BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The age of majority should be lowered to 16

Age Of ConsentThe age of consent being 14 is too young. A person is still strongly influenced by adults. A study found that juveniles under 16 are more prone to giving false confessions. [1] This is because they are used to giving in to adults. Age of consent laws are to protect a minor from being manipulated. [2] In many places the age of consent is 16, AdvantageMaking the age of sexual consent 16 will not rush 16 year olds into having sex. It means an older person will not be arrested for having sex with a 16 year old. Let kids be kidsLike I said, lowering the age of consent to 16 will not rush 16 year olds into having sex. We were biologically made to have sex at 16.Summary I said there was a difference between developing and defective. In fact, the brain constantly rewires itself throughout our life, such as when we learn something new. There is no age where our brain stops rewiring itself. The picture is of brain development ages 5-20. The 16 year old brain has a purple matter which does not completely bar a 16 year old from functioning like an adult. 16 year olds can express complex emotions and thought.___________________ [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [2] http://sexetc.org... [3] http://www.theguardian.com... [4] http://www.sciencedaily.com...
The age of majority should be lowered to 16

Age Of Consent http://www.youtube.com...Thankyou for your insightful argument. My next topic will be about the age of consent let me ask you this if the adult age goes up wouldn't the the consensual age go down 18 is the actual age of an adult and still the age of consent where I live is 16 still very young. I've posted a trailer of the movie Lolita it's about a 14 year old girl having a sexual relationship with a man in his 40s looking at comments of the movie lots of people were quite uncomfortable with the premise even I admit it's awkward in some scenes. Here are my arguments. AdvantageWhen you are the adult you would have the advantage in the relationship because you are much older. Adults listen to other adults not teenagers. If it ends up being a 14 year age of consent let me remind you that girls are still going through puberty and stop at around 16 and 17 with boys they are later these aren't adults they are developing into them but it doesn't make them one. Age of consent will allow adults to have a sexual relationship with kids (teens can still date teens under the age of consent) that's what i'm really against. With age there does come power and respect that is a fact. Teens have much less than adults.Let Kids Be Kids We should not even be discussing if children can have sex it's just wrong and I feel horrible writing about it. We should not let it be so available to kids so we can try and let them live the last years of there youth. I remember being 15 and boyfriends and girlfriends were more of an accessory then anything else sometimes guys would date a girl for days none wanted a girlfriend cause they liked a person they did it so they can fit in you won't believe how many questions I pulled up of teens asking about sex and when they should give in cause the answer is when you want to not when everyone else does. But they don't have an identity anymore just the one that society came up with. Summary You said it yourself developing which means they aren't adults we shouldn't lower the age to be in an even earlier stage of development. Not all teens are emotional but most of them are you can't base a law on a lower majority it's always the bigger one. Kids should not have pressure put onto them. Kids are still very young and we shouldn't be letting them make such hard decisions. Link: http://kidshealth.org... http://www.express.co.uk... http://boards.dailymail.co.uk...http://www.theguardian.com... http://www.3news.co.nz...
The age of majority should be lowered to 16

1. Prefrontal CortexWhen you are a teen, your prefrontal cortex is still developing, that doesn't mean it's defective, and that does not mean you aren't ready for adulthood. For example, the age of majority is currently set at 18, even though the prefrontal cortex doesn't develop till 25. B. J. Casey and Kristina Caudle who did brain research wrote " when no emotional information is present, not only do many adolescents perform as well as adults, some perform even better." [1] During adolescence, we become increasingly sensitive to social cues. Sometimes these social cues are powerful enough to exert an emotional pull. 2. Amygdala What you described as a "quick temper" can and does happen to adults as well. It is called the "amygdala hijack," a term coined by Daniel Goleman in his book Emotional Intelligence. The amygdala is the emotional part of the brain, which regulates the "fight or flight response". When threatened, it can respond irrationally. [3]3. CerebellumA person's physical coordination has nothing to do with foresight and their ability to make decisions that might affect them for years.4. Nucleus AccumbensNot all teens are emotion filled.5. CompetenceLike I said, developing doesn't mean defective. According to a Google book, Health and the Female Adolescent, "since early adolescents cannot yet think abstractly, they cannot conceptualize the future". They said early adolescents, (12-15) not late adolescents.[4]___________________[1] http://newsinhealth.nih.gov...[2] https://www.sacklerinstitute.org...[3] http://www.psychologytoday.com...[4] http://books.google.com...
The age of majority should be lowered to 16

We all age differently but for those sort of laws with have to look at the majority. Teenage brains have not fully matured yet and won't be till around their mid 20s. I shall point out the neurobiological side of the debate and why teenagers still are not very ready to yet join the adult world (I'm 18 and still feel there are things I'm not even ready for) Prefrontal Cortex(Reasoning) Probably the biggest reason it should not be lowered. This part of the brain controls the impulses and reasoning and is not actually fully developed till your 20s. When this part of the brain is not mature it can lead to teenagers acting impulsively. To be a mature adult you need to have this part working well either matured or close to it.Amygdala(Emotions) This part of the brain is very over-reactive. It can lead them to be very passionate and their emotions to be very exaggerated it's like one emotion can be twice as strong which can lead them to relying too much on emotions with their Prefrontal Cortex still under development that can lead to quick tempers (something you can't have as an adult) Cerebellum (Physical Coordination) The Cerebellum is in charge of a persons physical coordination. When it matures it does so at very fast pace the problem with this is the other parts of the brain (Mainly the Prefrontal Cortex) are not exactly as mature as the cerebellum. For a human brain to work perfectly everything must be in equal terms if your racing as a team and one is way ahead that still does not mean your going to win. Nucleus Acumbens(Motivation) When the nucleas is under developed it can horribly mix with the lack of reasoning and emotion filled teens. It is a not a good thing especially without anything to control impulses it can be very worrying for parents and there kids. Summary: Teens may seem like an adult on the outside (well sometimes) but that can't compensate for what's going on up there. Some may mature earlier than others but that does not mean the same thing for everyone else. A teenager still has some maturing to do in the end they aren't kids but there still not adults so in the end that's the most important factor. A lack of maturity does not mix well with a lowered drinking age especially with a lack of reasoning. With the age of consent you have to worry about the people who can take advantage of that lack of reasoning but that's the next topic I shall bring up can't wait to hear back.Links: http://www.summ.org... http://teenbrain.drugfree.org... http://www.npr.org...
The age of majority should be lowered to 16

I will be debating that a 16 year old should be recognized as an adult under the law. By adult, I mean consenting to your own medical care and refusing medical treatment, leaving home without your parents permission, drinking, making your own educational decisions, working without parents permission and not having child labor laws apply, having consensual sex with anyone older then you and being tried in the adult court instead of the juvenile court.I was living on my own at 16, working full time, looking after myself. I never got into any kind of trouble. I was much more responsible at 19 then my parents were at that age. Now I see kids babied throughout their 20s. I think at 16 most of us are ready to be a part of the "real world", but many 16 year olds are not given responsibility and are convinced they are "children." If we lower the age of majority to 16 then that will give 16 and 17 year olds control over their lives. The higher the age of majority the less power you give to an individual. If we expect 16 year olds to behave like adults then they will behave like adults.
Compatibilism is false

Summary of dropped arguments. Con seems to have dropped his points arguing from both his point regarding determinism's relationship to the initial conditions of existence as well as the point regarding whether or not knowledge of something about to happen is compatible with that thing being 'caused'. As I showed in R3 (and as Con has brought no refutation against), Con's "contradiction" in determinism is really a contradiction in fatalism. The mistake arose from Con's failure to distinguish between the two concepts. Furthermore, Con's point arguing that just because we can predict something doesn't mean it was "caused" falls flat when we realize that the two possibilities can exist simultaneously as per my apply example. My opponent has not attacked these refutations directly, but has brought another (more emotionally tuned) point and it's that point that I'll be concerned with this round. Note: Con can't bring new criticisms or refutations of my arguments in the last round as per Rule 3 in R1. This includes the fatalism/determinism as well as the knowledge/metaphysics distinction. Human/object distinction. Con's counter-refutation is decidedly emotionally toned. His argument is from moral responsibility. Taken as a premise that people are responsible for their actions, free will is necessitated. For how can we hold responsible someone who had no choice in what they did? Actually, this argument is faulty on two levels. The first has to do with the fact that Con takes it as a simple presuppositions that moral responsibility exists (this comes with it the further burden of justifying moral realism, etc. ). Second, arguing from current modes of thought further brings unjustified presuppositions into the argument. Why should we accept that current practices are necessarily the right ones? Conclusion. Con has failed to bring any reason to accept compatibism. Each of his criticisms have either rested on failure distinguish relatively different concepts or are caused by unjustified prejudices and presuppositions. The former problem relates to Con's failure to distinguish between the claims of determinism and fatalism, the contradiction he presented resting solely with fatalism. Also along this line of reasoning was Con's failure to distinguish between knowing something will happen and that thing being necessitated to happen. Con conceived that these two properties couldn't exist simultaneously, something refuted by my apple example. The latter problem was due to Con failing to justify the presuppositions used, notably the "fact" of moral responsibility and the justification of our current legal and justice systems. Neither of these are or should be unconditional presuppositions invulnerable to error.
Compatibilism is false

No, the concept of determinism isn't to deny free will.I shall explain my points and refute yours simultaneously.If X causes Y to happen then X has caused Y to happen. Yes, no worries, you will let go of the apple "X1" and the apple feels gravity "X2" then this makes "Y" the apple falls to ground.However, the difference between one's actions and events are the issue.You are stating that a father raping his 4 year old daughter is equivalent to an apple dropping on the ground. That a sadistic axe murderer's victims merely underwent an event for which the axe murderer is merely non-responsible, it was predetermined no? In fact why do we put people in prison, invent punishment and bother with discipline if it assists 0% in preventing future crimes occurring? Well we don't do it because of that because that is clearly not the case. The rapist knew damn well how disgusting what he was doing is. Oh yes he did. The axe murderer is a lunatic mad man bound to be punished for life, threat to society! Just because it was determined, or 'fated' doesn't mean it wasn't their choice to do the disgusting things! That is all for this round.
Compatibilism is false

First, I'd like to point out that Con has not really attempted to refute my argument. He has not challenged either the validity of the argument or the soundness of the premises. Con simply states that he doesn't think there's any reason for them to be incompatible. That's what the argument I forwarded in R1 is for. On the "argument" related above, Con is simply asking why the two concepts are incompatible. Determinism/fatalism distinction.One possible source of confusion for my opponent is the distinction between fatalism and determinism and what they respectively entail. They are not the same or interchangeable as Con seems to think. Determinism is entirely concerned with causality. It is the thesis that given X, Y must happen. Fatalism is a more meta-version of this. It asserts that X as well as Y are "fated". So while a determinist might not think that the laws of nature or the beginning conditions of existence were "fated", a fatalist would.This ties into the debate in a very important way. Con claims that there's a possibility that fate could allow for people with free will to exist. Therefore, determinism isn't a necessitated fact. This I have no objection to. But determinism merely posits that gives so and so conditions, so and so effect will be necessitated. Fatalism as Con is describing it would seem to posit that the the initial conditions would also be predetermined. This is where the idea of contradiction comes into play, the idea that determinists posit the initial conditions as originally necessitated. But since the initial conditions don't seem logically necessitated, Con thinks this is a contradiction for determinism. On the contrary, it's a contradiction in fatalism.Knowledge/metaphysics distinction.The last point of Con's counter that I think worth responding to is his claim that "the capacity of rational agents to choose is not non-existent, it merely is predictable based upon the laws of fate." I don't see these two propositions as contradictory though. For instance, given the laws of physics, if you drop an apply in your kitchen, it will most likely fall to the ground. Now even though we can predict that this will happen, that doesn't mean that certain initial conditions (i.e., gravity) don't causally necessitate the apple to fall. Herein lies the distinction between knowledge of the world and the world itself. Knowledge that event A is going to happen is not necessarily a contradiction with event A being causally necessitated on its own.Con's refutation has rested simply on confusion between distinct concepts, determinism with fatalism and knowledge with metaphysics respectively. Clearing up these confusions should show that Con's counter isn't sound and that the consequence argument I forwarded in R2 remains uncountered.
Compatibilism is false

I, unlike you, shall not steal another person's argument. I see that you, too have only one contention so I see it as fair to give mine.I would prefer to call determinism 'fate' since I think 'fate' is a concept that the majority of people can relate to as opposed to determinism, which indicates a superior being determining things for us, and I am not religious and do not at all think God should be brought in (I'm not accusing pro at all of bringing God in but want to make a clear exclusion of this from the debate).My contention is as follows (I know one is not a lot but there is really only one contention to discuss for con):You determine free will to be as follows: A particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives.You define fate as follows: The idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature.I do agree with fate. In fact I would go as far as to say I would bet my life on fate as opposed to chaos theory.I also believe in free will. They are compatible.There is not a reason why fate is compatible with free will other than the fact that there is no reason for them to be incompatible.This is essentially my contention:What if fate allows there to exist a group of rational agents which have capacity to choose a course of action from among various alternatives? What is the reason to claim that one defies the other? Regardless of the choice/decision being predetermined, the capacity of rational agents to choose is not non-existent, it merely is predictable based upon the laws of fate.I think that I wrote that to best of my linguistic ability. If it confuses you, feel free to query it.
Compatibilism is false

The argument which I'm about to forward is known broadly as the consequence argument for incompatibilism, formulated and defended by Peter Van Inwagen. The version which I intend to defend in this debate isn't the same word for word as Van Inwagen's formulation but it retains the basis structure. The original formulation itself goes as follows:"If determinism is true, then our acts are the consequences of the laws of nature and events in the remote past. But it is not up to us what went on before we were born, and neither is it up to us what the laws of nature are. Therefore, the consequences of these things (including our present acts) are not up to us."[1]P1- On determinism, our actions are consequences of the laws of nature in conjunction with past events and circumstances.P2- Both the laws of nature as well as past events and circumstances exist outside of our control.C1- Therefore, our actions are outside of our control.Our actions cannot be both in and outside of our control. Therefore, if I can defend the consequence argument then compatibilism will have been shown to be false. Seeing as this argument is of the type that takes relatively uncontroversial premises to establish a controversial conclusion, it will obviously be difficult for me to defend the specific points in the argument without knowing what criticisms Con plans on bringing. Therefore I'll leave the argument as it is for now and expand wherever Con decides to focus his refutation.Good luck to Con and I certainly look forward to an enjoyable debate.===Sources===[1] Essay on Free Will by Peter Van Inwagen. Cited: (http://www.informationphilosopher.com...)
Compatibilism is false

===Resolution===Pro in this debate will argue that free will and (causal) determinism are incompatible; that if every event is necessitated by previous conditions and events, then human beings cannot also possess the ability to choose among possible courses of action. The BoP is on Pro to bring an argument and to defend it in support of the resolution. Con's only burden is to deconstruct/refute Pro's argument.===Definitions==="Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism."[1]Determinism is "the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature."[2]Free will is "a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives".[3] There are obviously competing theories on the specifics of what free will is and what it entails. I've kept the definition purposely vague so that if my opponent has a rival explanation for what the definition entails, they may argue for it.Compatibility is obviously the capacity for two conditions or entities to exist simultaneously.===Rules===1. Drops will count as concessions. 2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted. 3. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted. 4. R1 is for acceptance. Argumentation begins in R2. 5. BoP is shared between Pro and Con. ===Source===[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...[2] http://plato.stanford.edu...[3] http://plato.stanford.edu...
Our generation is victim of low expectations - Books

Firstly, to clarify. I have based my argument on the sole fact that the current generation seems to be slacking off, when compared against what our full potential could be. I am not saying that there are no inspirational books that are directed at teens (teens being persons between the age of 13 and 19 approximately). If anything there are more books attempting to teach teens important life skills. But do most any teens read those kinds of books? How many non-fiction, character-building, inspirational books do you see on the teen best-seller list? http://www.amazon.com... http://www.barnesandnoble.com... http://www.borders.com... Not many. Furthermore, regarding our God-given potential. I am saying that we have been given amazing abilities and talents that we are wasting. What are we expected to do as teens? I found an articles on "teaching teen responsibility by setting expectations". Here is what that article said we are expected to do: Preteens: Managing an allowance. Making plans with friends and giving parents all of the necessary information. Have useful daily habits like making his/her bed and picking up his/her room. Cleaning his/her room – vacuuming, dusting, etc – weekly, with some parental help. Take phone messages and putting them where someone will see them. Older Teens: Everything on the preteen list that you have not added before. Doing a daily household chore, such as cleaning the dinner dishes, straightening the family room, swiping down the bathroom, etc. Helping with the weekly household chores. Make sure the gas gauge in the car does not go below a quarter of a tank. Marking special dates and plans on the family calendar or planner. Please do not feel that your teenager should be doing all of them. Pick and choose a few and add on as your teen is able to handle more responsibilities. Now doesn't it seem like we could be doing a little more that just that? Secondly, respond. I looked at all 3 of VirginianRobin's links. The first one was a list of educational books directed at teens. But, as i said before, how many teens actually read them? The second link was referring to educational levels 50 years ago. I do not think he fully understood what i meant. I meant that what is expected of us by most parents, teachers, and even society has dropped in the last 50 years, as well as how much we are expected to know and take responsibility for. I did not mean that our grades plummeted. Most of us probably know more than people did in the 1950s. But they were not expected to know as much because they were not as advanced as we are now. Now all of the recourses to seemingly limitless knowledge are practicably at our fingertips. So why are we not taking advantage of this knowledge? The third link was stating that Obama is pushing for higher education standards. The only reason that I can think of that explains why VirginianRobin would post this link is to show that America is smart. But notice it says that we show "promise of improvement", which means that we were not doing that well to begin with. Now I have one question for VirginianRobin. Why are we not taking advantage?