BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Madea is responsible for killing her children

1.Yes judgement can effect a person"s outcome due to the fact that what we think and what we believe turns out to be what we do. Madea puts up with the cruel reality of life so long with her husband and such that her judgement was based off the corruption infested in her subconscious brain, in which she could not help since she was provoked over time allowing this judgement to form in longevity. 2.Yes, Judgement doesn"t give a person the right to murder but, it can be the reason as to why a person commits murder. For example a person can base judgement of their children being in danger and decide to do whatever it is they have to do to save them from harm. In this case madea judgement was based off a good dead of savior not a bad deed of murder 3.I agree with your premise (5) that Madea is her own person and she is and adult, however I still stand by my argument that she is suffering from insanity due to the fact that she is committing a murder, but believes she is doing it in a righteous spirit. Madea believes that the only reason she has to murder her kids is to save them. She believes this is the only solution she has and was forced to do without any other outlet, thus proving why she is insane 4.In reference to your premise on Seneca"s theory on anger. Seneca theory does not apply to madea because she believes that her action to kill her children was long time fixed solution to saving them from the world since they will no longer exist for others to torture as she stated in the monologue. Therefore medea technically did not gain a temporary answer to her problem. 5.As for your premise (6), murder doesn"t have to be painful all the time. We do not know the form in which madea murdered her children, for all we no she could have gave them poison to kill them harmlessly in their sleep which is not making them go through pain or suffering.
Madea is responsible for killing her children

1.Even though a person judgment is altered does not mean they have the rightful reason to kill their child. For example just because a person judges another person that does not make the judgment right, or even just enough to kill another human. 2.Madea cannot claim insanity because she was aware of her actions when killing her children as well as its results. 3.I agree with the above definition of frustration being a strong feeling of displeasure and belligerence by a wrong or wrath of and individual or object. 4.Although Frustration and anger caused and emotion of motivation to seek revenge towards her husband, it does not make it right to act upon murder. 5.Madea is her own person that is of legal adult age which gives reason to believe that medea husband cannot force her do anything she does not want to do, including murder. 6.Murder in most cases are painful, with this being said Medea was not helping her children, but only harming them of life and a painful death
Madea is responsible for killing her children

1.I agree with the stated definition of anger being, a strong passion or emotion of displeasure or antagonism, excited by a real or supposed injury or insult to one's self or others, or by the intent to do such injury. 2.Frustration is not be confused with anger, for it is a strong feeling of displeasure and belligerence by a wrong or wrath of and individual or object. 3. According to Aristotle anger changes a person"s feelings and state of mind, because it effects their mental judgement. Therefore in response to your premise (2) anger does force a person to react in response to it since it alters a person"s judgment. 4.Medea is not responsible for killing her children, because she is insane due to the actions of her husband driver her crazy mentally. Because of her insanity disorder, Medea did not understand that what she was doing was illegal or wrong she just wanted to help her children. 5.Medea was compelled to commit the crime of killing her children by an irresistible force of god guidance, for she believe that"s what he wanted to happen as a plan of revenge. As well as the irresistible force of her husband slights and abuse. 6.Medea"s husband forced her to kill her children by first frustrating her which led her to the discomforted and motivation of anger causing her mind to seek revenge to plot a plan to save her children from the torture and pain her husband had put her through by killing them before he could to it to them. 7.Medea killed children out of the act of a greater spirit. Medea granted her children with life on earth and saved their lives by killing them off to escape the troubles of human kind. Medea states: "I gave birth to them I shall kill them" thus meaning Medea felt it was her right to kill the children since she was saving them. 8.Yes I agree that Medea knew that her life would be empty without her children and that this could cause her the most pain, but she decided to go through with killing her children to save them from suffering. Medea rather go through life in pain then watch her children go through it. 9.Medea is not responsible for killing her children, because she did it out of the mental judgement of anger. Angered from her husband"s conspicuous slights, Medea had no choice but kill her children to put them out of the miseries of life she knew they would have had to face and the conspicuous slights from their father. 10.Yes it is wrong to kill children, but Medea is mad, which means she is not responsible for her action of revenge. Non-controversial: premises 1 and 2 are non-controversial, because premise (1) and (2) are stating definitions. Controversial premises: 4 through 10 are controversial because they are stating my opinions. Premise 3 is controversial because it is state the theory of philosopher Aristotle
Madea is responsible for killing her children

1.The definition of anger is a strong passion or emotion of displeasure or antagonism, excited by a real or supposed injury or insult to one's self or others, or by the intent to do such injury. 2.Anger gives a person motivation to act upon revenge when slighted, but the action of taking revenge does not have to be physically ,just as long as a person is thinking about the revenge, they are still considered anger. Thus meaning even though Medea was anger she could have reacted with the thought of revenge with killing her children and not doing so in the act. 3.The emotion of anger does not have the ability to force anyone to do anything they do not want to do. 4.According to Seneca anger gives us ideas for vengeance that our reasonable mind would not agree to, which mean even though Medea was anger it was not right for her to kill her children 5.Medea did not want to kill her children when she saw them, but it was her decision to go through with it making her responsible for their deaths. Medea was well aware that killing her children was wrong making her decision to kill them wrong 6.Medea is guilty for killing her children because she did it out of spite to put her husband through pain. 7.Seneca says, there is nothing useful in anger, and that it is not the solution to solving a problem, for it is only a temporary fix. With that being said killing her children out of angers revenge and spit is not a logical solution. 8.Medea, just like any other person, could have chosen to listen to reason, but instead consciously decided to follow through with her vengeful plan. 9.Medea knew that killing her children was wrong and that it would put her through pain when they are dead, but she still reasonably decided to go through with it after stating her pain of bringing them on earth then taking them out. 10.Therefore, Medea is fully responsible for her actions. 11.Non-controversial: premises 1 ,2 and 3 are non-controversial, because premise (1) and (2) are stating definitions. 12.Controversial premises: 5 through 10 are controversial because they stating my personal opinions on the Madea monologue. Premise 3 is controversial because it is state the theory of Seneca on anger
Stop voting incumbent

You spoke about what we have had crammed down our throats. I'm from Illinois. What I have noticed is that if you give these guys/girls more time they become cushy. People have asked several times for term limits. It never comes up. Voting based on party does not work. What has your party done for you lately? Nothing. The work these politicians do only benefits them & their friends. If they were really working for the people term limits would have been imposed a long time ago. It is not Republican vs Democrat. It is us vs them. Once these politicians get a grip on power it is harder & harder to get rid of them. The 1st mistake people make is believing a word of what they say. The only thing good about an election year is prices don't go up.
Stop voting incumbent

To address each of your points. 1- Turnover in politics is not inherently good. Perhaps in a chiefly bipartisan system alike to the United State's may be beneficial, but only to improve political variety, which is also not inherently good. Political variety is best when the variety equally represents the people and their wishes, in a democracy. Continually using the United States as an example, Presidents are not allowed to run for office after they did previously. This ensures a fresh flow of candidates in every successful party, promoting this political variety. Instead of voting on presidents for the purpose to have variety, the best choice would be to vote for the president whom will best further the people of the world, but of the mother country primarily interests. Two can be responded to similarly to one. 3- I agree, but usually this entails promises, and not actual work. If one really wanted to instal a fear of impeachment in the president to coerce him/her to work harder, the simple act of changing impeachment laws to be easier, or very well defined, is a better alternative.
Islam is the most vile ideology in human history

>Alright let's start this over, we are supposed to be examining the ideology of Islam, not the practice of Islam I am fully aware of that, perhaps you should not have brought the debate to the topic of how the ideology was practiced if you wanted to remain on the initial topic of the ideology itself. And I am aware that was the initial point of the debate, that is why I gave examples of worse ideologies than Islam and evidence that ,whilst having elements of it that I would argue are incredibly sexist, homophobic and opposed to general western liberal ideologies, still does have elements in which promote helping the poor, being kind and neighborly, and being humble. These are not things preached in Mein Kampf, something which acts as a holy book of sorts for Nazism, and many of the worst elements of Islam are prevalent in Christianity too. >being the only ideology to tolerate FGM, and the only one whose founded had his soldiers rape w9omen in front of their husbands, this is far wose than any ideology that I know of. The founder of Nazism started the biggest war in human history and gassed an estimated 6 million Jews, I would say this is much, much worse. And, as stated before, Islam does have elements to it which do encourage you to be neighborly, which do encourage you to charitable, an which do encourage you to be what most codes of morals would consider you to be an ideal being.
Islam is the most vile ideology in human history

>By major nation I meant a super-power, no Musli nation was ever a super power save the Ottoman Empire Are you joking? A superpower is defined as "a very powerful and influential nation (used especially with reference to the US and the former Soviet Union when these were perceived as the two most powerful nations in the world)." So therefore we can assume any Muslim nation significantly influential historically which was incredibly powerful could be considered a superpower. The Abbasids and Umayyads where, by all means two perfect examples of superpowers, the Umayyad's stretched all the way from India to Spain, making it one of the largest land empires of all time, and by all means a superpower. The Abbasids routinely fought the Byzantines and managed to conquer vast swathes of land in the Mediterranean and Asia Minor, making them too a fairly significant superpower. The Seventh Crusade was based in Egypt against the Ayyubid and Bahri Mamulks caliphate whom fought the French and the Knights Templar, and the Muslims managed to retain a decisive victory. Speaking of the Mamluks, they would definitely have been considered a superpower. They controlled all the Levant, Hejaz, and a good chunk of Northern Africa. They managed to establish dynasties of the ruling classes family in India and they managed to expluse the crusaders from The Holy Land. Expulsion of a combination of major European powers from The Holy Land would definitely give them the title of a "superpower" To claim that there has never been a Muslim superpower other than the Ottomans is completely false. Sources: - https://www.britannica.com... - https://en.wikipedia.org... - https://www.britannica.com...
There is at least a 99% probability that God exists.

I personally believe that there is a far smaller chance than 99% that God exists. I think the likelihood to fall somewhere below the 1% range, although of course it never reaches 0. I beleive that the concept of a God is far too complex to exist in this universe, and that Occam's razor should hold true: the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one. The burden of proof will be on my opponent to show that God has a high probability of existing. I will refute his/her points to the best of my ability. I will not accept Bible quotes or other religious texts, because arguments of that sort always end up with circular reasoning: "God exists because the Bible says so." Good luck to whoever decides to enter this discussion with me.
Non-citizens/permanent residents should be able to run for president in America.

:) Now then, permanent residents and non-citizens are not citizens, and as such do not have the same privileges as real citizens. It might seem unfair to these people, especially since, as is the case with many Latino illegal immigrants, they are fleeing gang violence and corruption. However, green cards are NOT PERMANENT. As a matter of fact, green cards are renewable, meaning that they expire (green cards last ten years). Why? It is because permanent residents are expected to apply for citizenship and become naturalized so that they can take part in the voting process and have other citizenship privileges. Being a permanent resident or a non-citizen is not supposed to be an indefinite label, and as a result, they should not be allowed to vote. Sources: . https://www.uscis.gov...
Non-citizens/permanent residents should be able to run for president in America.

I believe that if you live in a country as a permanent resident you should still be able to run for president in America. A non-citizen could easily care just as much for a country as someone who was born there. Even if you don't believe that if you believe that democracy then it shouldn't be a problem to let these people run for president. Also, it is part of our human rights to not be discriminated against by country of birth. While there are some human rights considered debatable, the right to not be discriminated based on country of birth is not one of them.
Jacob vs. Edward? Twilight

Uh, okay. Con does not prove that white people are superior. Jacob's Native American; that's unique, mysterious and cool. Jacob is better looking than Edward. Jacob can communicate telepathically. Jacob is the more passionate of the two. His warewolf traits are superior to Edward's. Most importantly, when Bella rejected him, Jacob abandoned his pack to protect her despite the fact that he was hurt beyond comprehension. That type of loyalty, discipline, devotion and passion shows that he loves Bella more than himself. He proved that in a more profound way than Edward did.
Prostitution should be legalized

I will be presenting arguments from a prior debate of mine where my opponent forfeited. This is not plagiarism since it‘s all written by me. For an activity to be criminalized it must at the bare minimum infringe upon other peoples rights, either directly (rape, murder, theft, etc. ), or indirectly (pollution damaging peoples health for example). I maintain that prostitution involves neither and should therefor not be considered a crime. My first argument will be the fundamental one dealing with the legality of prostitution. The other two are supporting arguments demonstrating the positive practical benefits of legalizing prostitution.1. Prostitution is a victimless crimeGiven that the prostitute and the buyer are both consenting participants, there is no victim. If there is no victim, then how can there be a crime? Furthermore, the state has no business controlling what adults choose to do with their own bodies or for what reasons they choose to engage in sexual activities, as long as they are not infringing on other peoples rights. 2. Undermining the black market and increasing workplace safety for prostitutesToday, black markets, i. e. pimps and other criminals, meet the demand for prostitution and these „employers“ tend not to be overly concerned with the safety of their employes. If prostitution were legalized, then the black market would have to compete with legal brothels, which would presumably be regulated by the government. Prostitutes working at these brothels would enjoy the benefit of a much safer working environment and would therefor have a significant incentive to work there instead. Legalizing prostitution would also allow prostitutes to unionize, ensuring that their rights as working men and women would be respected.3. Decreasing the taxpayers' loadThe state spends significant amounts of money and resources combating prostitution. If prostitution were legalized, then the expenditures of the police and justice systems would decrease and the tax revenue would increase. I look forward to reading con's rebuttals and counterarguments.
sex b4 marriage

I never, ever in this debate said that sex before marriage is wrong because this is not my side of the debate.You have failed to refute my point that using the analogy (which you blatantly decided to accept as your only contention of 'gambling') "you could very easily end up with a faulty car whilst someone takes the car that, if you had test driven, you would have taken to be your own and cared for far better than them and your car would have pleased you far better than the one you have."I have met my burden of proof while you refuted nor addressed anything I said. I think it's rather rude of you to ask me to give reasons for YOUR side of the debate. Although your lack of understanding basic debate etiquette does amuse me, and I'm a very difficult person to amuse.
Jesus was just a loonie.

What if he is god? It is impossible to disprove wih 100% certainty. Because he is a being with infinitely rightous morals we cannot fully understand his reasoning. If he really had stopped people from getting arrested and really did stop them from stoning that one woman don't you think there would be something legit? Communion is symbolistic. He sacrificed himself because it was the rightous thing to do. Proper punishment is hell. But as an infinitely moral entity he forgave us. We just have to believe.
Jesus was just a loonie.

Jesus is a phony! First he claimed that he was the son of god, which cannot be confirmed. He forgave every man he met, even forgiving that slut Mary Magdalene. Jesus was not a prosecutor of the law! They should have been punished, but no, that lunatic forgave them without proper authority! Also, he claimed that wine is his blood and the bread is his body. That would make every christian a cannibal. Then Jesus "died for our sins". Why did he sacrifice himself when all that was really needed was proper punishment for the bad!?
Lets eat endangered animals.

Thank you for your contribution.RefutalMy opponent has decided to provide the argument in binary form, which I personally don't disapprove of, although it is an unusual and unnecessarily cumbersome way of conveying a text when debating. Part of the text, which otherwise includes a lot of random letters and other gibberish, translates to this:"you mad bro you mad broyou mad broyou mad broyou mad broyou mad broyou myou mad broad broyou mad broyou mad broyou mad broyou mad broyou mad broyou mad broyou mad bryou mad brooyou mad broyou mad bro**** you"There are no arguments in my opponents message. This excerpt shows personal insults/profanity and spelling mistakes, the rest of the message is mostly nonsensical.If any of the readers wish to read the full message that was conveyed in the previous round, simply go to this website [1], select binary to text conversion, and paste in my opponent's series of numbers.ConclusionPro has managed to convey nothing but personal insults and nonsensical gibberish. My opponent has not made any arguments or rebuttals against my case, thus not meeting the Burden of Proof. He has also forfeited a round. Pro has used unconventional measures in order to make his message more difficult to read. My argument has not been refuted or argued against.Vote Con.Source[1] http://binarytranslator.com...
Athens vs. Sparta (athens lets just say is pro, and Sparta is con)

Well to finalize why Athens was better than Sparta. Ok, so do we honestly care about or remember Sparta other than the movie 300? Is the only think we care about them "THIS IS SPARTA!!"? No, I don't think we honestly care or heard about them other than that horribly inaccurate movie! Athens we remember for the Hollywood views, but for their exuberance in all three of my contentions and arguments I made. So Athens was better than Sparta, I wish I had some last speech to work with so I would explain why Athens is still better. But just think... Would we have our democracy without Athens, would we have philosophy we have today without Athens, would we have America if it wasn't for Athens... Ponder these questions and you will see that Athens was better than Sparta Thank you Shy.Guy for debating for this first debate on this website!