BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Was Medea responsible for her actions

1.According to Aristotle, Anger is A reaction to "a slighting intended with the pleasure of fantasy of revenge." 2.Revenge- to punish someone for wronging you. 3.In order for a person to be responsible that person must be able to think clearly. 4.Emotions can cloud a person"s judgment, and prevent them from thinking clearly. 5.Pressure from outside sources can also make a person make decisions that they would not have made otherwise. 6.Medea states, "-anger is master of my plans". Anger is an emotion that clouds judgment and makes people think and act irrationally. 7.Medea is going to be sacrificed by her enemies; her enemies are clearly an outside source getting in the way of her decisions. 8.On top of that Medea says that she does not want to let her enemies go unpunished, indicating hat she is thinking about them, while making this decision. 9.Medea keeps flipping back and fourth on whether she is going through with her plan or not, showing that she does not have clarity over her decisions. 10. Therefore, Because Medea"s emotions, and the pressure from outside sources keep getting in the way of her decisions; she is not responsible for her actions. Non-Controversial premises Premises 1,2,3,4,5, and 7 Premise 1 Is just with the definition of anger. Premise 2 is just with the definition of revenge 3 is just a follow up about one of the necessary conditions for responsibility. Premise 4 is a statement on how emotions can cloud one"s decision making. Premise 5 is a statement on peer pressure, and how it can make people do things they would not normally do. Premise 7 states is a statement on what Medea's situation is, and how her enemies are getting in her way. Controversial premises Premises 6, 8, and 9 Premise 6 states that Medea"s anger is definitely getting in the way of her decisions, if you believe they it is not as big of a factor in the situation, this can be argued. Premise 8 states that her enemies are getting in the way of her thinking rationally; while peer pressure can be a factor in irrational decision making, whether her enemies are definitely getting in the way of her decision, is not said for certain. Premise 9 states that Medea cannot make up her mind, but this could be seen as her trying to think about both sides of her decision thoroughly before acting.
Was Medea responsible for her actions

1. Yes, I still agree with this because it is Aristotle"s definition of anger. 2. I still agree because this is a definition of revenge. 3. I still agree 4. I still agree 5. I still disagree because although pressure outside sources can influence the decisions doesn"t make the person unaware of their actions. 6. I have agreed to the current situation because of points being proven. 7. I still disagree because Medea is aware of the fact that she is going to be sacrificed by her enemies but it doesn"t mean that it gets in the way of her decisions. 8. I agree with this because she has decisions based on the emotions of anger and revenge. 9. I still disagree because she is only thinking out of her love for her children but due to the fact of the abandonment of her husband she thinks two different ways. 10. Therefore, I still think Medea is responsible for her actions because she is aware of the emotions being expressed and acts upon it.
The earth is flat

First, there are numerous personal journals of people who have sailed or flown around the world. Compasses and the like ensure that we do not get lost or misdirected and simply believe that they traveled around. This is evident in the sequence of things I see. When people fly East they see New York, then lots of water, then France then Russia etc. When people fly West, they see things in reverse order with exact continuity. This shows that the Earth is round. If it were flat, I would have hit an end, or if I got lost, have seen things in one order, rather than in either direction. Next, I can measure my position on the Earth based on mapping the stars. If I am more south, southern stars appear higher in the sky than if I am more north. This would not be possible if the Earth were flat, stars would stay stationary. If the Earth were a rounded disc, this would only be possible if I were on the edges. If I watch a boat sail into the horizon, it slips below it. But, when I climb to a higher point the boat is visible again, indicating the roundness of the Earth. Again, the distance argument. Using a speedometer I can track my distance over time and relate the time to one place versus another. I can do this infinately in both directions and relate the time it took to travel equal distances. Next, the satelite argument. Pictures from space are taken at every angle in space. Also, if the satelites did orbit circularly, why do they show different landmass at different times instead of showing all of the different land masses at once. Ocular distortions is not a valid argument here because EVERY picture shows this, not just a few anamolies. Also, if the world were not spherical, the laws of gravity and atmospheric pressure would not be universal as they are because the mass of the earth would not be distributed in three dimensions equally. Shadows are another exmaple. Light rays, by nature are all parallel. If the earth were not spherical or the sun orbited the Earth in some spherical pattern. The shadows of two identical things would be the same. Instead the shadows of two identical things differ based of logintudinal placement. Additionally, time zones show the earth is round. If the earth were flat, it would be night everywhere at once and light everywhere at once, rather than making equal marked progress across the world. Hopefully the dozen or so reasons I have given are proof to the spherical nature of the earth. As far as your questions, people made and named things in a time where the world was considered flat. The name is relational to the known world at the time. 2-D maps are convinent and easier than globes and again, are from a different time. The people who don't come back get lost at see, there are those who do come back.
The earth is flat

First to refute your arguments about airplanes, yes, pilots are in on the whole conspiracy. That is why being a pilot is so exclusive. Next, the time things is not refuted because of a plethora of variables. 1) Different planes go different speeds based on how far one is traveling. It took my brother 14 hours to get to Japan from the west coast when it should have taken a lot less time. I am advocating that it would be impossible for someone to fly all the way around the world and yes, the same applies with ships and cars. Especially carse because obviously you can't drive through oceans. (If you know of a car that can, I really would like to see it and I am not being sarcastic. I saw this episode of The Simpsons where Homer rented an electric car and drove it in the water and made it through a body of water and I thought that was pretty spiffy. ) Anyway, with domestic air travel, the same time allocation happens with the theory that the world is flat AND with the theory that the world is spherical because there wouldn't be enough of a change. And, Astronauts and satellites stay within the central orbital which circles the earth on the top rather than going on all sides. Also, seasons would not be altered and the earth being flat theory still accomodates that. The sun doesn't JUST move from left to right (looking at a map) or vice versa, but rather orbits on a more vertical pattern. The earth itself is still spinning, but rather like a top than on an axis. Furthermore, philanthropists and other people who have "circled the earth" have just been given the thought that they have. They are up in the clouds for so long that they 1) lose their barings and 2) can't see anything. It truly is impossible to fly all the way around the world and those people that have experienced this phenomena have spoken up, but have been silenced. There are those who have leaked the secret but yet people don't believe it so this fact has never had the chance to become popular. None of our experiments/experiences indicate that the world is spherical. Look to Earhart, she didn't know the world was flat and flew out into the abyss. Food for thought: Why is the Middle-East called that instead of the Near-West? Why are traditional maps drawn in a manner that shows 2D? Where do the numerous people who have tried to travel around the world and never come back go? Thanks again!
The earth is flat

If I buy that all airplanes circle East to move West etc., does that mean that 1) all forms of transportation do this (boats, cars etc.)? 2) Do the people operating these things have a secret cult that knows the Earth is flat and I don't hear about it? Do all pilots have a training session when they become pilots that says "hey, we just circle in the air." Also, time and distance refute this principle. Lets say the ends of the Earth were the Mississipi River. Cut the globe there and lay it flat. Why does it take me an hour to fly from Chicago to St. Louis instead of it taking me 25 hours to fly all the way to the other side of the world? You have this problem no matter where the ends of the earth. Why do satelites and astronauts orbit the spherical earth? I could, if I had the money, go travel in 360 degrees around the Earth. This makes it spherical. Due to new technological advances the way we experience the world is sheprical. We arent required to rely soley on stoires and pictures. We have the ability to experience the entirity of the world as a shperical nature. As far as the sun orbiting the Earth, this would defy the seasons and changes in daylight duration we experience. Basically, even if all of our science is somehow flawed, all of our EXPERIENCES indicate the spherical nature of the Earth. I could sit here and cite you hundreds of years of science which would also support this claim, but simply, I can just experience the world as a sphere. I realize I haven't covered all the bases here, but I'm looking forward to your response. thanks
The earth is flat

Framework for this debate: Whoever can defend their position the best should win the debate rather than common belief. This is a serious debate and I implore everyone looking to vote on the subject to read the debate. It should get interesting! Throughout history, scientists and common people have argued on whether the world is spherical or flat. Despite most recent belief, the world is in fact flat and can be proven as such by first creating a visual image, then taking out the evidence supporting the world being spherical and finally explaining the reasons why the earth is indeed flat. The earth is in essence, a flat chuck of land that has taken the shape of an oval. The atmosphere around the earth is indeed spherical. Underneath the earth, there are large mountains that droop. The atmosphere holds them all in place. The sun revolves around the earth and the other planets and moons revolve around the sun. In our universe, this is the best explanation for orbital patterns. How does one fly all the way around the world and not notice that the earth is flat? Simple. They don't. Amelia Earhart was one of the unfortunate peoples who was not informed that if she continues flying in a straight line, that she would eventually fly off the edge of the earth. Those who had come before her AND even after, knew the real secret that the world was flat or some were even fortunate enough to get lost. Christopher Columbus himself wanted to gain his own personal renown and accidentally came across "The New World". He wanted to fool the people aboard his ship by setting up strategic mirrors to give the image that they weren't just sailing in circles. This backfired on him and he got himself lost and sailed to the new world without realizing it. After him, Magellan and his crew inadvertently sailed down the new world, but instead of sailing west on the Pacific Ocean, they sailed east through the Atlantic and came up on east side of Africa and then claimed that the journey took so long because they were attacked and got lost. Today, airplanes just circle high in the clouds east when the passengers think they are going west. Then how can I explain the space photos clearly showing that the earth is spherical? Easy enough. There are two reasons. Ocular distortions and the atmosphere forces the earth to reflect itself in such a way that it looks like the world is spherical.
The increasing use of slang language is having a negative impact on society.

Hi, I'm Amy and I will be arguing against Pro. I don't think slang language effects society negatively. I mean English and other languages are literally slang and combinations from older languages like Latin. I find people saying that we should not use slang a little hypocritical since they are talking a language that came from another older language's slang. I personally think text speech and informal language is not having a negative impact on society. I mean using shorter words and throwing away silly spelling rules is only increasing the overall efficiency of society. Over time language's main function is to help us communicate with other humans. It seems to naturally evolve to better itself and adjust to times in order to be useful. A lot of English words seem to be shorter versions of Latin words. Of course there should be designated way of spelling a word, but the official spelling can change over time as people stop using the old spelling. Although a lot of people's language marks go down because of this I believe that it is effecting society positively over a longer period. I spend a lot of time using text language, but I make sure to balance it by reading a lot since in today's society I still need the older ways. If I and a lot of others can do that I don't think the evolution of language should be stopped so a few generations can have higher language marks which ultimately mean nothing. I also feel we should not forget old words since it helps us write and make our writing seem "prettier", but having easier and quicker ways of communicating, especially in today's world can only be positive. A lot of formality is slowly falling away and I don't think that it is a bad thing. It is not disrespectful when everyone does it and the other person knows that its is not a sign of disrespect or inability to spell. I think we should allow language to evolve and that its evolution will have positive effects rather than negative effects. Thank you for reading my argument.
The increasing use of slang language is having a negative impact on society.

Thanks for posting your argument! I believe that stopping the evolution of language for the people who refuse to do actual learning and put in effort into their school work is a silly idea. It is not text language effecting as negatively in fact text language is a great idea and helps society. It is not fair saying that the use of text language is impacting society negatively. Maybe the people who can not bother to put effort into their work are effecting themselves and society in a negative way. Like you said, some people will never find the balance. I think it is those people's own fault. Not text language. That is like saying that gun kill people. No, people kill people. Also, over long term is is not effecting us negatively like I pointed out earlier, its just the natural evolution of language. Also, I understand that there can be confusion. That is why we keep official spellings until they stop being used. I think that slang helps us and helps clean up language. There are many, many things that effects people's marks negatively. Like this website. I could be studying now. In fact I should be...but I choose not to. Its is not this website's fault that I choose not to go study and other people should not have to stop using it, Thanks for reading my argument!
Story of My Life - One Direction - is a dumb song

First let us define our terms Webster defines dumb as 1. lacking the ability to speak 2. lacking the ability to self propel 3. Requiring no intelligence http://m.youtube.com... (It has the ability to speak as the song produces both noise and more specifically comprehensible English) (I would contend that music very frequently makes objects move via vibrations I have provided I link to a vibrating speaker to illustrate) (Also it does require some intelligence if at a minimum it requires brain power to process sound)
Story of My Life - One Direction - is a dumb song

Whoever accepts this has to be a...a...One Direction Believer -(or whatever) - so you can defend your boys. The song's lyrics don't make sense:Written in these walls are the stories that I can't explain (Are we cavemen or something?) I leave my heart open but it stays right here empty for days (I'm surprised you're not dead) She told me in the morning she don't feel the same about us in her bones (Who's 'she' and what's wrong with her bones?) Seems to me that when I die these words will be written on my stone (Is that supposed to be sarcastic) And I'll be gone, gone tonight (kids shouldn't be listening to attempts of suicide!) The ground beneath my feet is open wide (A PIT???!!!) The way that I been holding on too tight (You've obviously been holding onto air) With nothing in between (HHHUUUUHHHHHH....?) The story of my life ( So HERE'S the story.) I take her home (911! "She's" been kidnapped!) I drive all night to keep her warm (Isn't there a better way to keep warm) And time... is frozen (the story of, the story of) (Is this supposed to be sad? Let it Go...) The story of my life I give her hope (She hopes that you'll get arrested for kidnapping) I spend her love (Now how does that work dearie?) Until she's broke (...) Inside (oh I thought you stole from her and she had no money) The story of my life (the story of, the story of) (Oh yeah. The story of.) Written on these walls are the colors that I can't change (HEY: you paint over them!!!!!) Leave my heart open but it stays right here in its cage (ALERT, you have one life left) I know that in the morning now I see us in the light upon a hill (Light doesnt show reflection, sorry) Although I am broken, my heart is untamed, still (your heart isn't still, it's beating...) And I'll be gone, gone tonight (another suicidal thought) The fire beneath my feet is burning bright (Yep you're dead) The way that I been holding on so tight (onto air. That's stable) With nothing in between (Nothing in between your pants, right, right) The story of my life (ALRIGHT ALREADY, WE GOT IT) I take her home (...) I drive all night to keep her warm (Hey, ummm, what did you do in that...car...while keeping warm??) And time... is frozen (the story of, the story of) (Just let it go, dammit) The story of my life (ANNOYING MUCH?) I give her hope (please go on with this deeep thought of yours) I spend her love (man, grow up) Until she's broke (...) Inside-- See what I mean!!!!!! SOURCE: http://www.azlyrics.com....
Story of My Life - One Direction - is a dumb song

This video is "Story of My Life" and, in it the song is... 1. lacking the ability to speak (uttering words which you cannot understand) 2. lacking the ability to self propel (Liam Payne--is that his name--had a bad night there in the studios, as he was barely able to whisper the lyrics) 3. requiring no intelligence (well if you can give me three complete, comprehensible, and understandable sentences they sang, that should gain you brownie points) I hope you realize that you will never "UN-SEE" this. http://www.youtube.com...
We are morally obligated to have fun

I'm sorry about the happiness/fun mix up. I thought we were talking about both. You stress that because we don't need to do something, it doesn't mean it isn't morally obligated. However morals were a way of people to team up, and not kill each other. We think of killing each other as wrong because it doesn't ensure survival. But having fun was never a moral obligation, especially how you explain it. Having fun to ensure good relations with others is nowhere near a moral obligation. Obviously having good relations is a moral obligation, but having fun to ensure it is not necessary. And obligations and necessities synonymous. You can simply do what you can to ensure we have good relations. My opponents second point says to me he didn't understand what I meant. Since happiness is relative, definitions of it have changed and only the more recent including fun. Therefore fun is not necessary for happiness, and by your logic is not necessary for good relations. I ran of out characters again
We are morally obligated to have fun

My opponent's last argument has been quite thought provoking, and I thank him for that, but I believe it necessary to demonstrate the remaining points of inadequacy in my opponent's rhetoric. First, my opponent has argued that we do not have an obligation to be happy because it is not necessary for survival. I stress again and again, just because we don't have to do something, doesn't mean we aren't morally obligated to do thusly. Our ancestor's who lead dismal existences could still make the choice to pursue happiness and try to have fun in their dreary lives, as they were morally obligated to do so for themselves and their relations. Second, just because someone has a different definition of happiness doesn't mean that we can't all pursue it. I agree happiness is relative, but this does not refute anything that I have said. Finally, my opponent has turned this from a debate about fun into a debate about happiness, and thus his entire last argument is non-topical. Thank you!
We are morally obligated to have fun

I do not deny that moral obligations need not be fulfilled. I simply stated that as living beings we never were obligated to have fun since the idea of fun wasn't a concept in the history of life until much more recently. However you even stated yourself that an appearance would do. Making others happy could be considered an obligation, but you need not please yourself. But why would we need to be happy? Happiness is our bodies way of rewarding us for doing the right thing for survival. We don't need happiness, as we would survive without it. It is simply a quirk that happens to be pretty good. It teaches us what the right thing to do is in a situation. Therefore we come back to survival, not an moral obligation to happiness. Our founding fathers happy was not the same as we think. Their happy meant simply to live peaceably, without stress. Not with pleasure, but without stress. This is simply a language barrier presented between different times. I am running out of characters. Thanks
We are morally obligated to have fun

Thank you for this wonderful debate! Let us now transport to the body of my arguments. First off, I would like to bring up two points which my opponent failed to refute. 1. Definitions 2. The concept that we have a moral obligation to be happy, or have an appearance of happiness. Definitions matter because of what a moral obligation is. You do not have to fulfill a moral obligation. It is a standard which you ought to strive for, but by no means required. My opponent argues that the ancient people were not obligated to have fun because they couldn't. That doesn't remove the obligation, because the standard remains. Now, if we have a moral obligation to be happy, then we have a moral obligation to have fun, whether or not we actually can have fun is another story. That is why our founding fathers decided that happiness was not an unalienable right, but the pursuit of happiness was. And having fun once in a while greatly helps pursue happiness. Thank you!