BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"Having Sex" Is Rational; "Making Love" Is Not

At this point, you haven"t countered my counter with a good argument. To refresh, my argument was that "Having Sex" is based in the subconscious and "Making Love" is based in emotion. Both of those are either rational or irrational, you can make arguments from either side. However, you cannot say that subconscious is rational if emotional is irrational and vice versa because emotion and logic are two different controls in the brain. Logic stems from the Neocortex, emotion from the Limbic system, and sexual arousal (and sexual impulse) from the Basal Ganglia. Note, that neither emotion nor sexual arousal are located in the Neocortex, where logic occurs. We can therefore deem that sex is illogical. Because sex is illogical, the process of having sex, no matter what it is, is not in accord with logic and, therefore is irrational. This proves that "Having Sex" and "Making Love" are both irrational. Your argument is predicated on the idea that "Having Sex" is rational. Your argument is thereby disproven. ======== I brought up the fact that I was a linguist for the sake of illuminating how by saying that I was playing semantics, you were arguing that I was challenging your definition, but I think you meant to say that I was arguing a minuscule difference. Thoughtful means something along the lines of "done with a high level of consideration" and your definition of rational, which I disagree with in the context of this debate, are being used similarly, but I"m not sure why you used "thoughtful" or what you mean by it. You predicate your whole argument on this definition of rationality. You haven"t shown why that definition should be accepted in this debate. The definition I used is the dictionary definition. You need to justify your definition because I don"t think it is applicable. Is your argument only based in game theory? You probably should have said in the beginning that "this debate is going to be though the lens of game theory." Because you did not, it is not. What convention was presented that I am ignoring? While I appreciate how you think of love, what you are describing is empathy. Empathy and love are not the same thing, even though they usually occur around one another. Empathy, however, is not artistic and neither is love as they are emotions. Empathy is a wonderful thing and it doesn"t have to be artistic to be wonderful. You haven"t justified how empathy is artistic. Also, I take slight offense at the idea that art and rationality are mutually exclusive. I"m a professional musician and I an tell you that everything done in music (and most likely all other arts) is rational. Music that is irrational is never enjoyed because it doesn"t communicate anything --except irrationality.
"Having Sex" Is Rational; "Making Love" Is Not

At this point, you're asserting your counter just to fill up space. Claiming that your argument wasn't "taken down" is like being a pinned wrestler who claims one isn't pinned by another. Another pinned one whether one says so or not. Please don't make claims of incoherence, etc. If you're going to present an argument, then present it. We know what's meant by semantics as well. Whether you're a linguist or not has nothing to do with anything.Game theory was implictly referred to before in referring to evolutionary stable strategy and nash equilibrium. It didn't need to be explictly referred to. Please stop repeating previous arguments over the original unambiguous definition of "rational".It's unclear why you're claiming "thoughtful" needs to be defined separately from "rational" either. It's been previously explained how all forms of thought are not strategically efficient. When you refer to not being mutually exclusive, you have burden of proof backwards. Someone has to show those definitions are uniform, not diverse. Words do not have the same definition by default. Actually, if anyone's equivocating, it's you. You've equivocated "rational" and "thoughtful" being the same. Please don't project.The same goes for not meeting the burden of proof on rational not being efficiently strategizing. At this point, you're just brutally asserting yourself over and over for the sake of it. Convention was presented, and you're just ignoring it.I'm not applying anything to animals either. My argument was animals don't consent. Someone who claims they do consent would be applying a capacity to animals. By default, people are entitled to be skeptical.Even your example of bonobos is controversial since primates are the blurry line between animals and people, and your fruit bat example isn't foreplay. It actually involves touching genitals rather than teasing in an approach to savor the moment. In fact, the scientists even suggested a functional purpose of lubrication and increased quantity of time spent copulating.It's unclear why you're referring to being stopped before completion either. Making something is a process, not a result. Something can be in the process of being made before it's completed, and some things are made perpetually throughout a process. Stopping a process doesn't invalidate it.Even the notion of treating "love" as an emotion is controversial, and you even refer to the actual emotion of "lust" which I never referred to before. Love is also interpreted as thinking about how another feels in order to relate, and I've considered this before in terms of "making love" where people think about how each other physically feels among other terms. However, that thought isn't rational. It's artistic.It's not constructive to expect someone to repeat oneself. Please don't do this in the future.
"Having Sex" Is Rational; "Making Love" Is Not

I continue asserting my counter because you, thus far, haven"t taken down my argument. As a linguist, I should inform you that "semantics" means "the study of meaning," so if I"m playing semantics, that means we are debating the meaning of a word. It is impossible to communicate about the color blue if one person is calling grass blue and also the sky. This is the first time you bring up game theory explicitly. This definition of "rational" clarifies your definition, but you are using equivocation to try and create an argument. You either defined "rational" as something completely different before or you used "rational" with two definitions without clarifying which one you are using. Either way, it is ambiguous. You say that ""rational" actors strategize efficiently" then you jump to the conclusion that "efficiently strategizing" is "rationality," but you haven"t shown that. Very easily, someone could say that rationality is strategizing, but it doesn"t require that it be efficient (it could just be that acting upon rationality requires efficiency, but rationality itself does not require it). Semantically, "rational" means in accord with logic. Even in game theory, rational means the same thing, however, it is viewed with a microscope and applied to different situations, but it means the same thing - in accord with logic. [Source: http://www.ams.org...]. You need to define thoughtful because thoughtful and rational are two things that are not mutually exclusive therefore I don"t know what you mean by "what"s specifically rational, not generally thoughtful." You haven"t met the burden of proof to define rationality as efficiently strategizing. You are correct about animals not necessarily consenting, but you are applying human-level linguistic capacity to animals. Animals don"t really have the ability to consent in a way we can understand because most don"t have the capacity to understand the future or hypotheticals. They can do a mating dance and accept or not or it can happen by force, but by force is usually done when the hierarchy allows it (so it may be non-disputed and thereby ambiguous in regards to consent). Your argument about the necessities of "Making Love" can be broken by asking if before the engagement is complete, if the individuals are stopped by a fire, others, natural events, etc, were they still "Making Love?" "Making Love" involves the emotion love. Typically, when in love, the purpose of "Making Love" is to physically express the emotion of love usually by helping giving another pleasure. You need to research on animal foreplay. Certain animals do engage in foreplay two are Bonobos [http://www.primates.com...] and Fruit Bats: [http://news.discovery.com...]. You haven"t shown that "Making Love" necessarily requires a difference between "Having Sex" beyond an emotional one (Love v Lust ("Making Love" v "Having Sex")).
"Having Sex" Is Rational; "Making Love" Is Not

At this point you're brutally asserting your counter. I'm getting the impression that you're claiming I'm incoherent despite being coherent because you have nothing else to say and are just playing semantics.For clarification's sake, however, please remember what I said about "evolutionary stable strategy" and "nash equilibriums" before. This suggested that "rational" was interpreted in terms of game theory where "rational" actors strategize efficiently. In fact, there's even an entire related field of game theory dedicated to this specifically called "rational choice theory". Again, we are talking about what's specifically rational, not generally thoughtful. People can think completely and consistently about concepts without efficiently strategizing. Your claims of this being the other way around in terms of cost-benefit analysis and mathematical example are backwards and unconventional. The fields of study previously referred to demonstrate convention. This is not strictly a matter of logic. It's a matter of logic being exercised a specific way.If you're confused about "risk balancing" then I would hope you understand that strictly biologically speaking, animals do not necessarily consent to have sex nor do they climax in nature. Making love necessarily involves both of these things which includes taking quality time, energy, and attention without overlooking nuances, details, and intricacies in the processes of foreplay and teasing as previously described.I mean animals don't do any of this. They just get at it to get their rocks off. They feel an urge, and release it. Making love expresses original and technical genius which isn't rational. It's artistic. That's why I referred to Immanuel Kant before by the way.Lastly, I also see what you're saying about the "level of rationality involved is equal", but what you're again mistaking is the difference between the means and the ends as I've previously described. The means of making love are not equal to the ends of having sex.
"Having Sex" Is Rational; "Making Love" Is Not

I"m sorry, but your argument is incoherent and you didn"t reject my counter. My counter still disproves your position on this issue and you need to disarm it if you want to be able to prove your point. You keep dancing around it and talk about feelings and this vague understanding of I wasn"t saying that rationality isn"t an elegant idea, I"m saying that I think your definition of rationality is wrong because it isn"t elegant. Rationality doesn"t include a cost-benefit analysis of risk calculation...logical thought does, but rationality and logical are not always the same thing. For something to be rational it is to be in accord with logic or reason, but not necessarily the same thing. Your third paragraph is really ambiguous because you are trying to imply that "Having Sex" involves risk balancing. You haven"t made that argument. In fact, I, for all intensive purposes, can argue that, because it is a subconscious desire, we cannot call all instances of "Having Sex" based in rationality because the possibility exists that the level of rationality involved is equal to that of someone "Making Love." If "Making Love" is irrational, so is "Having Sex" and if it is not, neither or either. Your fourth paragraph is all over the pace. I used my mathematical example to illustrate rationality. You are using ambiguity in your argument again. You argue that my example is "thoughtful, but not all forms of thought are rational" but I never argued that all forms of thought are rational. You brought Kant into this to bolster your argument, but your statement is unrelated to our debate here. You argue that love goes beyond biology, but the side you are taking in this debate is that of ""Having Sex" is rational; "Making Love" is Not" however you just conceded that biology can be rational. Your final "point" is that "Making Love" goes beyond biology, but rationality doesn"t stem from biology it stems from a line of thought or a process being in accord with logic. You haven"t argued that "Making Love" must be irrational.
"Having Sex" Is Rational; "Making Love" Is Not

To be clear, yes, rationality is not necessarily an elegant idea (which is why this is an artistic debate). It can be coarse, rough, crude, brutal, and nasty. Strategic efficiency is not necessarily a smooth or sensitive process. It often entails overlooking details, nuances, and intricacies just to come up with a general concept that doesn't deal with specific reality. This is especially rational because being rational includes efficiently using one's attention span. Perfection is not necessarily efficient. Even trying to approach perfection isn't necessarily efficient nevermind expressing an idea with style. For example, flirting and foreplay entail using words and items out of place to implicitly suggest what you really want.In fact, "making love" often entails surprises where you're deliberately inefficient just to give your partner something unexpected. On the other hand, you're also inefficient in not constantly surprising your partner because that's spoiling.Even the notion of doing something "without fail" is off the mark. Rationality includes cost-benefit analysis where you calculate the amount of risk you're willing to accept to achieve a reward. Making love, however, involves feeling secure. What your mathematical example described is thoughtful, but all forms of thought are not rational. In fact, even Immanuel Kant, the forefather of modern aesthetics, described beauty as "purposiveness without a purpose". This is detected by genius which recognizes technique from originality: http://www.iep.utm.edu...This is even why making love is better than using toys or fantasizing. Partners are original sources that think about what each other feels. They aren't imitations of the real thing. Unfortunately, relationships also fall apart and people cheat because partners no longer find each other original.What you said about fornicating ignores what I said about mistaking the ends for the means, so I'll advance that argument. The same thing goes for your reference to emotional gratification which ignores what I said about feeling rationality. I agree that biology can be rational. My point is making love goes beyond biology.
School Uniforms are a good idea

Supporting Rebuttals:1. There might not be a huge difference to whether the uniforms are school-supplied or not, but there can still be much competition. Like I said before, you have to take into consideration where some of these kids come from. There are many kids with unemployed parents, rendering them incapable of tending to their clothes. Other kids can afford to take two showers a day, have countless pairs of clothes, and two washing machines. Example:http://gb.dockers.com...^ Dirty, worn, version of khakishttp://farm1.static.flickr.com...^Nice, clean, pair of khakis.Do you see the difference? Like I said in my earlier arguments, there is no way to stop this competition and bullying by making students wear identical pieces of clothing. 4. I must make clear that some students cannot stand school. Perhaps they are bullied, and made fun of. Chances are that they hate that uniform. Perhaps to them, it symbolises the hard times that they went through during adolescence. I stand by what I said when I stated: There is no way to get someone to like school, or there peers, or even get them to feel united, with such diverse communities of people in one building.Rebuttals:While the statistics that you have brought up are very convincing, I must add that those tests/surveys haven't been conducted since 1994. Times have certainly changed. Perhaps people have become more responsible since then, or the kids that did wear uniforms participated in acts of rebellion. Also, I find it probable that these studies were most-likely conducted in a private school, where most students wear uniforms. It's safe to say that most private school don't have such a diverse population of students as public schools. Seeing as you need to pay for private schools, the student's probably come from more stable home-environments, ultimately resulting in better attendance and grades, regardless of if they wear uniforms or not. Arguments:Many kids in today's society have commitment and respect issues. They cannot stand the thought of someone telling them what to do, much less what they wear. This is what causes rebellion. In 2009, a group of students at John A. Ferguson Senior High School rebelled against their school uniforms. Instead of wearing what they had been told to wear, they wore to school what they thought would make a better school uniform. The following link is to the article describing the rebellion. I certainly think that this could happen to schools all around the country if they are forced to wear a school uniform.http://my.hsj.org...
School Uniforms are a good idea

I would like to start out by saying that I'm very happy with where the debate is going as well. Supporting Previous Rebuttals:1. Whether the school supplies the uniform or not, there could still be much competition between articles of clothing. Once again, I would like to bring up the point that there are several different types of khakis and polos. You are contradicting yourself when you say that students would not be pressured to buy brand-name clothes, yet the market would not run through the school, therefore resulting in a decision that the students would have to make on their own. This allows room for students to get picked on for what they wear.2. I realize that your sense of clothing does not say everything about your personality, however I would like to bring up the point that not everyone looks good in the same color and style of clothing. For example, I have light green eyes and blond hair. I do not look good in royal blue. I find it unfair to force students to wear articles of clothing that: A) Gainsay their usual style of clothing, ultimately going against there personality, and: B) They may not look the best in; possibly belittling their sense of style.4. I don't know about you, but all I do in the morning is grab a pair of pants, a shirt, and get dressed. That takes me about thirty seconds total. I don't think that it takes a ridiculous amount of time to choose what you wear and get dressed. Even if you do take a lot of time to get dressed in the morning, I think that could easily be changed: just wake up a little earlier.Rebuttal:You say that uniforms encourage unity in a school. While I understand where you are coming from, I have to share that uniforms only show unity through appearance, but it is nearly impossible to unite a group of kids together, especially with so many different types of people. (There is no way to get your typical, popular, cheerleader, to befriend a stereotypical band geek, regardless of what they wear. No offense to cheerleaders or band geeks.)
School Uniforms are a good idea

Rebuttals: 1. In your argument you say "When buying uniforms for the school, you cannot assume that one size fits all. " I understand that students come in all shapes and sizes and I don't think schools purchase one size of a uniform and expect everyone to fit in them. Most schools may go with sizing each individual student and buying a specific uniform for each child but in some schools they just have the children wear khaki pants and a specific color polo or cardigan. If schools enforced uniforms and had kids wear khaki pants and a specific color polo it shouldn't be too hard to find their size. Students wear clothes like t-shirts and jeans outside of school and can find sizes, so sizes for such uniforms would be similar. It would actually be better if schools required students to wear a specific uniform of their choosing and have the students measured and given uniforms because the clothes would fit properly. In most schools there are the students with too short of skirts or too tight of shirts, pants etc. . if they were measured at school, they would be given clothing that would fit them properly. Schools also don't necessarily pay for uniforms, in most cases parents buy the uniform for their child and this is no more of a cost than it would be if the parent was buying clothes for their student in a department store, i would probably even be cheaper because they could buy less uniforms than they would buy outfits and just wash them more frequently and a uniform is probably less expensive than brand name clothing that children think they "have to have" 2. Students can still be unique, they can express themselves through the activities they do like sports, music, art, other hobbies or they can accessorize with jewelry in some cases. Just because a student wears a uniform doesn't make them the same as everyone else. Hair styles can be different and personality of every student is different, so by wearing the same shirt it isn't going to stifle a child's opinion or personality. Also students can wear what they choose on the weekends it isn't like they are never able to wear an outfit of their choosing. 3. "Having these uniforms is pretty much censoring the real world from them" What is it censoring the children from? Uniforms would decrease the amount of bullying cases. Yes, bullying is a part of the real world but it is something that doesn't need to be. With uniforms students will learn to not judge others on appearance and to make friends based on personality and character instead. The uniforms aren't censoring the students from the news or real world issues. Arguments: Uniforms will put more focus on school and less focus on the what other students have and what they don't Uniforms will diminish peer pressure in regards to having certain brands Uniforms will allow students to get ready for school faster
School Uniforms are a good idea

I, for one, do not think that school uniforms are a good idea for the follwing reasons:1) Uniforms cost money. Obviously, school uniforms, like any other type of clothing, can be very costly. Where will the money come from? The taxpayers (some of which won't even benefit from the uniforms)? State funding? Either way you go with this, someone is going to have to pay for something that they probably don't even want.2) Students come in all shapes and sizes. It's quite noticable that today's students are all very different in size. When buying uniforms for the school, you cannot assume that one size fits all. You'd have to size the students, order the uniforms, and then return them if they don't fit right. It's a continious, costly, cycle. Also, what if a student is irregular in size? What if they are super tall and really skinny? Then they would have to be taylored to the needs of that one student. 3) Students need to be unique. Having every student in a school dress the same way is like saying 'hey, you're not allowed to be different. You have to dress like everyone else because it's easier that way.' There's a certain thrill that teenagers get when they buy new outfit and where it to school for the first time. That thrill could potentially be threatened by instating a school uniform policy in schools. Having these uniforms is pretty much censoring the real world from them. Students need to understand and accept the fact that some people are different, and they have no chance of learning that when everyone in their school dresses the same.That concludes my opening statment.