placing restrictions on what they can and cannot do. But let us also tear your argument to shreds: "Millions of workers work, earn money and everyone gives part of that so even the poorest people, even the criminals,scum, people that don't want to work get food, healthcare and so on?" Let us discount the poorest people and the criminals, as that not every poor individual is poor by bad decisions and once criminals have served their time, then they are back in Society. However, it is the next two groups: the "scum" and "people that don't want to work" that demonstrates Human Cruelty. I cannot discern the group to whom you direct the word "scum" but can only assume you mean uncaught Criminals. Sad, but no way for the State to know. However, as for "people that don't want to work", isn't it Cruel that the State takes those persons in jobs, some in jobs they despise, and forces them to surrender a portion of their wages to provide wages to a group that can only be defined as lazy?-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------CLOSING:People are Cruel. Cursory glances throughout history, philosophy, and deep reflection will tell you that.Au Revoir!
Cruelty is the Heart of Human Nature

There is absolutely no question if some humans are cruel in somce certain situations, violent or whatnot. Btw that experiment can not be taken seriously, conducted once, only males etc.. you apparently don't know how science goes in the long run. But you are entirely, completely ignoring how kind and pleasant humans overwhelmingly are towards each other. Our goal, in fact, is kindness, at least where I live and that is what we are from the bottom of our hearts, like Canadians. well it doesn't matter what anyone says to you, your mind will still remain the same, you are only human, how could you be anything else. ------------------------ Just for this once, adress an extremely nice deed done by humans. I don't know where you are from, but is not welfare system any familiar to you? Millions of workers work, earn money and everyone gives part of that so even the poorest people, even the criminals, scum, people that don't want to work get food, healthcare and so on? oh how cruel we humans are.
Cruelty is the Heart of Human Nature

1st. Ever heard of arguments from authority? Opinions, words said by philosophers, or anyone that matter are irrelevant when it comes to proving a hypotheses of a theory correct, in this case your claim if cruelty is the heart of human nature. That claim can, again, be easily tested, since it can be observed in the nature, put into test. - Non of this is debatable, since obviously cruelty is definitely not the most common trait seen in humans, the verb of being cruel. 2nd Yes, American revolution, French revolution, the Armenian genocide, World Wars, the crusades, all crimes against humanity done by the Japanese soldiers towards the Chinese, South Korean, massacres in all Africa throughout history of mankind. Humans in certain circumstances are and can be extremely cruel towards everything on their way. From all that do you accuse of humans being cruel in the their hearts.. As you must be fully aware of yourself, you are just and only looking at the cruel acts ongoing in the world at the moment and done in the past. Now le us state all the good deeds done by mankind. Take an example your home country or mine, Finland. We are humans, we live in complete peace, do you with a serious face accuse us of being cruel and acting like such?
Cruelty is the Heart of Human Nature

Quotes of philosophers are unfortunately irrelevant when it comes to this matter and take us no closer finding the answers to this question... ... we are talking about traits of human beings, animal, which can be observed in nature and take conclusions. I appreciate your examples which you have posted in your argument, examples where humans have acted in a not kind way towards other human beings, there is modern slavery, human trafficking in this world, drug wars etc.. etc.. been in the history of mankind and will be to the near future. Does that mean cruelty is the heart of human nature? Absolutely not. For once, answer this question and argue it, is the world today or not in it's most least cruel state that is has ever been in it's history? I say it is, which means humans may be cruel, but is definitely not the most common trait in us. For your claim to be true, you would have to be cruel also, I doubt that, you seem nice so far.
Cruelty is the Heart of Human Nature

I apologise for my short answer to this big claim, if cruelty is the most common trait, heart of human nature.. From an evolutionary point of view overall cruelty is definitely not advantegous over a long time, violence, aggressive behaviour, these traits do exist, but it is definitely not a trait that is show the most in human beings, or even animals in general that matter. That is the reason why Europe has become a very stable place on this planet to live, we are capable of that, because we are definitely not cruel animals by heart. second - you can even test this claim of yours very quickly, if cruelty is the most commonly used adjective to describe humans in your life, then.. I'm sorry for you, you deserve better than that.
Cruelty is the Heart of Human Nature

Time to make the argument of my avatar.Rules:No Trolling.Cite Sources in CommentsNew Arguments can be Made at any time (but remember, if you do this, you will have less time to defend a new argument and/or substantiate it)If you do choose to cite a book, please cite in MLA format, and also provide a link to the book on Amazon or some other retail site. Google Books may be cited as a secondary.No Sources in the First Argument. You may reference, but not directly quote, although a quote will be expected in the following arguments.I am intending that this be the first in a series of debates I have planned on this subject.When accepting, please state whether or not I am permitted to quote from your arguments for my personal work on the subject matter.Order of Rounds:Round 1: Opening Statements (No Sources, just state your case)Round 2: Elaborations (Sources Start Here)Round 3: Refutations Round 4: Rebuttals/Continue Refutations.Round 5: Closing Arguments (Sources permitted here)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------OPENING STATEMENT:History is littered with the actions of sadistic kings, cruel conquerors, and wicked bandits. From the ancient Assyrians so well known for decimating cities to the mass crucifixions imposed by Imperial Roman Order, to the unfeeling vicious raiding of the Barbars and the nearly genocidal reaction of the European Crusaders, all the way the the Enlightenment, which culminated in the Terror, examples of human cruelty can be found in abundance. Even today the modern world we still bear witness to human cruelty. From terrorists to serial killers, we still see the evidence of the truth of Human Nature.I propose that Cruelty is the very essence of Human Nature. Like the beasts from which we evolved, we are still very vicious and violent. Although we have accepted various morals, whether they be social or moral, Human Nature still finds a way. Whether it be through truly neglecting those in need, such as the homeless, or living out violent fantasies in media provided for us, we still indeed very vicious (Albeit in a more acceptable way). The reality of Human Cruelty cannot be denied. We are still very much beasts of the jungle, and will most likely never evolve beyond that (as if there is truly anything that is really beyond that). This is a fact which has not gone unnoticed throughout the pages of philosophy. From ancient China's Xunzi to Hobbes to Sade, we see Cruelty discussed not the End result of circumstances, but as the Means to whatever Ends are desired.Whether one takes the testament of history, the writings of philosophers, or one's own empirical analysis, one cannot deny the fact that Cruelty is at the Heart of our Nature as Human Beings. To deny this is to deny reality and envelop one's self in a dream world. Cruelty is our most essential character trait as a species.
The atomic bomb should have been dropped on Japan.

So you say that all the civilians were raised to serve their emperor and that it was a childhood thing...mind giving me some evidence? Is there like a website that you got it from or something? I can't believe that statement unless you have some sort of proof. Also, you say many people in your third sentence. So technically, that's not everyone. I did say before that some people might of been innocent and I'm sticking to that point. Even though you say that they were raised and taught that their emperor was god, that doesn't mean all of them listened. Have you heard of rebels? There's always at least one person who actually realizes the real problem. They're actually aware of what is going on around them. And you say that the bombs were carefully thought out. So what if it was carefully planned out?! The bombing was an extremely risky move. If anything went wrong, the world could possibly be in catastrophe. Just because they bombed two of the largest cities, that doesn't mean they didn't damage earth. Quite the opposite in fact. If they bombed such big cites, that means that they ruined a lot of land. That point supports me. Not you. Okay, so the Americans sent warnings and leaflets, I'll give you that. But, there's a possibility the Japanese thought that the American were joking. They didn't believe it. And adding to their stubborn personality that you say they supposedly have, that made them even more persistent in believing that the Americans were bluffing. You also say that they trusted and believed in their king, so there is a possibility that the king was responsible for their stubbornness as well. They're both reasonable excuses to why they did not surrender.
The atomic bomb should have been dropped on Japan.

All the civilians were raised to serve their emperor so it would be a childhood thing. For example if someone grew up with a stereotype, they would probably believe it unless there is an outside influence. Many people were raised being taught that the Japanese emperor was a son of god and he was to rule the world. If some people really wanted to hide they should have or could have gone into a neighboring country such as China where they weren't trying to take over the world. Even if all the plants and animals were also effected, only two major cities were bombed and the bombs were carefully thought out. For example they were dropped on the largest cities that were major threats where the civilians felt strongly about their cause. Therefore, the species have to have been located somewhere else and could have reproduced and spread into Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Americans had sent warnings on leaflets stating they had a dangerous weapon and if Japan wouldn't surrender they would use it. Since the Americans even warned the Japanese, they had no excuse to continue being stubborn and they should have surrendered so they were forewarned of future incidents.
The atomic bomb should have been dropped on Japan.

You mentioned that the atomic bomb should've been dropped on Japan because it limits the loss of lives. And then from there you mention how it stops the war and limits the lost of lives. And you say the bomb ensured that fewer people from both sides would die. That's not necessarily true. You do realize that by dropping the bomb, it's the exact same thing compared to the Japanese fighting to death. It doesn't ensure that less people will die. It creates too many more deaths. Not everyone wanted to fight to death. There were people who where hiding and hoping that the war would be over soon. When the Americans dropped the bomb, those innocent lives were been taken away as well. How does that limit the amount of deaths??? How do you know all the civilians were willing to die for the emperor? You don't know all of them. You probably don't know any of them. And technically, by dropping the bomb on Japan, it has created more problems than solutions. This bomb dropping has proved to people how powerful an atomic bomb can be and then from there, create the idea of using nuclear weapons in wars more often. The atomic bomb didn't only hurt humans, it hurt the earth too. It destroyed plants & animals, as well as polluting the air and the water. The Americans only thought about stopping the humans. But they never realized that the impact didn't only hit the humans. It hit the lives of all those other living things in Japan. Dropping the atomic bomb on Japan.... that was one of America's worst ideas ever.
The atomic bomb should have been dropped on Japan.

The atomic bomb should have been dropped on Japan because it limited the loss of lives. If the war would have continued, many Japanese and American troops would have died. The atomic bomb ensured that fewer American troops would loose their lives and fewer Japanese troops would also loose their lives. If they had continued fighting many more Japanese and Americans would have died because the Japanese were raised and taught the code of Bushido. This means that they would fight upon death. Therefore the Japanese had nothing to loose. All civilians were willing to die for their emperor. However, the Americans wanted to stay alive. If necessary, the Japanese from other parts of Japan were willing to join forces with the rest of Japan to attack Americans. They even did the daring Kamikaze attacks which were pretty much suicide bombings. Thus, it was a good thing that the Americans dropped an atomic bomb on Japan. (1) http://apecsec.org... (2) http://jsg558.tripod.com...
The atomic bomb should have been dropped on Japan.

I'm Sorry I was very busy for the last round . But to continue my argument.... Although it is true that there may have been some rebels and some people may have been against Japan, they could have gone to a neighboring country. Not only this but the majority of the people agreed with the emperor. Therefore the small group of rebels wouldn't be able to make a difference. If they really wanted to make a difference they could have joined the U.S. Army or secretly have helped the United States. In addition, Japan was the country who had dragged The United States into World War 2. The United States was being neutral and simply stopped trading with Japan because they found Japan a threat to democracy. Other than that Japan did not have any reason to bring America into war. The bomb may not have been as strong as the atomic bombs dropped in but the way the Japanese planned it was. They dropped it on Pearl Harbor on a Sunday in the morning when many people were at church or were resting. This maximized the impact of the bomb on Pearl Harbor. In addition, the bomb was dropped near Christmas time which is one of the biggest holidays for Americans. The loss of many innocent lives and property was a really negative thing even though Christmas is supposed to be a happy time. Also as you stated that they may have taken the warnings as a joke, nothing is a joke when it comes to war. In war everything is to be taken seriously and any warning, threat, or plan could be crucial to winning or preventing further loss. If the Japanese didn't take it seriously, it was their loss. They may have damaged the earth but war damages the earth too. This is because the blood and dead bodies may impact some plants and/or animals negatively. Since they bombed the two biggest cities in Japan, they must have been advanced so they may have already been lacking a very diverse ecosystem. Thus, the atomic bomb should have been dropped. The evidence you asked for:- (1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
The PS4 is a better console than the Xbox One

This is about the Xbox One and PS4. Why do you think we can expect Xbox One to be better? Ill explain why the ps4 console will be better. 1. More powerful. It has double the GPU shader cores as the GPU in the Xbox One. It also has 8gb GDDR5 ram vs. the Xbox Ones lesser powerful 8gb DDR3 2. PS4 is cheaper. It is $399 and Xbox One is $499. 3. PS4 has more privacy. Kinect has privacy issues considering its required to be always on and has a high fidelity camera and microphone listening and watching you. To make matters worse, Microsoft was the first company to sign on to the NSA's PRISM program which is a large government datamining database. 4. PS4 has less restrictions. On XB1, the premium online service is required to watch Netflix, an Internet connection is required to first set up the console, and the 500gb internal HDD is non-removable. PS4 does not require a premium service to watch Netflix, requires no Internet connectivity, and the internal HDD is removable. 5. PS4 supports indie games. On XB1, indie developers are not allowed to self-publish. They need to get support of a large publisher. PS4 let's indie games self publish. Minecraft was an example of an indie game that became very successful. 6. PSN+ is cheaper than Xbox Live (retail by $10 for a yearly subscription), gives free recent games, and offers discounts to PSN players. Xbox Live does not offer recent free games, is more expensive, and doesn't offer as many discounts as PSN+
Is Cheers better than Frasier

Cheers is a show that will stay in the minds of Americans because of it's humor. The character's reactions to each other were perfect; Sam & Diane, Carla & Cliff, Lilith & Frasier. You can't forget such a great cast of characters that acted every line perfectly. They were consistently funny, with even the bad episode being great. It never took a nosedive like Frasier did. Even though people argued that the later seasons were not as good, they were still better than some other shows ever aspired to be. In the end, Cheers was consistently funny. It had a bar filled with funny characters, both major and minor. Frasier focused only on the five main characters, who stayed constant and who sometimes got old. That is why Cheers is better then Frasier.
Is Cheers better than Frasier

In Cheers, the bar was the anchor. Although the majority of the shots were filmed there, there were great moments outside of it. Sam and Diane's first night together, the Gary's Olde Town Tavern episodes, and of course, the series finale had parts in Melville's and on a plane. Frasier, while not having one place, was still anchored to his apartment, radio station, and Caf" Nervosa. This created a different effect. Cheers, in the end, was really about friendship. That friendship anchored around the bar. It served as a useful backdrop. Although Frasier was consistently very witty, Cheers had other great humor. They had some of the trademark humor of Frasier in its early stages, characters who never got along, dumb characters, you name it, they've got it. Frasier stuck mostly to witty jokes, while Cheers had variety. Both Cheers and Frasier were great shows, but Cheers is on top. It had heart and soul. Everything was still very funny, but it always felt meaningful. Frasier didn't always feel that way. Cheers had characters that anyone could connect to. Frasier was close, but not to the point that Cheers was.
Is Cheers better than Frasier

Frasier is a sitcom that had both a high and low humor contrast, and the humor was emphasized on things that were downright goofy. Consistently. It's witty. With Frasier the characters become more developed than Cheers. No offense to the show, because it was amazing, but you can only do so much in that bar. Cheers, it's that bar and in Frasier you get to see outside of his apartment.
Is Cheers better than Frasier

Short debate to prove that Cheers is better than Frasier. Cheers is a deep show that, while remaining funny, dealt with serious issues. Even at it's worst moments (later seasons), it still held viewers and was funny and always worth watching. Frasier on the other hand, declines towards the end. Cheers kept a changing cast and crew (due to Nicholas Colasanto's death, Shelley Long's departure, and Kelsey Grammer and Bebe Neurwith's arrival). Cheers also appeals to a wider range; people who thought that their lives were not a successful as they could be, well to do people (Frasier and Lilith), athletes, and many more. Frasier is focused on Frasier's life, and he is surrounded by the elite. This obviously appeals to less people.