BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Hedonism is Prevelent in the Nature of Humans

Alright let's begin... First of all what your argument comes down to is, "Procreation is the prevalent trait in the nature of Humans" Now I will shape this to support my claim that pleasure is what drives us to do what we do. "...(The) drive in our nature is to procreate..." Be that as it may everything we do, we do for the pleasure it gives us. First there are steps in procreating. First let's define procreation... Procreate: (of people or animals) produce young; reproduce. https://www.google.ca... First we all know that people (and other organisms) gain pleasure from reproducing. But let us discuss what pleasure is, Pleasure: a feeling of happy satisfaction and enjoyment. https://www.google.ca... Now let's discuss from a scientific standpoint what causes pleasure. The brain contains a pleasure center which is a set of brain domains, specifically the nucleus accumbens, that is shown to produce great pleasure when it's stimulated electrically. Another part is the septum pellucidium, which is also considered to be the pleasure center, while still others mention the hypothalamus when referring to the pleasure center for intracranial stimulation. The experience of pleasure that can also be shown, has been linked to activation in the orbitofrontal cortex, the anterior cingulate cortex and the insula, while also showing activity in different brain regions, such as the nucleus accumbens, which is associated with pleasure unconsciously expressed. As of late, the brain mechanisms causing pleasure have been shown in more detail. An active research group around Kent C. Berridge has shown that pleasure is not a unitary experience. Instead, pleasure consists of many brain processes including liking, wanting and learning caused by consecutive overlapping brain networks. This research has been suported by the use of objective pleasure-elicited reactions in humans and other animals such as the behavioral "liking"/"disliking" facial expressions to tastes that are homologous between humans and many other mammals. http://lsa.umich.edu... Recreational drug use can be pleasurable. Some drugs, directly create euphoria in the human brain when ingested. The mind's natural way is to seek out more of this feeling (supporting my theory) which can lead to dependence and addiction. Berridge and Robinson have proposed that addiction results from drugs hijacking the "wanting" system through a sensitization of the mesolimbic dopamine system. https://en.wikipedia.org... It is also shown that during reproduction the brain releases chemicals causing pleasure.http://www.salon.com... Therefore supporting my argument that people act for pleasure and that only. Next in procreation is raising the child. Science also proves that raising a child is pleasurable. http://sonjalyubomirsky.com... This is due to the same chemical reactions in the brain that stimulate the pleasure. Because what could be greater to a person than to create a person that could change the world. The pleasures of raising a child are clear in the media. https://www.google.ca... In Conclusion... With all arguments rebutted I look forward to your response.
Hedonism is Prevelent in the Nature of Humans

Thank you for this debate, I really like the topic.I would like to add that the Rules applying to me, I am stating are applied to you - For the same reasons (I have had debates where people have directed the rules at their opponent, omitting themselves) - This is likely not you, however I am starting the habit now.To begin with - I will concede that Hedonism is A prevalent trait in the nature of humans, That is a fact, not an opinion that my opponent has made.However my understanding of the debate my opponent has raised, is signifying that Hedonism is THE prevalent trait in the nature of humans. This is where we differ in opinion. (If my assumption is correct, if not I can rectify my stance to maintain the debate, however this is my understanding). I would ask that my Opponent corrects me if my understanding is not correct, though it appears quite apparent from your 1st round details.My Stance in this Argument is as follows : I believe that the Prevalent trait in the Nature of humans is the creation, concern and care for their young - To shorten: Procreation.Definition : procreate verb (of people or animals) produce young; reproduce. People may want to chase their pleasures (Be that what they may) - However the Imperative function and drive in our nature, is to procreate - to raise said offspring to be 'better' than the previous model (i.e. Parent).Procreate is often misinterpreted as 'Sex' - however it is the production of young - which does include sex, however this adheres to the raising of the child, such as knowledge, social skills, danger and spatial awareness, etc.I will extrapolate further in the coming rounds, however this is the topic I will be representing.
Hedonism is Prevelent in the Nature of Humans

I will be arguing that the key in human nature or what drives us to do what we do, is to do what gives us the most net pleasure. (Pleasure - Pain = net pleasure) Hedonism: the ethical theory that pleasure (in the sense of the satisfaction of desires) is the highest good and proper aim of human life. https://www.google.ca... Prevalent: Common or widespread. http://www.merriam-webster.com... Human Nature: Human nature refers to the distinguishing characteristics"including ways of thinking, feeling and acting"which humans tend to have naturally, independently of the influence of culture. https://en.wikipedia.org... 1. No kritiks/semantics 2. Breaking rules = loss 3. You accept definitions 4. Don't troll me. Punishable by losing the debate and an capital punishment through Jaguars. Round Structure: R1: Make your argument. R2-4: Arguments/Rebuttals R5: Closing Remarks. You can address previous arguments, but don't offer new ones.
This house would make seatbelts mandatory in school buses

Hello first of all I would like my opponent to take this debate seriously if we do this debate maybe in the future we will be able to save children's life from death or injury wont that make you feel so happy these few words are part of my 1st argument all about safety wont you wanda be safe getting home or going to school oh if ou dont care about your safety but your parents care about you before they care about their own self im always saying care dont you now the meaning of care or safety that mean be cautious not just leave him saying he's always safe even today he'll be safe hey wait a min dont you no that we dont even no if something bad is coming or something good so always stay safe.
This house would make seatbelts mandatory in school buses

I agree with my opponent in terms of seatbelts been a life saver; however, i disagree that seatbelt should be mandatory in buses. My opponent did not give me a scenerio where a seat bel\t was needed in a bus crash. There is absolutely no need for seat belts in the bus. The school bus is the safest transportation means on ground, if this stat were to change then the United States government would have equipped the bus with safety mechanism 30 years ago or even as we speak. "If it's something that made sense to everybody, we would have put them on all the buses 30 years ago," said Mike Martin, executive director of the National Association for Pupil Transportation, a group based in Albany, N.Y., that represents public school bus operators."
Abortion should be illegal, except in extenuating circumstances

Your claim is almost uncounterable. I know what raping is. But if the mother was drunk, under normal circumstances, she would not remember even having sex. And if she were raped, well, under normal curcumstanses, the rapist would have killed the mother. Unless the rapist weren't that kind of rapist. If she was not killed after being rap-wait. IF SHE WAS RAPED IN THE FIRST PLACE SHE WOULDN'T BE ALOUD TO GO TO COURT UNTIL AFTER HAVING MENTAL THERAPY! AND A SMART RAPIST WOULD HAVE LEFT THAT TOWN/CITY/STATE! (<- typing angrily.) But let's consider it was an idiot rapist If the rapist did not flee the scene, then he would be put in jail immediately. The consequence for raping is usually a life-sentence, unle-oh. Never mind. Either way, the mother would not remember being drunk unless she was only a little bit drunk, and abortion is sometimes recommended if the child was the result of a rape. Your move again P.S: I only wrote this because I cannot surrender until the last round
Abortion should be illegal, except in extenuating circumstances

If the mother did not want to have sex, that would classify as rape. Rape is having sex with someone against their will. As far as being drunk, if a girl takes a guy to court and says he raped her, but his defense is that she consented, if she was under the influence of alcohol or drugs she will win. She's in an altered mental state and cannot consciously make the decision to have sex or not. Based on my opening argument stating that abortion would be okay due As far as not being able to get pregnant, pregnancy is ALWAYS an issue. With all the cases that have happened where the mother is told she is infertile but then becomes pregnant, a girl still runs the risk of becoming pregnant. If she's told she is infertile, she should still take the precautionary measures to not become pregnant, even if her chances at becoming pregnant are slim to none. Whether the fetus can feel pain or not, abortion is still harming the fetus. You can do harm to something without causing it pain. Thus, destroying the fetus would harm it. "It is possible that the baby were deformed." Are you saying that any baby that has the chance of having a birth defect should be aborted? "The mother gets a lesson out of the consequences of drunk sex." So killing an unborn child is a good way to teach a lesson? How about the fact that she got pregnant in the first place? I do see where you're coming from, but I still don't agree that just because a girl doesn't want to carry full term she should be able to just throw it away because it's convenient. Sources: http://teenadvice.about.com... http://dictionary.reference.com... http://dictionary.reference.com...
Abortion should be illegal, except in extenuating circumstances

If the mother did not want to have sex to begin with, than she should have the option of abortion. I am not referring to being raped, or being drunk at the time. And it is not irresponsible to consider abortion if it is completely necessary, or if the mother was told she could not become pregnant, but did. Either way, if abortion is considered, it would not technically harm the unborn baby since babies do not feel pain until at least 9 weeks after conception. And is nine weeks not enough time to decide weather someone should not have a baby? If the mother simply does not want the baby is being irresponsible. If the mother did not know she was pregnant or it is the outcome of a rape is being fairly responsible. If the mother was drunk at the time and does not remember having sex at all is not being irresponsible, nor is it being responsible. My claim is that it is the mother's decision. If SHE feels it is necessary, then it is necessary. If it is recommended by a doctor, then it is necessary. Not being able to feel pain is a good thing for the baby. Sometimes abortion is the right thing to do. Good things about abortion: *The baby does not experience pain if done within nine weeks. *The mother no longer has to worry about what would happen to the baby if adopted or the baby's pain for culling. *It is possible that the baby could be "defective" due to the mother and/or father being drunk Neutral things of abortion: *The mother gets a lesson out of the consequences of drunk sex. *It is possible that [the baby] were deformed. Bad things of abortion *The baby will feel intense pain at being shredded to a lifeless pile of tissue if done after nine weeks. *The mother will feel intense pain at blades inside of her shredding her baby to a lifeless pile of tissue. And with that reasoning, I hope you can be able to see a little bit of my light by now.
Abortion should be illegal, except in extenuating circumstances

The mother decided to have sex, she knew what the possible results of having sex were, but yet she failed to take the precautionary measures to prevent pregnancy and still continued in her actions. Sex is a choice, but it also comes with a huge responsibility tag. If a woman feels that she is responsible enough to have sex, then she should also take responsibility for the possible outcomes. Simply "throwing away" the baby should not be a valid response to a pregnancy. You state that if the mother chooses to abort then she should be allowed to. That's not showing any responsibility at all. On the contrary, it's showing a severe lack of responsibility. You can't just throw your problems away because it's convenient. If the mother isn't ready or willing to be pregnant as a result of her actions, then she should reconsider her choices to be sexually active.
Abortion should be illegal, except in extenuating circumstances

Abortion should be illegal, except in circumstances where the birth of the child would put the mother's health at risk or the child is a result of a rape. If the argument is that a girl/woman shouldn't have to carry to full term if she doesn't want to, then she should take greater precautions during sex and take responsibility for her actions. What about contraceptives? Condoms? If two people want to have sex, then they must be prepared for the potential results of their actions. If she doesn't want to keep the child, then put the child up for adoption. There are thousands of perfectly qualified couples out there that are waiting to adopt a child. People will argue that the death penalty is wrong because it's murder, but abortion is okay. A fetus's heart starts beating at just 3 weeks and 1 day (http://www.ehd.org...), so how is THAT not a person? If the mother's health is not at risk and the pregnancy is not a result of a rape, then abortion should be illegal. There are plenty of couples that are willing to adopt, and they shouldn't have to go overseas to adopt just because America is too lenient in aborting pregnancies.
Religion is a modern day myth.

Thank you for debating this topic. First of all I will address the issue of evolution. It is entirely untrue that there are no animals that fill in the gaps. Just this month there was nearly complete fossil found in Pakistan of an ancient whale that had short legs and lived in the ocean though it gave birth on land. This made the whale vulnerable and the whales who could give birth closer to sea began to reproduce more often. Over hundreds and thousands of years whales began to develop the ability to give birth in the open ocean where they where most at home. I think that this is a clear example of the evolutionary process. http://www.wildlifeofpakistan.com... >>"One could say that God does not exist because I can not see him. Well, you cant see love but it obviously is real. You cannot see an idea but our ideas are being expressed through these debates, thus, they are real." This is true, you cannot see love or ideas, this is because both of these things are contained solely within our heads, so does god. >>"why is it still true that whales can not breath under water, or the fact that Eskimos always had a mixed sin, instead of a dark skin that helps take in the sons heat? Also, why is it that countries near the equator tend to have populations of people with dark skin, instead of a lighter skin which would reflect the sun, therefore making it seem less hot?" First of all and as I have already shown the whale evolved from a land animal and has not yet fully evolved to it's environment. Also, the process of evolution does not apply to modern man, if I am going to choose a mate I don't go by their ability to survive the environmental conditions, I don't know anyone who does this. We have the intelligence to survive even when a climate does not suit us perfectly. The big bang is the most likely occurrence although I personally believe in the big crunch. It is true that science cannot explain the origins of the universe but neither can any religion I know of. If god created it then who created god? If god has been around forever then why doesn't the same principle apply to the universe? I would also like to point out that the burden of evidence lies on my opponent, I am saying that god does not exist, he is the one who needs to prove that he does. I can challenge god to a duel right now, a battle of wits or something like it and nothing will happen because there is no god. I bet my life on it, god cannot smite me dead, he does not exist. I would also like to ask a question of my opponent, how long ago do you consider the earth to have been created?
Religion is a modern day myth.

Human beings have always had myths to explane things they cannot understand, rainbows for example. Myth dates back to the Egyptians and most famously the Greeks. One by one science is catching up to and eradicating these stories. Galileo, now considered a scientific genius, was considered by the church to be a heretic and a mad man because he was trying to prove that we did indeed revolve around the sun. The Roman Catholic church threatened him with torture and exile if he did not recant the ideas which turned out to be absolutely correct. Organized religions are based on incentives programs. If you do this you get this, if not you burn in hell forever. A pure idea should never involve a threat. And of course there is the hold up with the afterlife. When you die you are dead, no second chances no just deserts. We are biological beings, when we die nothing remains but our atoms. The soul which many people claim to posses is nothing more than a vague idea used as a means to dominate or inspire. The religious person is, essentially the loser, the only winner is the person who invented the religion. If a person can be convinced that their actions will be rewarded in another life they can be tricked into do anything. They blow themselves up, pray to nothing, give ten percent of their earnings to their church. The obvious gains are made on the part of the individual or organization who provided these people with a false plan and in return received undying loyalty and absolute fealty. Yet another flaw in religion the world over is secularism. First we come up with a crazy idea about a mystical being who can't be heard seen felt or touched and then they start building up armies to defend said being against slander and dishonor. Who knows how many lives have been thrown away over that virtually useless piece of ground Israel. The terrorism that is haunting the globe is a direct result of radical religious zealots working themselves into a frenzy over nothing and attacking innocent civilians. God is a story made up to explain things that we cannot yet understand and the ideas has been taken entirely too far. If we could only stop the wasted effort and funds pouring into religion and instead focus on science and free thought then progress would follow close behind.
Religion is a modern day myth.

Thank you for your response. I would like to point out that it is ridiculous to demand a complete fossil record going back millions of years. Just like the example I gave with the whale. We found bones so it obviously existed but we only found one skeleton, this is because fossils are extremely rare. As for love and ideas, I pointed out that while do exist they are only in our heads. That is fine because they do not need to be anywhere else. God, on the other hand, has to exist outside of us in order to be god. He does not and therefore cannot exist. About the whale again, evolution always follows the easiest coarse. That is why a whale learns to hold its breath for a long time instead of developing gills. In answer to your two questions, I do not need to prove that there is not a god because there is no evidence of one. That is like asking me to prove that there is a universe that we cannot see, hear, feel, smell, or taste that is billions of light years away and will never be found, ridiculous. The point of this debate is that you prove that there is a god, you have shown absolutely no evidence of this.
Teachers shouldnt be laid off because of senority

Umm. .. awkward So this was my R2 arguments if I did not have so many projects to finish: 1) Teachers have alternatives in teaching in other institutions such as test prep schools. 2) "Students should choose because its there education. " Students should choose what there are no choices? In either cases my opponent failed to address my contentions and rebuttal. Silence is consent, hence my opponent agrees with me.
Teachers shouldnt be laid off because of senority

Good luck! I negate. Con's resolution: Teachers should be laid off because of seniority. Clarification: Teacher are not laid off SOLELY on seniority. Teachers are laid off based on the number of years he or she worked at the same district. Con: 1) New teachers have little to no experience in teaching by themselves. Teaching a subject takes years of experience. A teacher must learn and adapt to different styles of learning, a new teacher cannot do this off the bat during the first day. Hiring many new teachers who experiment with abnormal teaching styles will detriment the school's placement in the state. This has happened at my school last year (some retired, so the school hired new teachers) and our API score dropped by 61 points. ..860 to 799. Due to the recession, many retirees are returning to the workforce. This has happened in the nurse sector, an influx of retired and experienced nurses are returning to their jobs causing employers to hire veterans over freshly graduated students. 2) Seniority rewards teachers for his or her commitment to the school system of years. Why dismiss a loyal employee? Pro: 1) Your music teacher was probably laid off because there wasn't a satisfactory enrollment demand. Can't wait for Round 2!
The legal driving age should be lowered to 14

The legal driving age should be lowered to 14 because of the many responsibilities of becoming an adult. As i reach the driving age i realize how much responsibility you earn and the trust that you earn. All over the world many teenagers can be more respnsible than an adult. I'm not saying all of them just a handful. I think we should reward those who continue to show responsibility and accentuate the correct form of what we want in a teenager. Many see teenagers as a threat to the community, just a stupid kid who has no idea what the world means or is like. Those who have ecletic smarts and abilities should be treated as so. Most adults who have messed up as a wealthy, poor , middle class person divulge their mistakes. Adults can be as irresponsible, unhealthy human being than any teenager out there, therefore i believe in rewarding those who are trustworthy and responsible.
Having an abortion should be illegal

First off I want voters to notice that my opponent is trying to argue that all abortion should be illegal, because if not then he would have clarified so. Therefore if I provide him with one case where abortion should be legal, I win this debate. My opponent starts off by saying abortion is murder, but does not give anything to explain why a fetus during the first trimester is considered a human being. This is has to be settled by my opponent before pro goes on about how murder is bad. Thus everything he said is meaningless because I attack the idea that a fetus in the first trimester is a human. Now if my opponent is saying that a fetus is considered a human, therefore meaning he claims he knows what makes someone a human. I ask my opponent to provide me with the certain requisites that makes someone a human. I also challenge the idea that the purpose of doctors is to save lives, I think it"s more of to aid. Doctors aid mothers by letting them have an abortion, if the mother were to die due to childbirth. If they were to let the mother die due to childbirth, it it would be neglect. Also by making abortions illegal, there will be more people seeking out illegal abortions still, and that will lead to high risks due to the abortioner not being a professional.