BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The idea of god was fabricated by man

Point by point works well with me. 1: Necessity being the mother of invention implies that it was necessary for our survival that we invent god. Something which I find moderately funny. I think you're smart enough to know that point holds no water since You seem to want to portray ancient leaders as hyper competent old men who, despite their apparent reverence and competency, are powerless an disrespected. www.dictionary.com defines invention as: inï¿½venï¿½tion –noun 1. the act of inventing. 2. U.S. Patent Law. a new, useful process, machine, improvement, etc., that did not exist previously and that is recognized as the product of some unique intuition or genius, as distinguished from ordinary mechanical skill or craftsmanship. 3. anything invented or devised. 4. the power or faculty of inventing, devising, or originating. 5. an act or instance of creating or producing by exercise of the imagination, esp. in art, music, etc. 6. something fabricated, as a false statement. 7. Sociology. the creation of a new culture trait, pattern, etc. 8. Music. a short piece, contrapuntal in nature, generally based on one subject. 9. Rhetoric. (traditionally) one of the five steps in speech preparation, the process of choosing ideas appropriate to the subject, audience, and occasion. 10. Archaic. the act of finding. An invention is a deliberate act with the goal in mind from the start. Meaning that you honestly think that thousands upon thousands of years worth of leaders who have cried to restrict, to control and to conquer, they were all outdone by a guy in a cave who was unable to control his own people? Modern religion is a method of control. It is a leash and collar at best, it is a gilded cage at worst. It is not a method of law-keeping and it is not a method of self-restraint, it is a method of controlling, not protecting. So even if you're correct about the origin, you are wrong about the intention. 2: I noted your use of the term. I also noted that you're looking specifically at Hinduism and Mesopotamian religion. Meaning that at earliest the idea of sun worship came around at about 3300 BC Ancient Egypt was worshipping the sun, along with several other ridiculous things, since at least 3500 BC. There was no "elder" system in Egypt and the Pharaoh was the absolute ruler. Sources: Historical Vedic Religion (One of Hindu's founders and there the idea of sun worship came from): http://en.wikipedia.org... Mesopotamia: http://en.wikipedia.org... Bronze Age: http://en.wikipedia.org... Iron Age India: http://en.wikipedia.org... Incidentally, the Aztecs could have been worshipping the sun for millennia, but we'll never know. Muchas Gracias Conquistadores. http://en.wikipedia.org... Ancient Egypt: http://en.wikipedia.org... Invention: http://dictionary.reference.com...
The idea of god was fabricated by man

I would like to counter your argument point by point, 1. The ancient leaders and common man had to be competent enough to make up things as the necessity arrives, have you not heard the saying "necessity is the mother of invention"? In order to save their position as leaders and to save the people from themselves some sort of fear needed to be instilled in the people's mind. This fear might as well be a supernatural being that punish people for their wrongdoings. 2. You must understand that I have used the term "elders" of the land, meaning they were the more educated and experienced of the tribe/civilization, Not the warmongering chief of the village. If we refer to ancient texts/ stone carvings such as in the Mesopotamian and ancient Hindu texts people believed in the forces of nature, The people not only feared but they respected these forces, we know from ancient texts that if the people did any wrong deeds these forces of nature stopped/punished them, what is that if not a way to control people with fear? what is that if not a method to enforce some law?
The idea of god was fabricated by man

Your entire argument relies on two key points. 1: That leaders of any kind are competent enough to instantly make up an entirely new life form for the sole purpose of keeping control of their people. 2: That ancient leaders were not the steel-testacled pointy hat wearing warriors that they often were. I disagree with this argument of yours not because I'm in any way religious, quite the opposite, and not because I feel any sympathy for religion, I disagree simply because I think you're giving ancient leaders way too much credit. At best we can say that the concept of god is a stopgap. Something to explain that which cannot currently be explained. Here's a good example, Ancient people discovered that if they planted crops in a building or in a cave, they didn't grow. It's an obvious reason why, if they're inside they have no sunlight, without sunlight there is no photosyhesis and the plant cannot survive. Ancient people didn't know what photosynthesis was, all they knew was that when that big glowing thing in the sky shined on plants, they grew. That big glowing thing in the sky makes plants grow! it provides life! it must be a higher power! and that is how sun worshipping came to be. What you must understand is that ancient people were not by any means less intelligent than we are, they simply weren't as well informed. The logic they used and their method of thinking was precisely the same. If you had no concept of photosynthesis or what the sun was, wouldn't you belive that the sun was a giver of life and, thus, worthy of at least consideration whenever you enjoy your home-grown bug-chewed corncob? (no pesticides, remember.) The world is a strange and confusing place and we know for sure that we aren't responsible for it. Lightning, natural disasters, these are wrathful things. Rain, sunlight, these are gifts from the heavens. Imagine if you had no idea what caused these things, and yet they seemed to be comparible to what you wish you could do when you felt angry or benevolent? Something like a human that is infinitely more powerful than a human. Something that you cannot see, but can see you, and knows you, and can smite you at any second or shower you in love. That is god, and that is how god came to be about, not because some cave-dwelling hillbilly said "hay guise I know sumthin' yoo don't know"
The idea of god was fabricated by man

Let us look into the past, this is a time of unrest and lawlessness, the elders of the land realized that in order to control the people some laws needed to be put into place, when they tried this the fact that nothing was going to happen to the people if they do not agree and follow these laws struck the people. As these ideas began to corrupt the minds of the people the elders felt the need to force order into the faces of these people, they did so by saying that if the people do not follow laws then they will suffer eternal damnation by the hands of a almighty being. And hence man created god to serve his own needs and maintain order, the existance of god also solved a few more of the peoples problems, this idea became widespread and lo we created a "god".
Child-Porn should be Legal

Sexual abuse isn't porn so cannot rightfully be called child porn, I'd like to know what is wrong with child porn, you misuse the term child porn to describe sexual abuse without really saying why it is wrong for 13+ boys/girls to produce porn in a licensed place.But people who smoke crack, jaywalk or disturb their neighbours by shooting a gun too close choose to do those things, and all those acts are completely selfish and wrong. Someone who accidentally views sexual abuse does not choose to and is not doing anything selfish or wrong, therefore they are innocent and should not be punished by law or in any other way. If someone can only stumble across sexual abuse by searching the deep web, they still don't deserve to lose their family, job etc because it is legal to download a deep web browser:"Tor is a free service that lets you connect to web pages anonymously... Accessing the deep web tor network is legal" [10]. A punishment does need to fit the crime. The purpose of law is to protect the rights of the smallest minority - the individual. Every man should be innocent until proven guilty according to an objective standard, no-one should have to prove they are innocent. A young child porn actor doesn't have to leave school without an education, and even if they had no other education there is nothing to stop them getting a different job or other qualifications. It's not like an employer is going to say 'you're that child pornstar' or dismiss them unfairly. It might be harder to get another job if a child continues to be a pornstar because emplyers like to ask what you did for your last job, and child porn stars don't need to explain a gap in their work history. So it doesn't make sense why you think a child would be making a decision for the rest of their life.Also the kids will know what to expect, and their safety will come first so they won't get crushed by a large man or even be forced to have sex with an adult or do anything they don't wish to.sources:[10] http://www.wikihow.com...
Child-Porn should be Legal

"A person who harms no one, and has no intention of harming anyone is and innocent person..." Sounds convincing enough, but is not true. People who smoke crack are guilty, people who jaywalk are guilty, people who shoot guns too close to houses are guilty, but the punishment needs to fit the crime, and people who even get caught viewing child pornography, should lose their job and I don't blame their family and friends for being so ashamed of them they might just act like they never existed. I see the point you are trying to prove with the whole "accidentally watched war footage" argument, but that doesn't really make sense. There are limitations to the (regular) internet. Where laws apply. War footage is okay to watch because it is history and it's not an 11 year old girl being brutally beaten and raped by two older men. You see the difference? Cause there is a big one. And you keep saying that people can randomly stumble across this stuff, which I suppose you could stumble upon war footage on the regular web, but if it was illegal, you couldn't. The only time people can stumble across something illegal for the most part is stuff on the deep web. At least only things that would make them lose their job, family, friends, etc... And my final argument for this round and probably this debate...why let a 12 year old boy/girl decide what they want to be for the rest of their lives? Kids don't know what they want. Be honest with yourself, and anyone who reads this debate, if you got to make the decision of what you want to be for the rest of your life when you were 10-13 or so years old, would it be the right one? Now I know there are some people out there who have one goal and go for it. But for me, I have changed what I wanted to be probably 53 times until I finally got it figured out, and it's still my senior year in High School so it might even change again. You can't let a kid be exposed to the real world. They will be crushed, mentally, and if they are a porn star, physically by some fat, old man who has a sick thing for kids. Thank you.
Child-Porn should be Legal

You say those men are not innocent, but what did they do that was wrong? No-one has to have an intention to view something illegal or even vile to find theirself in a similar horrible position. A person who harms no-one, and has no intention of harming anyone is an innocent person, and thus does not deserve to go to jail or be falsely accused of being a paedophile and then lose their job, family, friends etc.If it were illegal to watch someone being killed on video because that's what sick serial killers like to watch, and you accidentally watched war footage showing people getting shot while searching for something else, would you think it is right you go to prison, or be branded a murderer and lose your job, family, friends etc?? because that is very similar.I'd say the vast majority of children aged 12 - 17 would find a pornstar or anyone who is 18+ (fully developed) more attractive sexually, but children who reach puberty at 8 or 9 probably won't be so interested in people twice their own age. They will masturbate but will feel ashamed of theirself. I think the reason there are paedophiles (and child molesters) is because their sexual feelings are being supressed by the age limits imposed on them, and they are not able to make decisions that should be natural. When something is illegal, it can give someone a thrill to do it. If it were legal to watch children having sex people wouldn't be confused about their sexuality. There are older males who seduce young teens and pretend to love them just to have sex. However plenty of men pretend to love women simply to have sex with them, as feminists force men to lie to get what they want. Maybe if less women were feminists paedophiles wouldn't view young teens as easy sex, they'd actually want to have a relationship. Making child porn legal might encourage women to seek better goals, which would also lower the rape rates for them. Very young boys and girls who have sex with an adult are raped. However it is still possible for children to have consensual sex with each other around 13. If child porn was only legal to produce in a licenced studio where safety procedures are carried out, a child could make decisions in a safe environment. The age limit of 18 prevents children making decisions that can benefit themself and many others.
Child-Porn should be Legal

You really cannot say those men are innocent because what they are doing is illegal. The making or viewing of child porn is illegal and anyone who participates in those acts are technically guilty. That argument is like saying too many innocent people are put in jail for doing crack and just because you think crack users are innocent doesn't mean they are not guilty of breaking the law. Yes, children do develop sexual feelings at a young age because that's when we go through puberty and maybe that is just natures way of saying we are ready for sex...but when you are talking about sexual feelings for older people, it's hardly ever a two way street. I can tell you more than one story about how an older male seduced a young teen by acting like he loved her, but really his only intention was to have sex with them, weather they were willing to or not. I have heard stories of older men even drugging these younger girls just to engage in sexual acts with them. And when it comes to adults and younger boys, once again, it's usually rape. Actually it is always rape because that is what the law says it is. So these people are not innocent at all. They are guilty. Just as guilty as you are for jaywalking and just as guilty as the putrid people who make child pornography. And yes, the largest group of internet porn viewers are kids in between ages 12 and 17 because that is the age where kids will masturbate instead of having sex. The reason they view older people having sex is because 18 is the legal age to be a porn star and also when our society finds it okay for people to make their own decisions in life.
Child-Porn should be Legal

Too many innocent men who are not paedophiles are becoming victims after stumbling across images of underaged children having sex e.g. "Simon Bunce lost his job, and his father cut off contact, when he was arrested after an ID fraudster used his credit card details on a child porn website." [6]Nigel Robinson wishes he had just binned his laptop after trying to load an album by rocker Slash [7]Innocent people should never be punished.Once children are at an age where they develop sexual feelings they might flirt with others including adults, and will be viewed differently. Is it right to punish someone for being aroused by that? You say "90% of cases of "child porn" or pedophiles raping children, have victims that are under the age of 12" but you are talking about hateful material i.e. sexual abuse/exploitation, which isn't pornography or material intended to excite people sexually. Children are capable of understanding what they are doing:"Sex and relationship education (SRE) is compulsory from age 11 onwards. It involves teaching children about reproduction, sexuality and sexual health." [8]Allowing children 13+ to be pornstars would help others to seek advice and become more aware of the dangers, this would reduce teen pregnancies and also help prevent children being abused. Less people would search the deep web to watch abuse so are less likely to become abusers or some other criminal.The largest group of viewers of Internet porn is children between ages 12 and 17 [9] yet they can only legally watch pornographic images of people who are older than them, but not the same age. I find that strange.sources:[6] http://news.bbc.co.uk...[7] http://www.mirror.co.uk...[8] https://www.gov.uk...[9] http://www.enough.org...
Child-Porn should be Legal

How exactly do people "stumble" across child porn? I've heard stories of people doing that on the deep web but never on a normal search engine. And you seem to switch up the terms "abuse" and "porn" when speaking of such things. Yes, people could stumble upon a child being abused on a normal search engine, like a child being left in a hot car or being slapped for being naughty. But these people are not stumbling across child porn on normal search engines. You now say that it can only be considered pornography if the child is at least 12 or older, that is a little more reasonable but still much too young. Like I said, 90% of cases of "child porn" or pedophiles raping children, have victims that are under the age of 12. They don't want someone that can talk to the police and give them a facial description or fight back...they want a defenseless child that has no idea what is going on. That is why there is so much hatred towards pedophiles, it's not a "love connection", it's a grown adult preying on innocent children. And there are already enough bad influences out there that tell young teens and pre-teens that it is okay to lose your virginity at the age of 12, when really it shouldn't be. Something like making child porn legal would influence many young girls (mostly girls) and some young boys that they can have sex at such a young age without having the mental capability to understand what they are doing. It would cause a spike in teen pregnancies which would cause a rise in the population and also cause a rise in abortion which abortion can be dangerous to a full grown woman so it cannot be much better for a 13 year old girl. I will post further arguments in the next round.
Child-Porn should be Legal

It is your choice but if you don't use sources you will lose 2 points. My opponent argues that child abuse is child porn, he says "INTERPOL changed from calling it "child pornography" to "child abuse" because that is what it is" and seems to think child abuse is porn because that was what it was incorrectly called, and is still commonly called by people who are unaware of the changes. His belief is made clearer when he says "Because 90% of the children in "child porn" are under the age of 12" despite there being no such material in existence (I don't think there is)The reason the International Police Organisation INTERPOL have stopped using the term "child porn" and want it to be replaced with child abuse, child sexual exploitive material and similar names, is because the term "pornography" doesn't reflect the absence of consent and the horrific nature. Pornography isn't perverse, it is intended to sexually arouse viewers [1] This mistake has clearly taken place and not been corrected quickly because of people's hatred towards paedophiles. Below is a social experiment video showing how some people react to paedophiles:Making child porn legal will help prevent such violence. Child porn isn't just disgusting to see, it's the biggest online concern; geater than terrorist websites yet most people don't report it. 1.5 million British adults (4% men, 2% women) have stumbled across it. Most people don't report child sexual abuse [4]. If there wasn't such fears about reporting it, due to child porn being legal, then more people would report abuse."In the UK... The Protection of Children Act makes it a crime to view images of child pornography irrespective of whether or not images are saved or stored" [5] It isn't a good idea to type 'kiddie porn' in google for research. In the US, a man's laptop contained 106 images of child porn in the cache which isn't evidence of knowing pocession yet he was convicted of sexual exploitation of children & jailed [5] Anyone can be falsely accused of being a pedo and then beat up, killed, lose friends, family, wife, job etc; many stumble on child porn or say dodgy things. Their life can easily be ruined. No-one should be treated unfairly, not even pedos but they are, you'll hear of "paedophile rings" on the news, you won't hear of "homosexual rings". Children don't have a sexual interest in others or masturbate until they are 12 or older [3]. So it can only be considered pornography if a child has reached puberty and is at least 13 years old, and if the child willingly participates with a full understanding which they should have because sexual health education is usually taught at 11.sources:[3] http://www.tascc.ca...[4] http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...[5] http://www.theregister.co.uk...
Child-Porn should be Legal

I am going to say this right off the bat, I will probably not list any sources, I am just going to place my thoughts and hope that the voters will side with me. There is a reason the INTERPOL changed from calling it "child pornography" to "child abuse" because that is what it is. The reason it is frowned upon and illegal because it is not children setting up a webcam and performing sexual acts for people willingly, it's children being forced to take place in these acts against their will. It is also abuse because not only are these people raping these children, they are beating them black and blue and a lot of the times it might even end with the children being murdered for the pleasure of the raper and the viewers who think it is arousing and have probably done something similar themselves. And I have a question for you mostlogical. Is there any age limit to what you think "child porn" should be? Because 90% of the children in "child porn" are under the age of 12 and have not undergone puberty yet. Some are not even children yet, they are just babies. I really don't think babies are consenting to take part in these acts. There are a few more rounds so I will hold off any further arguments for them.
Child-Porn should be Legal

The International Police Organisation INTERPOL has stopped using the term "child pornography". Instead it uses “child sexual abuse material”, “documented child sexual abuse”, “child sexual exploitive material”, “child abuse images,” or “depicted child sexual abuse" to refer to the offence [1]Con (TalkingWaffle69) must present arguments in favour of child porn remaining illegal while I will argue why child porn should be legalIf child porn is legalised it should be assumed that regulations will be in place.definitions: - Pornography is material intended to arouse sexual excitement- Abuse is cuel treatment which expresses hate- child is somone under the age of 18Rules1. No forfeits2. No trolling3. No new arguments in the final round4. Violation of any rule will result in a loss.If you are unahppy with any of the following please let me know, if not you may acceptsources:[1] http://www.thejournal.ie...