BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Claim that Medea is responsible for her actions

1. Both parties involved have reached an agreement and understanding of what Medea had done, the moral of her story. Murder is a crime, and those who commit murder intentionally, are never considered innocent. 2. Murder is the killing of one human being by another, with premeditation. 3. A crime is an action/activity that is considered to be evil, shameful, or wrong; It is punishable and it is against humanity. 4. Anger and revenge are two big themes, driving factors, in Medea"s story. 5. We have agreed that anger is the greatest menace to humankind, but disagree on the details/facts backing up this statement. My opponent believes Medea had not acted on anger(repeatedly stating that anger is a danger only when acted upon in premise 4 round 1), I believe that anger is the driving force of Medea"s actions. 6. My argument is that Medea is responsible for her actions, for murdering her children. I stand by my points as they seem rational and true. Medea felt guilty even before going through with her plans, she had mixed feelings and a mindset driven by anger and revenge. As a grown person, mother, and wife, she certainly knows what responsibility means and how so importance it is in any given situation. Responsibility is having the ability to act independently to make self-decisions. Medea was burdened by this for being a grown woman, mother, and wife, and she is no stranger to responsibility. 7. Therefore, Medea was responsible for her actions.
People freak out about fashion too much.

Rebuttal "It so dumb because there are people who are too poor to afford the basics and these other people get accept because they can't get these new shoes they saw in a window at some clothes store" It doesn"t make sense that someone has to feel a certain way because other people can"t get this type of things. There is no reason why someone shouldn"t get frustrated over something just because someone has it worse. Someone always has it worse except for the worse person, but by my opponent"s logic, everyone except that one person wouldn"t be able to complain. This is also saying that anyone who is living can"t complain because other people haven"t had the privilege of living. Argument Too much My opponent is saying that in general people are freaking out over fashion too much, but I would say that generally people are right to freak out over fashion. I assume my opponent would agree that in society how someone looks matters. It tells a story, and therefore it tells about someone"s life. People want other people to get the right idea about them and not get them to see them for something else than what they want. Also for some people it could be a hobby, and saying someone shouldn"t worry themselves out over it is like saying people shouldn"t worry themselves over a sport because there are some people who are unable to play sports.
Being overweight is bad

1. Where is your evidence? 2. Wikipedia, is formed by professionals. Only people who have a proof website can change it. 3.Being overweight is a known risk factor for heart disease 4. Research more before posting a comment because being overweight CAN INCREASE risk of diabetes. www.news-medical.net/?id=32912 www.mamashealth.com/eat/oweightdam.asp Vote Pro please. Thank you
Being overweight is bad

1. Being overweight can increase the risk of diabetes. 2. It's bad for physical health. 3. It's bad for your mental health. 4. It also can increase the risk of kidney disease. 5. It makes you weigh more so it takes more energy to walk or run. 6. It reduces life expectancy. http://en.wikipedia.org... This is why being overweight is bad. I thank whoever joins this debate. Vote Pro please. Thank you
Communism

Qualms with communism: 1. Tends to fail: Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba 2. Supresses individual liberty: doesn't allow for private property, the government controls everything, people are forced to be equal in socioeconomic status Why capitalism is superior: 1: Allows for individual freedom: most democracies are capitalist 2: Allows opportunity for upward mobility 3: Despite its flaws, it is the best system in existence. This is not the entirety of my argument, rather it's a framework since you seemed to be asking for a framework or a summary of my argument.
Communism

Capitalism has outgrown its necessity and done nothing but intensify the ancient, barbaric feudal relationships it was sanctified to do away with. The conditions of capitalism: states, classes, capital, etc. are obsolete, and thus we must dispel all superstitions - we must reject all external "big others" - that tell us these artificial constructs are necessary. Consciously rejecting the idealism and cultural dogma that capitalism has wrought is the paramount approach to advancing humanity's mastery over the material world; the outright domination of man over his conditions is his single preordained goal, and communism is the only movement that can fulfill his aspiration.
Animal Testing

Hello, jlconservative and as Kenicks is a friend of mine, I love the opportunity to debate you. There will be no politics in this debate, I assure you. First I bring your attention to the very first line you wrote: "Without animal research, medicine as we know it today wouldn't exist." I agree, some amazing things have been discovered using animal testing. Some amazing things have been discovered without animal testing, and actually if you look at the numbers, more has been discovered without animals then with. Think about penicillin, radioactivity and the theories involving the earths rotation in copernicus' time. Animals were around, and it couldve been tested on them, but the bottom line was it wasnt neccesary. I have a dog, and all the dog people out there shiver at the prospect of their animal, their best friend, being tested for chanel no. 5. The point that I am trying to make is that no matter how much we create new drugs and test out new things, animals will always be there. We will not use them, however, because there is so much technology it is unnecesary. We are moving into an age of technology, and moving out of an age of animal testing.
In a war between the nerds and the geeks, the geeks would win.

My opponent has not offered any reasons as to why the geeks would win this while I have offered multiple reasons as to why the nerds would easily win this war. My opponent never realy attacked any of these so they all pass. To the voters I would like to ask you not to judge Pro to harshly for that last round because they didnt offer clear definitions they made it easy for neg to win and made it virtualy impossible for Pro to win. I would like to thank you again for this fun topic. Here are the main reasons that nerds would win 1. nerds have the advantage of Xaviers school and many others 2. nerds are also "geniuses" in the military giving them a large advantage. 3. nerds are smarter and could just build something to help them win. Vote con, live long, and prosper. Kirk out
In a war between the nerds and the geeks, the geeks would win.

Ugh... I'm serously trying not to pull out the insults! You obviously don't get it! Of course the war between nerds and geeks isn't real, but geeks and nerds are! So, your arguments of Xavier's School do not even matter in that respect. Even if that school were real, geeks and nerds alike would not be accepted in it. The school is for Gifted Youngsters, aka Mutants. You keep listing "advantages" of the nerds that our really advantages for the geeks! So thank you for helping my case!I hope you know that you can also be a geek at military school. You're the one who brought up jocks and bullies in the first place.LIVE LONG AND PROSPER IS A GEEK'S PHRASE! THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONTINUOUS SUPPORT!
In a war between the nerds and the geeks, the geeks would win.

First off I would like to point out that a war between geeks and nerds is not real either and since you failed to specify what type of school so I can use the argument of "Xaviers School" because you simply said school, and if you fail to mention what type of school in the beginning, you can not decide to set limits after I already made the arguments, so this argument is actually perfectly viable. secondly I also stated that you can be a nerd at a MILITARY SCHOOL which is real, there is not only American military schools, there are tons of other countries military schools and these all still have classes in hand to hand combat, weapons training, strategy, and many others. You can not argue that these schools don't count either because they are very real. An just because someone supposedly cares more for something doesn't mean that they are better at it. And you say geeks aren't beaten up while I say nerds aren't beaten up and many nerds hang out with the jocks as well and besides that fact this is a war only between GEEKS and NERDS so you cant start bringing in groups that you cant prove would side with them (if you did I could simply say that nerds are in control of the worlds armies and politics and products along with virtually everything else and would easily smash the geeks out of the water) and while I have stated why the nerds would win my opponent has not given any reason to expect the geeks to win and they have also not shot down any of the reasons why I said that the nerds would win so the nerds are still ahead. Thanks for the fun topic I shall await for the response, live long and prosper
In a war between the nerds and the geeks, the geeks would win.

First of all, Xavier's school isn't real. therefore, your argument there is useless. And you do realize that Xavier's School, Hogwarts, Star Trek Academy, Jedi School, and Taskmaster's Assassin School are all things GEEKS would care for, not nerds, right? Geeks are not beaten up by jocks and bullies, they HANG OUT with those people. Obviously, this is a huge advantage.
In a war between the nerds and the geeks, the geeks would win.

First off I would like to point out that watching action movies and playing video games does not make you a better fighter, this is why the nerds and geeks tend to get beat up by the jocks and bullies. Second I would like to use Pro's definition of a nerd as a "kid that is a genius on one or more school subject(s)" since my opponent does not specify what type of school I will assume that anything goes. Lets first look at Xavier's SCHOOL for the gifted, class subjects including energy manipulation, hand to hand combat, teleportation, phasing, various physic abilities, and other many other similar courses, if you are a genius in any of these subjects you will have a huge advantage over the geeks who just watch a lot of movies/comics the nerds could also be geniuses at subjects taught at schools such as Hogwarts, Star trek academy, Jedi school, Taskmasters assassin school, and various other comic/movie/book schools along with United states and other countries military schools where they will learn abilities to give them huge advantages in a fight (If my opponent wishes me to expound I will). geeks have no such experience or skills. The nerds would win because they have training in combat and are geniuses at it, and two they have abilities such as the force or mind powers to give them a gigantic advantage in a fight. Thanks for the fun topic I'm excited for your response.
In a war between the nerds and the geeks, the geeks would win.

I believe that if somehow a war between nerds and geeks flared, the geeks would end up victorious. I will provide definitions for both "nerds" and "geeks". Nerd: The kind of kid that is a genius on one or more school subject(s). The stereotypical nerd is shorter than average, tucks his/her shirt in, has taped glasses, and makes strange nasal noises. Is nice to anyone that doesn't shove them in the hallway. Geek: The kind of kid that is way too much into video games and comic books. To be specific, computer games and DC Comics. Usually has a good attitude, slightly better than that of a nerd. Is nice to anyone that likes the same companies he/she does. First round is for acceptance. May the odds be ever in my favor.
Rehabilitation is more efficient than imprisonment.

I do not believe that "trash recycling" would save a lot of money as we need tons of rehabilitation counselors. Rehabilitation for those with mental disorders are already available so that is not a problem.If the prisons are already soon full how are we going to get a counselor for every prisoner? That's far too much for rehabilitation centers too handle. And to reeducate those with already harmed minds is not an easy task. As many prisoners have had a bad childhood to therefore commit crimes, their mindset are totally different and it's been that way their whole life. We can't just like come in from nowhere and change it with ease. Also, just by we giving them rehabilitation does not mean that everyone will accept it. We are forcing them to do it and it is not the same as themselves doing it.If we are going to train the prisoners for specific jobsectors, then we also need teachers. They need payment too and therefore we also need classrooms and other things a school require. A lot of the prisoner are most likely to not have any base knowleadge either of the subject. We can't like make them all too mathematicians as the gap is too big. All of the prisoners have not the same amount of knowleadge either, we basically need to adjust the learningmaterial to fit each person. Imprisonment on the otherside is much more less costly. We don't need to employ teahcers and counselors. We just need guards, and even if we chose to go with rehabilitation, guards are still required. Prisoners don't change overnight and are therefore still harmful. This system though also needs the government to pay for food and get them a place ti live which is quite a bother but if we have the rehabilitation system, where are the prisoners going to live and who provides food? The state or themselves? If it's the state then it's clearly not less costly. But if they are going to get them a home and food themselves then that means they can still live in the society even if they have commited a crime. We can't let criminals roam around in cities and such.There is a chance that prisoners will think about what they have done wrong and change that when they are in the prison. And after they get out change into a better person, without rehabilitation. With your system there is far too little punishment and they may not think of e.g. murder as bad as it really is. Though the chance for change is little and rehabilitation is more effective but costs too much.
Rehabilitation is more efficient than imprisonment.

Currently, the legal system operates using a "trash containment" or "trash incineration" approach. This approach seems to use a lot of money, and since they are throwing so many people into prisons, they seem to be running out of room for people in those prisons. https://www.aclu.org... If the legal system were to adopt a "trash recycling" approach, there would be a large amount of money saved and a significant increase in the progress of humanity. This approach would utilize rehabilitation instead of punishment. Rehabilitation would consist of: 1. Curing those with mental disorders. 2. Reeducating those who have acquired harmful mindsets. 3. Training for jobs where more people are needed, or where they would greatly help humanity to progress further. Of course, rehabilitation would only be feasible if/when cures for various mental disorders are developed, and it would be more effective if preventive measures were taken to ensure that there were less or no future crimes. However, the development of those cures and the details of those preventive measures are not the focus of this debate. Though the benefit may not be seen for some time during the initial execution of this approach, over time it would prove effective in eliminating crime and encouraging growth in many fields. As such, rehabilitation is more efficient than imprisonment.
Most Peoples' problem with SSM is that they believe it would force churches to marry SameSex Couples

I don't think that's the main problem. It might be to smart of a problem. I think people just fall back on the religious card, not that they can't be married, but that it is a Mortal sin, and that it is religiously incorrect to get married. If this is what you are saying, i am sorry, you had a good argument, but it was a little confusing.
Most Peoples' problem with SSM is that they believe it would force churches to marry SameSex Couples

Arguments are made that GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered) people should not be aloud to raise children. First of all, this argument is null and void. Statistics have shown that children raised in GLBT families are just as well off and possibly better off then those raised in straight families. And no, children raised by GLBT parents aren't always GLBT. All respectable medical, psychological, and children based organizations have come out stating that children are all of the above (APA, AMA, ect). Secondly that this opens the door for marrying your livestock or even multiple partners. The people who say anything about marrying livestock have certain issues, Two people marrying. And sadly, yes marriage has been redefined before. It now includes interracial couples. I can't even fight the argument that SSM would open the door for Polygamy because there is no basis, any first year law student could tell you that, it's illogical. GLBT people don't want Religious Marriage, we want Civil Marriage. Most churches issue you a certificate as well as the certificate that you get from the state. Oh and by the way, GLBT people have been around a lot longer than any religious faith. In ancient Greece it was expected for nobles to have a women simply for procreation but their lover was typically male. Speaking with a Congressional Candidate she informed me of peoples ignorance to the understanding of issues. Most people oppose SSM because they believe that it would force the churches to preform them. This simply isn't the case. Just as a Jewish church can deny marrying of a Catholic couple, churches do not have to preform same sex marriage.
These Arguments Against the God of Christianity Are Valid - 1B.

Have you ever seen the wind? Has you seen history? Have you ever seen your brain? We see the effects of the wind, but the wind is invisible. We have records of history, but it is by "faith" that we believe certain historical events happened. <<< ----> Yes, I have seen the wind. I have learned about past occurences in history. And I've seen what a human brain has looked like - OUTSIDE the head (so I doubt this part of the analogy works ;D). This nice little intro is irrelevant, since I have solid evidence for the existence of all these 3 things. God, on the other hand. .. 1. Argument from Evil My opponent uses quite a peculiar argument. He argues that since Jesus Christ came down and got crucified, he has somehow solved this problem. His death was, in fact, the allowance of man to be saved - it did not wipe out evil from the world. He has not answered my question yet. He does not explain why there are still hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, viruses, and disease that kill innocent people everywhere. If this isn't unnecessary suffering, then I don't know what is. 2. Argument from Non-belief >>>Just like how he gave Adam and Eve a choice to eat from the tree. <<< This is actually another plight that needs to be answered. If Adam and Eve never knew about the concept of morality before eating of the tree, then how can they be blamed for what they did? They didn't know what "good" or "bad" was, somewhat like a newborn baby. Secondly, why punish the son for the sins of the father? If my dad punched someone I wouldn't expect ME to get imprisoned for physical assault. >>>Every human has a choice. Forgiveness is a gift that God offers to everyone, but individuals must receive it by repenting and trusting in Christ, or they will remain dead in their sins. <<< If you read the argument, then you will see that one of the points was that reasonable non-belief occurs. I'm sure that even you think that some, or most, atheists don't believe in God SINCERELY. This means we really believe he doesn't exist because of a lack of evidence, not because we secretly hate him and want to reject him. If you can accept this fact, then you will see that there is a problem: why doesn't God prove his existence? Of course, you argue that he wants for us to have free will. This attacks my 3rd premise: that God has no greater desire than the one to have everyone believe God exists before they die. However, it is now YOUR burden to show why God would prefer for us to have free will (thus some saved some not) over his desire for all humans to go to heaven. Go on, I'll wait. =====Conclusion===== Unfortunately, my opponent's argument are more a sermon than a theological attack. I shall await for the next round then.
These Arguments Against the God of Christianity Are Valid - 1B.

As this is my first debate, I will try my best. 1) My opponent stated, "I am here to argue that the God of the Bible and thus the teaching of Christianity does not exist, i. e. has no solid evidence for it's existence. " My answer to that is we believe in many things that we can't see. Have you ever seen the wind? Has you seen history? Have you ever seen your brain? We see the effects of the wind, but the wind is invisible. We have records of history, but it is by "faith" that we believe certain historical events happened. 2) "If an all-loving God exists, then why does evil and suffering exist in the world? Christians commonly use free will as an excuse for the evil in the world. But then, the burden is placed on my opponent to show why God would prefer us having free will rather than us not having free will, or having free will with moral perfection. " Many assume that because evil still exists today, God has not dealt with it. How can atheists assume that God has not already solved the problem of evil in such a way that neither His goodness nor omnipotence is limited? On what grounds do they limit what God can and cannot do to solve the problem? God has already solved the problem of evil. And He did it in a way in which He did not contradict His nature or the nature of man. We assume God will solve the problem of evil in one single act. But why can't He deal with evil in a progressive way? Can't He deal with it throughout time as we know it, and then bring it to the climax on the Day of Judgment? God sent His Son to die on the cross in order to solve the problem of evil. Christ atoned for evil and secured the eventual removal of all evil from the earth. One day evil will be quarantined in one spot called "hell. " Then there will be a perfect world devoid of all evil. If God declared that all evil would, at this moment, cease to exist, you and I and all of humanity would go up in a puff of smoke. Divine judgment demands that sin be punished. If God judged evil today, all unconverted men and women would perish under His wrath. Thank God that He is patiently waiting for them to turn to the Savior and be saved from His terrible wrath. 2. ) Yes, you are correct, God does want all humans to believe God exists before they die. But God has to give every human a choice. Just like how he gave Adam and Eve a choice to eat from the tree. They did, and choose to sin. Every human has a choice. Forgiveness is a gift that God offers to everyone, but individuals must receive it by repenting and trusting in Christ, or they will remain dead in their sins. No one has biblical grounds to continue in sin, assuming that they are safe just because Jesus died on the cross.