BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
John F. Kennedy was a good President

Hold the phone, President Obama is still in office so how can he be deemed the worst president in history. FDR guided america through WWII and the great depression. The only reason the economy started to dive was because of the FDR policies being out of effect. Jimmy Carter was a bad president, and Johnson was ok. If Kennedy wasn't president, ww3 would have happened sooner. Kennedy was going to end the vietnam war, because he knew it was a failure. Trust me, these "horrible presidents" came after the republicans who messed things up, and they tried to fix it. With the exception to johnson.
Homo-Sexuals should be allowed to marry

Ok here are my reasons why I think Homo-Sexuals should be allowed to marrry 1 They cannot help being homo-sexuals. If they are in love with the same gender they cannot help it. Its not like a homo sexual can choose to be straight their genes makes them a homo-sexual. If we don't allow these people the basic fair chance to marry then how is this fair or equal to them? You should not leave out homo-sexuals from marriage because they were litteraly speaking born to be homo-sexuals. 2 Studies show that in countries where homo sexuals are banned HIV rates go up and homo sexuals have more stress and anxiety. (Conducted by emory university) 3 Society is changing polls are showing that with each passing year more people want homo sexuals to marry should we ignore their opinions? 4 In the case of people saying homo sexuals have bad families there has been studies that show families arn't affected by the parents sexual orientation. Sources http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Madea is guilty for committing infanticide

A rational human being can debate themselves and come to a completely rational decision. She was not simply coming at a crossroads about dinner, but this was about committing murder to her own children. She did not normally come to a decision. She went from saying "Heart don't do this!, spare the children" and a moment later yelling, " They must certainly die; and since I gave birth to them shall kill them". This utterly demonstrates how her mind is not working properly. She is not thinking in a rational state of mind.
Madea is guilty for committing infanticide

You mention insanity as the excuse to Madea's rationalizing when rationalizing her categorized thoughts are rationalizing. If it were the case that you had to choose between turkey or chicken for a thanksgiving dinner, would you be insane for debating yourself, since you the cook, will ultimately have to cook and carry out the dinner. This would not make you insane but is the sane thing to do when coming at crossroads.
Madea is guilty for committing infanticide

Medea is not guilty. You claim that a person is guilty when they are fully aware of their actions. However, Medea is insane and was not aware of what she was doing. As the evidence shows, she was constantly debating with herself on whether or not to kill her children. She often spoke to herself. For instance, she started staying " I'll take my children from this land". Then, she would state, " Don't my heart, don't you do this!". This shows the 2 sides to Medea and her insanity. She was not aware of what she was doing.
Madea is guilty for committing infanticide

To be guilty of a crime, a person must be fully aware of their actions or have premeditated the actions in a rational state of mind no matter how irrational the action. I found Madea guilty for committing infanticide because she was very conscious of her actions before and after committing the crime. The whole crime was planned out with full intention of revenge. This we see when she speaks "Do I want to make myself ridiculous, letting my enemies go unpunished?" this statement was a clear indication of her intention to bring pain to her former husband who ridiculed, betrayed and cheated Madea. By indicating she has a plan, this means she was fully aware of her actions. Therefore Madea is guilty of her crimes.
Madea is guilty for committing infanticide

I agree that we all do talk to ourselves in times of sorrow; however, does a rational person question on whether or not to kill their children in an act of revenge? Medea is absolutely not an average case. She has been through alot of pain and suffering; it simply added to her insanity. She cannot be committed of this crime, there is no evidence that she is not insane. How can this be an act of a normal person where they are simply brought to desperate acts of murder. The evidence is in her logic. She is all over the place. One moment she is telling her children to smile at her, then she is conversing with Hades and crying how her children must die.
Madea is guilty for committing infanticide

You are then claiming that ANY murder would then be considered for an insanity plea because of it's an immoral decision . Criminals that have killed others people, or children in bombs, maybe indirectly but nonetheless carried out their revenge plan, are mostly insane because most people cannot fathom their justification but, we must analyze each case differently . You can only be considered insane by someone of knowledge, therefore you say there is evidence of her speaking to herself. But I ask you, how many times have you found talking to yourself when thinking of a topic of importance. How many times have you found yourself talking to yourself in sorrow? Would you be considered insane on this act alone?
Madea is guilty for committing infanticide

In this case you can't say she was a rational person. There is evidence which shows that Medea was conflicted with her emotions and thought. She was speaking to herself. In an insanity case there must be further investigation. A rational normal person, yes may feel angered and troubled by situations in their life; however, they are able to make a moral decision and deal with the problems they are encountering. It is not as if she took revenge and tried to destroy his possessions such as car or items he owns, but she killed children. Her own children, whom had no involving in the matter. This demonstrates how sick Medea is and how she is insane. She cried out " But what is happening to me?" She has no control of these emotions. She is insane.
Madea is guilty for committing infanticide

She most certainly was debating like a rational person because she had a purpose. Her purpose was for revenge. When your debating about two decisions to take in your life, sometimes the way you are currently feeling will play a huge part in your thinking. We see this thirst to revenge when she says "By the avenging furies down in Hades, I swear I'll never leave these children for my enemies to insult and torture!". Blinded by anger, fury and revenge like most murders, this would mean that in the case of most murders, all criminals would have to pledge insanity since their ultimately rationing would be considered irrational. This is not the case. Therefore we can also pledge that simply because of Madea's crime, she is insane, but just another criminal who was blinded by her uncontrollable immoral feelings.
Terraria(pro) vs Minecraft(con)

First of all, Thank you to everyone who has viewed this debate and stayed with us until the end.Alright, let me tell you why Minecraft won this debate.I gave three burdens and I have proven it all:1. Minecraft is a better sandbox game.2. Minecraft is a better RPG game.3. Minecraft has a better effect of generating creativity, better planning and appreciation in real life.I have rebutted Pro's points and have taken down his arguments.Now, for my closing statements. Minecraft is a game where you can animate your own world. It is a game where you can build your own haven and relate it to your life. You can do anything in Minecraft. It's your choice, your decisions, your world. All in all, I am proud to close this debate with six words:Minecraft is definitely better than Terraria.
Terraria(pro) vs Minecraft(con)

Hello again, As Darth_Dreavas did not respond to my arguments the last round, I'll move on straight to my arguments for this round. Alright, I believe that both games generally provide positive effects towards society. However, I will argue that Minecraft provides it better. I will list down the effects as I progress in my speech this round. 1. Generating creativity. You can be creative in Minecraft. You can be creative in Terraria. And I believe, that this creativity can be carried to real life. Thus, the more creative you are within the game, the more creative you will be in real life. So, the question is, which game can generate better creativity? I argue that Minecraft provides this specific aspect better because as I mentioned before, Minecraft is 3D and also is less complex than Terraria. As a whole, the 3D environment provides a better stimulation of creating and animation within the game world. Also the less complex environment also attends to a bigger part of society compared to Terraria as it is easier to understand for the younger generation of the family as well as the older generation. To conclude this argument, Minecraft provides better creativity, both in the aspect of quality and quantity. 2. Better planning in real life Minecraft causes people to develop better planning within the game as well as in the real world because it is 3D. When it is 3D, players have to plan for the width of the creation, not only the height or length. Terraria has you plan only those two aspects when creating, but Minecraft has you plan an additional one. Thus, when individuals play Minecraft, they have better planning of their creation compared to when they play Terraria. This will develop better planning in real life, thus allowing individuals to live a easier life by planning their daily routine, activity, and such. 3. Developing the feeling of appreciation As I have mentioned before, Minecraft allows players to relate their creations better, thus resulting in better appreciation. When these individuals are able to appreciate their creations in the game themselves, I believe they will be able to appreciate things in real life. This will allow better interaction and relations between members of the society, and thus a better society as a whole. In conclusion for all of my arguments, I only have one thing to say: Minecraft is better than Terraria. Thank you.
Terraria(pro) vs Minecraft(con)

OK time to start. Now time to shoot down an argument that I know will come up. "Minecraft is 3D, while Terraria is only 2D" True. However I would like to do a comparison of a 3d game AND A 2d Ggame to show 3D is not always superior to 2D Sonic Advance 3 was released in 2004 is in 2D and got a 79 critic rating and a 8.4 user rating. http://www.metacritic.com... Sonic Heroes was released that same year is in 3D and its highest score on any console was a critic score of 73 and a user score of 7.4 http://www.metacritic.com... So as you can see 3D is not always better than 2D Now onto why I think Terraria is better. Terraria is an RPG with Sandbox elements while minecraft is a sandbox with some RPG elements. Terraria has triple the ores to mine in Minecraft. http://terraria.wikia.com... http://minecraft.gamepedia.com... Terraria is cheaper than Minecraft costing 10 bucks regularly, but there are sales such as the Summer sale where you can buy it for only 2 BUCKS! Minecraft costs about 27 dollars. http://store.steampowered.com... https://minecraft.net... Let's look at the enemies. Terraria has tons enemies such as maneaters, Goblin scouts, zombies, vultures, many types of slimes, demon eyes, corruptors, harpies, and the list goes on. As for bosses we got the wall of flesh, skeletron, the twins, the eater of worlds the destroyer, the eye of Cthulhu,Duke Fishron, the Pumking, and the list goes on http://terraria.gamepedia.com... Minecraft has skeletons, ghasts, blazes, endermen, spiders, slimes, zombies, creepers, and not many more. As for bosses we got the enderdragon and the wither and that is literally it. http://minecraft.wikia.com... Also Terraria has more creative enemies look at this image of a Terraria zombie. https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com... Now a minecraft zombie http://i.imgur.com... I don't know about you, but the Terraria zombie design looks better than the Minecraft zombie design.
Terraria(pro) vs Minecraft(con)

Hello, I am also new to this site. It is a pleasure to debate against you, Darth_Dreavas. Thank you for providing such an interesting topic for discussion as I am sure both games are popular in the market. I hope this will be a fun and interesting experience for the both of us. P.S. I am sorry, but could it be possible to finish this debate in one week? I may cease activity on my online account as I have tasks to finish and may not be able to respond to your speeches.
Terraria(pro) vs Minecraft(con)

Hello, I am new to this site, but don't take that as this being an easy win. I am willing to debate than Terraria is superior to Minecraft. Rules: 1. Sales will not be taken into account. If sales determined how good a game is then Wii Sports would be better than both of these games. 2. Wikipedia is not a valid source, but the wikis of both games are. (unless it is simply absurd information) The rounds must go like this. Round 1: Acceptance Round 2-4: Arguments and rebuttals. Round 5: Final rebuttals and closing statements. 5,000 character, 5 rounds, 72 hours each turn.
Abortion laws should remain legal under current standards

I accept your challenge young lady but know this, I extremely disagree with your logic. yes we live in a time when rape and under aged sex is on the rise and the porn industry is paying highly. but what we must realize is that by constantly shouting to "end abortions" and "they dont feel pain their not living" we do not see the real issueThe issue that i speak of is safe, respectful sex. if you realize that people view sex as a form of entertainment, pleasure and a way to destress you can see the true source of it. abortion is wrong but to defeat it you must realize that it is the minds that need to be "killed" as in re educated are those who believe in rape and sex for money. And to debate your point on how the Fetus does not feel anything let me tell you a story. Back in 1985 there once was a woman in the south pacific who was to have a child but the doctors found that this child may kill the mother, and the doctors found this out when he was a developing fetus. so the woman ignored the doctors and had the child. years later that child grew up to become Tim Teboy. citation http://www.lifenews.com...
Abortion laws should remain legal under current standards

Abortion laws are strict as it is only going to the under aged, drug addicts and victims of rape. Abortion is completely acceptable personally in these occasions and technically you are not killing anybody. A fetus doesn't have a conscious util even a month after birth and abortions tend to happen with in 7- 10 weeks of a pregnancy meaning the fetus is not developed and in that case not technically alive or even a baby. The fetus wont feel pain from it for it did not know of it's existence and the life it would have been brought into would most likely not be beneficial for the baby living with addicts, under aged parents or somebody who is obviously not going to take care of it.
9/11 was a conspiracy

Definitions Conspiracy: a secret plan made by two or more people to do something that is harmful or illegal [1] 9/11: September 11 attacks; a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks by the Islamic terrorist group Al-Qaeda on the United States on the morning of Tuesday, September 11, 2001 [2] Intro First I would like to mention that I will not be arguing that "Bush caused 9/11" or that "Jet fuel can't melt steel beams", but instead I will be arguing that the official story of 9/11 meets the definition for being a conspiracy. Argument For the official story of 9/11 to be a conspiracy as I have defined, it must meet all of the following criteria: 1. It was a secret plan by 2 or more people 2. It was either harmful or illegal The four coordinated terrorist attacks that were 9/11 clearly meet the criteria for a secret plan by 2 or more people. The 9/11 terrorist attacks resulted in 2,996 deaths [2], which is clearly harmful and illegal. 9/11 meets both criteria for being a conspiracy. Therefor, 9/11 was a conspiracy, which fulfills my burden of proof. Sources [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Cigarettes should be illegal

Smoking is bad for the smokerAlready conceded by me. Freedom and banning everything with bad health outcomes is untenablePreviously I said. .. "Pro offers no response to my argument showing how its untenable to ban things just on bad health outcome grounds. " Pro is correct in saying that they did offer a response that was a mistake on my part. What I should of said is that Pro offered no effective rebuttal to the untenability of banning something just because it leads to bad health comes whether that be driving, smoking, skydiving, eating to much etc etc. Pro informs us of how people can get into car accidents, once again I point out, none of this refutes my argument that Pros justification for banning something (in this case cigarettes) can't be justified on the sole basis of bad health outcomes lest we ban everything that has bad health outcomes. What about the health outcomes for others ? Pro says. .. " That could also go for smoking. There are the people who smoke and risk everyone else's lives. "Once again I repeat what I argued before on this matter. .. "Now Pro informs us of their anecdote of going to Vegas, but once again in order to deal with that problem it is not necessary to ban cigarettes, instead you can do the more modest and less freedom depriving option of banning smoking indoors, pubs ,clubs casinos etc"I don't see any argument from Pro against the less freedom restricting ban on smoking indoors to deal with any passive smoking risk to others. Pro throws in some new dangers of smoking such as. .. "What about fires that are caused by cigars and cigarettes? They should be counted too and with that, that is putting people and animals in a terrible situation"For the love of Bambi, I think we better ban cigarettes. Under Pros logic here matches can also cause forest fires so shall we ban them too ? I do get the impression this argument was pulled from desperation going into the final round. Pro does acknowledge the vast greater pollution caused by cars compared with cigarettes at least when talking about the outdoors. But then Pro starts making comments like. .. "Much of our smoke comes from cigars and cigarettes too". This is way to a vague of a statement to mean anything, much compared to what ? I argued about the disproportional response of banning cigarettes on outdoor pollution grounds which caused negligible outside pollution when compared to outdoor pollution caused by cars. As far as Pros comments about we make cars so we have to ban cigarettes to remake people, Pro asks see where I am going with this ? my answer is not really. In SummaryI don't think Pro has been able to justify the banning of cigarettes as I have shown. .. .. .. .1) You can't ban something just because it leads to bad health outcomes.2) The passive smoking risk is dealt with by banning smoking indoors and thus you don't have to ban cigarettes.3) The disproportional response of banning cigarettes to combat outside pollution while allowing cars to drive around.
Cigarettes should be illegal

Under the "Freedom and banning everything with bad health outcomes is untenable" section you said that I had not offered any response. I did. I said that whatever ridiculous stunt people attempt is out of the own volition. It is not our fault that they want to skydive or drive cars. Yes, many people are indeed killed by cars, but the problem with that is that there are the innocent people who are killed and then there are the people who kill them. Many accidents happen because of texting, talking on the phone, not paying attention, sleeping, DUI, and other things. Though it may sound wrong, some of the accidents are caused by other people. That could also go for smoking. There are the people who smoke and risk everyone elses lives. Yes, there have been many campaigns, ads, news article, D.A.R.E classes for fifth graders, etc., but I know many of those things people ignore. "Sure a black lung looks bad, but that won't happen to me" is what people think. Cars are very pollutant, no doubt, but we can change cars. People we can't change as easily. If you think about it, we make cars and we make the pollutant, but we can change that feature of a car by going green. We don't manufacture people. We can't add a feature to them to stop smoking. The only way we would be able to "remake" people is to outlaw smoking. I know that's a bad analogy, but can you see where I'm going with this?Cars do have greater pollution level, no doubt. It would be stupid of me to deny it, but if we can rid the air of some pollution then that would help a lot. Much of our smoke comes from cigars and cigarettes too. Cigarettes and cigars also are causes to fires which pollute the air more than any one car would depending on the fires' size. What about fires that are caused by cigars and cigarettes? They should be counted too and with that, that is putting people and animals in a terrible situation if they have to evacuate their homes or woods. Even buildings are another target. They can burn and kill the people inside. Passive smoke isn't the only way to kill with a single cigar or cigarette. By the way, I had too much schooling to take care of. That's why I didn't put an argument in. Yes, I did run off to Vegas. I live there. ;)
Cigarettes should be illegal

Smoking is bad for the smokerAlready conceded by me. Freedom and banning everything with bad health outcomes is untenablePro offers no response to my argument showing how its untenable to ban things just on bad health outcome grounds. Please note those bad health outcomes include death like in my skydiving example or driving cars. So it does no good for Pro to retort that smoking leads some to death, well sure so does driving cars and jumping out of airplanes. "There were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States in 2005. The financial cost of these crashes is more than 230 Billion dollars. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed. About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States -- one death every 13 minutes. " [1]Shall we ban driving too on the grounds of leading to bad health outcomes ? Once again the untenability of following this principle I think gives us good reason to reject Pros logic here. What about the health outcomes for others ? Pros 2nd round argument concentrates their justification for banning cigarettes on the harm caused to others and as such my response will largely focus on this area. Pro says. .. "No one's really trying to help or stop smoking. It's a pollutant. " You mean other than all the people and money that goes into anti smoking and quit campaigns ? Now Pro informs us of their anecdote of going to Vegas, but once again in order to deal with that problem it is not necessary to ban cigarettes, instead you can do the more modest and less freedom depriving option of banning smoking indoors, pubs ,clubs casinos etc. Pro informs us of the non choice non smokers have, but this argument can be used once again for breathing in car pollution. Why shouldn't we use Pros logic to ban cars ? After we didn't choose to inhale car pollution ? Once again I think this line of reasoning is untenable, if your going to ban cigarettes on Pros principle here then you have to ban cars as well. In the previous round I argued against the disproportional response of banning smoking out side, while allowing cars to drive around and the far greater pollution caused by the cars compared to cigarettes. Pro had no response to this. I look forward to Pros response. [1] . http://www.car-accidents.com...