BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The concept of "adolescence" should be abolished

Teens have very little control over their lives. They can't make their own healthcare decisions, even when they have the mental ability to decide for themselves. They can't get a job without their parents' permission and permission from the state based on a medical exam, if they leave home without their parents' permission they can be reported as a runaway, returned home against their will and placed in the juvenile system and anything they buy, even with their own money can be taken from them by their parents at any time for any reason. They are forced in to a school system where their significance is diminished and they are forced to become dependent and subject to the control of their parents, who are only required to provide basic needs but make everything else a "privilege."Before the industrial revolution it was common for people to get married at puberty, around the age of 13. During the industrial revolution, a few people wanted to keep children out of work and send them to schools. Many people were against the idea, claiming it was indoctrination and not feasible. Then there were a few people who wanted to delay adulthood by keeping young people (past puberty) out of the workforce and putting them into schools so they can obey god.Young people are not allowed to contribute to society in a meaningful way. They are not allowed to become lawyers or doctors. They don't have a voice outside the realm of school and their families. There were claims that the brain is not fully developed till 25. Our brains develop throughout life. Even at 70 your brain is still developing because the synopses in your brain reconnect constantly based on your outside factors. A 40 year old will have a different brain when he's 70. It doesn't necessarily make you wiser. If the norm were to finish high school at 25, there would be a new study saying the brain is not fully developed till age 30.Here are links to prove this.http://drrobertepstein.com...Dr Robert Epstein - Myth of the teen brain http://drrobertepstein.com...Dr Robert Epstein – Teen 2.0 reviews http://www.johntaylorgatto.com...John Taylor Gatto - School As Religion http://en.wikipedia.org...John Taylor Gatto – Quote from Wikipedia“John Taylor Gatto (born December 15, 1935) is a retired American school teacher with nearly 30 years experience in the classroom, and author of several books on education. He is an activist critical of compulsory schooling, of the perceived divide between the teen years and adulthood, and of what he characterizes as the hegemonic nature of discourse on education and the education professions.”
The concept of "adolescence" should be abolished

Child labor laws should be abolished.In most Western, industrialized countries, inhumane work conditions rarely exist in the formal economy. Workers in the formal economy are now protected through workplace regulation and safety codes. They also get health insurance, pensions, a minimum wage, and vacation and sick leave.Child labor laws (which limit the hours youth can work, require parental consent, and a medical exam, and working papers given by the state based on a medical exam) force youth desperate for money to work in the informal economy, which lack safety regulations, minimum wage, and all those other benefits. This is not to say toddlers should be working.Compulsory schooling laws should be abolished.One can argue that youth are incompetent to quit school, but this problem can be easily countered by abolishing age limits for school attendance, allowing them to return at any time.Runaway laws should be abolished.The definition of runaway is "an unmarried child under the age of 18 years who is absent from the home of a parent or other lawful placement without the consent of the parent, guardian, or lawful custodian" so they need their parents permission to leave home. The reason behind runaway laws is teens don't know what they are getting into if they can't move out. If that's the case, why punish them for running away? We don't call an elderly person with Alzheimer's a "runaway" when they wander off.To evade capture by the authorities under terms of runaway laws, some youth will turn to the crime. If we allowed them to move out, work without restrictions, and to sign a lease, this problem would go away. This is not to say toddlers shouldn't be reported as missing.
The concept of "adolescence" should be abolished

1. The 'other' cultures who treat teens as equals to adults are MOSTLY not advanced enough to know of the bodily process they go through where they are still developing. Nature wanted us to be adults at puberty, that's why nature set puberty at the age of 12, not 18. 2. These other cultures don't have the jobs like most western cultures, therefore they don't need school. We still do. In the US standardized testing is used all across the country. They tell us that we need to know the stuff learn in order to work. Due to budget cuts, my state considered eliminating the global history exam to save money. Why would they eliminate something if we need it for a job? In other cultures they have lawyers, doctors, teachers, just like the west. Pretty much the same jobs.
The concept of "adolescence" should be abolished

Before the industrial revolution it was common for people to get married around the age of 14. During the industrial revolution, a few people wanted to keep children out of work and send them to schools. Many people were against the idea. There were also a few people who wanted to further delay adulthood by keeping young people out of the workforce and into schools. The word "teenager" came to use in 1941, so did the distinct teenage culture of music, clothes and trends. Before then there was no school system. Nature wanted us to be adults at puberty, that's why nature set puberty at the age of 12, not 18. Young people are infantilized. Their autonomy is surrendered to their parents. They are given curfews, not just by their parents, here in the US most major cities and many small places have curfew ordinance (a minor can be arrested for simply being out between 11:00 PM-600AM, even if they are committing no crime). This infantilization makes many young people angry and in addition we are wasting resources of capable young people because they are not allowed to contribute meaningfully to society. In western societies like the US and UK, teens socialize exclusively with other teens. In non-western societies, teens are integrated into the adult world and treated like adults, and don't have the problem western youth have. Many countries don't have a word for "adolescence" or "teenager." And it is normal for 13 year olds to get married and be adults. We have completely isolated young people from adults and created a peer culture. And if one youth does something wrong, we box them with "other teens" and assume every youth will act the same, there is nothing you can do about it.
Evelution vs Young Earth Creationism

I don't deny what you perceive with your senses, but I am saying that you cannot have certainty in your senses. Senses can be deceived, in the case of a mirage your eyes see heat waves that look identical to water. People who have lost limbs can feel pain where their limb formerly was (phantom limb pain). Since you can't know for certain that your senses are giving you objective data, you take a leap of faith and assume they are. I'm attacking this leap of faith, as I posited earlier I'm sure you'll agree that accepting something on faith is illogical. Just because we both observe the same thing doesn't necessitate it's truth. If we're both walking in a desert and see water in front of us doesn't mean water is there. It could be a mirage, or maybe (and very outlandishly) we could all be in the matrix. If we perceive something as true in a virtual reality and the virtual reality intends it to appear true does that make it so? No because that means truth is potentially subjective to the context in which it's presented. It could be that outside this virtual reality a divine being does exist, but we can't know because we are subject to the context of our reality (virtual reality).
Evelution vs Young Earth Creationism

OK lets address how we can trust or senses. If I drop a rock do you argue that it does not fall? Its only me who precipices the rock hitting the ground? If I show you a fossil doe is only appear to me and no one else can see it? If I show you lab results do they only appear to me and no one else? You can see the evidence as well as I do. If I am in a dream it is still my reality that you are a part of. That does not change the fact that we can observe the same thing.
Evelution vs Young Earth Creationism

Concerning the use of faith, my point was that you place faith in reason and your senses. You cannot objectively know whether or not your senses are trustworthy because the only thing you have by which to test them are you senses. For example, you could be in a coma and this is just an unconscious dream, however your senses (in the dream) tell you what your experiencing is real. Your senses are lying to you but you believe them. Relating this back to the debate, my point was that you can offer no logical proof that your senses (and therefore scientific proofs) are rooted in a faith in their accuracy/truthfulness. I won't lie, I believe the creationist argument a lost cause and so I am basing my argument on careful language (yours and mine) and philosophy. This doesn't mean though that my argument is any less reasonable. Both belief in science and religion are rooted in faith and therefore equally illogical (or equally logical).
Evelution vs Young Earth Creationism

I was not expecting to go here and I but what the heck I’ll role with it. Let’s talk about faith. My personal definition for faith that comes from the merriam-webster dictionary is “firm belief in something for which there is no proof”[1] . Another word for proof is evidence and evidence is visual sign of something. After the word faith I fail to follow you. You talk how my evidence is based that on the fact that I have faith my senses are correct? Why would my sense of sight be inaccurate? I can see the fossils and see the links. I can see how the DNA is all related. I am sorry I do not understand this point well enough to responds further. Yes science has made mistakes. The reason we disprove is we invent new technology and can look at things from a different angel or more indepth. Fore example around I believe the 1400’s people believed that the sun revolved around the earth. When the telescope was invented we were able to disprove that. If you break stuff down small enough and play with words you can make anything circular. This debate has gone from Science to philosophy which is definitely not what I intended. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Evelution vs Young Earth Creationism

I commend pro for his (or her) thorough research and very well formatted argument. However I have to apologise as, in true creationist character I am going to ignore all of it and attack a more core principle of your argument. IceHawk and other readers please keep in mind I accepted this debate to prove the conclusion "evolution is not more logical than creationism." I'm sure it could be argued otherwise, but this means that burden of proof lay with pro on his (or her) assertion that "evolution is a more logical explanation of the origins of modern day life than the young earth creationism theory." All of your research is scientifically reasonable and well sourced. As well, it is backed by experts in their selective fields and for me to take issue with their evidence/research would do my argument no justice as I would be beating my head against a wall. It is also true as you stated at the end of your argument that " the idea of a young Earth is completely disproved by science." This does not mean though that "evolution is a more logical explanation of the origins of modern day life than the young earth creationism theory..." as I will show. The reason I am dismissing your evidence and majority of your argument is because it is grounded in faith. You have faith in how you perceive the world (through your senses), this is the basis for science. We observe the universe and use reason to derive conclusions from it. This is where your evidence comes from. However, you have no reason to trust that your senses are accurate. FURTHER, you actually DO HAVE reason to accept the fallibility of science based on history, as past discoveries of science have been proven inaccurate or wrong altogether (namely the Aristotelian notions of physics and chemistry and later on Newtonian physics). Yet you have placed faith in the accuracy and truth of science and reason. I am sure you would agree that basing belief in something (be it science & reason or religion) that is based in faith is illogical in that the only logic involved is circular (we trust our senses because we use them to reinforce the belief that our senses are trustworthy). From these premises I therefore conclude that it is not logical to accept the scientific "explanation of the origins of modern day life." I do not deny that creationist's faith in God and the biblical accounts of the origins of life are any less grounded in faith than the scientific ones you presented. Fortunately for me I do not have to prove they are more logical as my conclusion was "evolution is not more logical than creationism." I apologise to pro for taking the debate in a direction he likely did not want it to go.
Evelution vs Young Earth Creationism

I will take the side of con. I will argue that evolution is not more logical than creationism. Please don't worry about etiquette, I'd like this to be a casual debate that is enjoyable and fun. Since I got crapped on on my last debate for this, I'll point out I'm playing devils advocate and will lean on argument rules and logic rather than facts to build my argument. Free hint IceHawk2009. Any terms you'd like to lay out or a specific source you want to use? I'm okay with Wikipedia.
Evelution vs Young Earth Creationism

I implore everyone to remember the two arguments being presented here: IceHawk2009 - "the theory of evolution is a more logical explanation of the origins of modern day life than the young earth creationism theory" Internationalist - "evolution is not more logical than creationism" In my argument I have at least tried to show that the scientific evidence IceHawk2009 presented is, at the most fundamental level, also rooted in a leap of faith. Faith in the certainty of our senses and perception of our environment. I have tried to show how this leap, as a leap of faith, is illogical of which I'm sure my opponent would agree with (that is that he would agree a leap of faith is illogical). Lastly, I have tried to show that since there is a leap of faith in trusting our senses (and therefore science) as there is in religious belief (and therefore creationism) than it is at least as illogical as a belief in creationism and therefore sufficient to my conclusion that "evolution is not more logical than creationism. " While the evidence IceHawk2009 presented is relevant to support a belief in evolution rather than creationism it does not provide support for the logic of believing in it. While this is clearly not what IceHawk2009 intended the argument to be about, it is exactly what he stated it to be about.
Some remotely interesting philosophical issue.

Supervenience ArgumentWhile my opponent may voice some preliminary concerns (the legitimacy of intuition/questioning the meager connection of observing a pattern between two sets of properties), he doesn't do much beyond this. It's a shame and perhaps a more grievous error than that. The supervenience of moral properties on natural properties is a commonly held position across the metaethical spectrum - I don't mean to bring this up as an argument ad populum, but rather to point that the intutional weight behind the idea should at least merit more discussion than simple dismissal. Without getting deep into the epistemological merits of intuition (perhaps some rough coherentist approach), at the VERY least the thought experiment should be scrutinized.Once again, the idea is: given 2 worlds were exactly identical in every natural property, there will be no moral difference in the world. If we have 2 identical worlds involving Hitler (i.e. our world), it would be highly unclear how Hitler can be morally evil in one world and morally benevolent in the other - this intuition implies that moral facts supervene on the natural. And in fact, this common sensical view spread throughout every talk and applications of moral thinking. The way we formulate and apply our laws depend on such a supervenient relationship, otherwise it'd be pure chaos and foolishness when creating laws.Let me ask you, the non-naturalist: how do you ethically categorize certain events, intentions, etc.? And ask yourself how reliant such categorizations are to natural properties; it seems supervenience is a necessity. I hoped we could have delved into a discussion concerning the supervenience argument, as it has attracted a lot of attention in the past century.Open Question Argument "The open question argument argues that the assumption made in reducing moral properties is unsound."...by way of showing that the analytical equivalency of goodness and property X reduce into a closed question. The OQA states that something is meaningless in the sense of it being a closed question due to analytical equivalency -- obviously we are using meaningless in a specific sense that Moore intended. Thus, to claim that a question is meaningless is to inadvertently claim analytic equivalency: if A = B, then B = A.
Some remotely interesting philosophical issue.

Supervenience ArgumentMy opponent's main case against ethical non-naturalism is that,"given 2 worlds were exactly identical in every natural property, there will be no moral difference in the world". If every natural property were the same, and there is no moral difference then one must conclude that moral properties are themselves natural. However this argument is much weaker than it seems at first glance. For one, it begs the question in it's main premise. In order to justify the premise, that two worlds with the same natural properties would have the same moral properties, we must assume the conclusion.For what justification does my opponent bring to lead us to believe that moral properties would be the same? He simply claims that Hitler would still be a bad person given another world where he performed the same actions. But again, no justification! My opponent claims that this thought experiment and it's necessary implications are "uncontroversial", but regardless of the seemingly common sense nature of the argument, justification must be brought. If one argues that the the Earth is round, referring to the general acceptance of this fact is hardly reason to accept the argument.Open Question ArgumentMy opponent's objection to the open question argument is misleading. He claims that because it states that a question is meaningless if the two subjects are equivalent(goodness and say what is natural for example), claiming that the argument is meaningless in itself implies equivalency of good and some other property, allegedly proving that goodness is reducible to some other property rendering the open question unsound. However my opponent makes the mistake of assuming the equivalence of the two subjects from the beginning, essentially begging the question. Claiming that a question is meaningless only implies equivalency if we assume initial equivalence. The open question argument argues that the assumption made in reducing moral properties is unsound. To say that is not t o admit equivalence but just to draw conclusions from assumptions made in the opposing arguments to begin with.
Some remotely interesting philosophical issue.

My opponent has provided 3 enthralling topics and I applaud him for that - I will choose the third topic: That ethical non-naturalism is a superior ethical theory than ethical naturalism. It should be noted that as CON, I need not show that ethical naturalism is am adequately justified account of morality but rather that the rational weight behind it is more significant than ethical non-naturalism. In regards to the actual debate, I won't divulge much until my opponent's round as well given that I want to respond the specific arguments he employs and not possible arguments relating to this topic. But as a precursor to my position, I'd argue that the Open Question argument employed by Moore has lost much of it's intuitive power, falling to several deeply flawed problems concerning begging the question, or being highly uncharitable in respect to analytic truths. It's not granted that my opponent would follow along Moore's line (as ethical non-naturalism is a conundrum to even define and classify accordingly), but I figure this is a common start.
Some remotely interesting philosophical issue.

1)- That Hoppean argumentation ethics is a justified theory of rights. (I would be Pro)Hoppean argumentation ethics- ethical system aimed at arriving at normative ethical conclusions through analyzing the presuppositions of discourse and arriving at libertarian conclusions( self ownership, private property). Pre-requisites for justification will be a part of my argument.2)- Free will and determinism are incompatible. (I would be Pro)Free will is The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will. Determinism is The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs.3)- That ethical non-naturalism is a superior ethical theory than ethical naturalism. (I would be Pro)Ethical naturalism is the meta-ethical view that (a) moral statements are truth apt, (b) these statements are made true through objective features in the world, and (c) these objective features are reducible to a set of non-moral facts.[1]Ethical non-naturalism agrees with points a and b of the definition of ethical naturalism but disagrees with point c. Ethical non-naturalism holds that the objective features of the world that make ethical statements truth apt are irreducible to a set of non-moral facts. Superior will be defined as being more warranted or better upheld. Common sense will dictate it's definition. I look forward to an interesting debate with TheSkeptic. Good luck.