BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is Madea Guilty of Killing her Children

Alright so according to your logic it's like saying, well I had a bad day today or that person is being mean to me so it's ok let me just kill my kids to get back at them because after all it's all in my head. Come on this woman is guilty as the night is dark. Personally I don't care if Jason was the meanest person in the world to Medea that still does not time you a right to kill innocent children, children who ere just starting out in this world and will now never have the opportunity to see what life has for them and what life is all about. I will give that Jason possibly should have been more devoted to Medea but he was not trying to keep her out of his life completely, he still wanted to keep her around but he was going to marry the Queens daughter and make a better life for his family possibly in the mean time by doing this, but we will never know what the outcome will be. A person can be pushed to the point of a breakdown yes, but there comes a need to control that and think somewhat logically. The damage may have caused her to go "Temporarily insane" as you claim Steve but I don't think this is true. She knew full well what she was doing and she made the decision to be a cold blooded killer, plain and simple.
Is Madea Guilty of Killing her Children

Yes, it is true that everyone can a rough life but everyone's definition of it is different. It all is a matter of how that life takes over the person's being. In Medea's case, there is very clear psychological problems that are taking place that may have constituted her having a difficult life. The severity of Jason's actions took a toll on Medea, which caused her to snap. If you and I were hurt badly by someone we know or care for and it hurt us so bad that it could psychologically impair or damage us, it could be possible that we could do something that we may not be proud of. Jason did damage to Medea, it hurt her so bad that it did cause her to kill her kids. In that case, it should be clear that she is labeled as insane. We can't instantly assume that she is guilty when there is more to the case than just killing her kids. There is a background of information and events that took place that got Medea to where she stands now. Jason harmed her by expressing interest in marrying another woman when he was in a relationship with her and has two children. If your in that situation, you must faithful with that person. Jason wasn't, there was no faith in the relationship and it drove Medea mad because of it. Jason did good damage when Medea has to fight for the protection of her children from him, like when she said "I swear I'll never leave these children for my enemies to insult and torture!" Medea may have tried protecting the children from Jason cause he could harmed them even worse than what he did to her. But the damage caused by him made her go insane which lead to the killing of the children. She must not be declared guilty of the killings, but rather labeled as insane and receive the necessary help possible.
Is Madea Guilty of Killing her Children

Hmm? So your argument is going to be because she has a "rough life" it's ok to take the life of an innocent children. Why can't all people just say that. Well I had a rough life so why don't I just kill my kids today that will show my husband who's boss? Yea Ok. The fact of the matter is someone who is angry at someone if they are marrying a kings daughter or what you do not take the life of a child especially your own. The simple fact was this was a terrible act by a terrible individual and she needs to be held accountable to the fullest extent possible and made even have the same punishment dealt to her that she seemed to want to give to these kids innocent to the world. Sure Jason was going off and marrying the Kings daughter by he was doing it for good reasons. Perhaps this would have been a good thing for Media and her kids and made the influence of the royal family would have brought good fortune to the kids and Maybe even Medea. But will they ever have the chance to see if that is true? No, and the reason if because of a selfish mother. Perhaps Jason was doing something that was for the better of the family. There is no doubt in my mind that she has got some serious issues especially with her saying " I know what I am doing is wrong but anger is the master of my plans" That's just great ever time we get angry lets just take out the kids, I am saying that there are other ways to go about this problem and Medea choose to go about it completely wrong. She is Guilty.
Is Madea Guilty of Killing her Children

The death of anyone is indeed a tragedy and death should not be placed on no one. Medea is someone who clearly did not think things through clearly. Children are innocent and deserve the love of their mother but Medea is someone with severe issues that not many people have. Medea dealt with a lot of personal issues that could drive anyone to snap in a instant. Is it right, of course not, but someone like Medea wasn't thinking things clearly which ultimately lead to the death of her children. Whenever someone is stressed or has a lot of personal matters going on, our emotions, our feelings, our mind get the best of us; it takes over control and when we reach a certain point, it snaps and we lose control of ourselves and whatever happens, simply happens out of our control. Our minds are very difficult to understand and we often lose control very quickly. For Medea's case, she dealt with a lot. It is a lot for women to carry children and then care for them when they don't have enough support. It is often said that children change our lives and indeed this was case for Medea. In Medea's life, she was betrayed by Jason when he expressed intention of marrying a king's daughter when he was in a harmonious relationship with Medea. They had two kids together and everything seemed perfectly well. It was clear that Medea couldn't take the emotional breakdown brought on by Jason, which lead to the events of her children being killed. This is simply a case of insanity, which drove Medea to do the acts she did. Normally a killer wouldn't admit to doing something wrong like killing someone but she was perfectly clear by saying "I know that what I am about to do is bad" and that all of this simply revolves around her losing her mind and snapping, leading to killing her children.
Is Madea Guilty of Killing her Children

Can you imagine anything as horrible as killing a child, a child so innocent with their entire lives ahead of them and everything to live for? Is it even possible to imagine that someone would even have the capabilities to do so? Any rational person would see this as wrong and something that should not be done. But there is one person who did not see this as a problem and her name is Medea. Medea is a killer who did not kill just anyone, she killed her own children. How can it even be possible that someone would be able to just go right up to their children, children so innocent and take their lives right from them just like that. These children deserved to feel safe in their mothers arms and instead those very same arms ended their lives. It is hard to imagine that anyone would be able to comprehend this and think that it is not a problem and that it is ok. This monster Madea is just that person a person who sees nothing wrong with her actions and must be punished to the fullest for the crimes that she has commuted. Of course their were issues, everyone has issues but is it right to get her children tangled up in personal matters with another person and then have the life sucked right from them? I think not. Madea is a killer a cold blooded killer. You can argue that madea was acting because of issues with Jason and Jason actually drove her to commit these acts because of his "disloyalty". She wants people to believe that because of him she was driven to commit these acts. But let me ask you something if you are going to say that is true--Ultimately who killed the children? it sure has not Jason I can assure you of that-It was Medea Herself Madea was not able to face the reality of the situation and took a way out that she believed was the right thing to do but as any rational person can conclude it's the wrong thing. Medea even stated quote "they must certainly die" on page 111 of the text
Puns are toadally awesome.

Urban Dictionary's 9th definition of pun states explicitly, " Pun- To rip off or steal from someone who has done you favors in the past. (Mike gave Joe money for an ounce of weed, but Joey punned Mike hardcore and used that cash at a strip club)" Horrible... Horrible... I would kick Joey in the throat, not call him "toadally awesome". :-D
Punishment For The Penn State Football Program

Your arguments seem to take the same shape and you've CONCEDED that the act was wrong at this point. If an act is wrong, does a person deserve to be punished for their crime? It doesn't matter if it's an entity or the entire world, if something wrong has been done, a punishment will follow. In this sense, this debate is over. I have provided sufficient proof that the punishment on the Penn State Football team was justified, which Con seems to agree with. On the subject of the "current generation", the only students who feel any sort of punishment from this sentencing would be the actual players themselves. This punishment makes itself clear because Penn State loses numerous scholarships from the conduct of their FOOTBALL COACH. This is a football related act and one of heinous proportions, which cannot be ignored by the football community. Some may say that because the police dealt with Sandusky, that Football should NOT protect the remaining children who could be abused by coaches, who have their trust and should be able to feel okay around them when they are actually in danger. NO ONE is actually being punished in this case, just the football program. No one is being stopped from playing Nittany Lions football, it is now just incredibly hard to compete on a national level for the Lions. That is not a punishment that extends to "the current generation", but is a direct punishment to the FOOTBALL PROGRAM for not watching the children and protecting them from Sandusky. On the subject of whether this is a football-related punishment, it is not. I concede that it is not a form of football-related punishment as the other examples I had were. HOWEVER, it can be dealt with on a secondary basis as most "secondary" punishments can be dealt with in the NCAA [1], as they are tailored specifically to the school's transgression. One of such moral The opposition has not provided any proof as to why the punishment is NOT justified. All his hokum revolves around the "current generation" who is not being punished. At all. The Resolution is Affirmed: The Penn-State punishment is reasonable. [1]http://www.ncaa.org...
Punishment For The Penn State Football Program

While true that Coach Paterno protected Sandusky, he is dead and gone and he has been punished through the removal of wins and his statue. However, you still haven't stated why the current generation should be punished for the mistakes of the last. In response to those other cases you talked about, I never heard about them, but now that you've told me, I think those punishments were wrong as well, but this debate isn't about those.
Punishment For The Penn State Football Program

First of all, thank you for the debate topic. It's a nice one, for sure. Let's look at the other sanctions that have been placed on teams for breaking rules. Ohio State received a one year BCS Bowl BAN for exchanging rings, jerseys, and other sports paraphenaelia for only fourteen thousand dollars. Southern Methodist University's team was completely CANCELLED for one season because of allegations that officials payed off one of their players, leaving their team in shambles. Looking at other sanctions in the NCAA realm, it seems that the NCAA has taken their stance on sex scandals: There shouldn't be any. And why should there not be any sex scandals on NCAA ground? My opponent would have you believe that the program is "wrong" because the students did not have anything to do with the Penn-State scandal. However, Pennsylvania State had hidden the child abuse for a decade. How do you respond to a decade's worth of child abuse in a program which children actually look up to? You would think that the school had discovered it by now, but Joe Paterno devilishly masked the devious works of Jerry Sandusky. Justice was served. He lost all of his wins within the timeframe he hid Jerry Sandusky from the wolves, and most of all, the Nittany Lions are cowed from the football world, losing their scholarships and BCS Bowl opportunities. If anything, the Penn-State lions had an incredibly soft penalty. For far less, SMU lost an entire season and were not allowed on prime-time television for five entire years. They're incredibly lucky to still be playing football today, and it would be incredibly foolish to think otherwise. RESOLVED: The Penn-State punishment is reasonable.
Punishment For The Penn State Football Program

While true that Sandusky sexually molested children on Penn State's campus, The current players were in elementary school at the latest and everybody from that era is now gone from the program. The team's current roster should have a shot at competing for a championship just like everyone else and the program should get their scholarships back. Most of all, that fine is a down right disgrace to the college football and the NCAA leaders should be ashamed of themselves.
Resolved: "The USA was justified in its declaration of was against the CSA"

I am disappointed by your negligence, arrowjaw. Your choice to forfeit has robbed both myself and readers of a truly intriguing topic and debate. I thought you were better than ignoring your responsibilities. In any case, I deserve to win this debate on two accounts: 1. My arguments have been re-emphasized and his rebuttals have been refuted. 2. Arrowjaw forfeited. Because I have been robbed, I am entitled the win for recompense. This is a tragedy. - Mr. Speaker
Resolved: "The USA was justified in its declaration of was against the CSA"

Hello there,The full resolution is as follows:Resolved: "The United States of America (USA) was justified in its declaration and pursuit of war against the Confederate States of America (CSA) in the early 1860s" To be clear: Pro/For/Affirmative (Aff.) will argue that the USA was justified in its pursuit of war with the CSA. The Aff. will have to defend the actions of the USA. Con/Against/Negative (Neg.) will argue that the USA not only was unjustified in its pursuit of war with the CSA, but the the southern states that seceded were justified in their secession. The Neg. will have to defend the actions of the CSA. I will be carrying the burdens of the Con/Against/Negative. If you decide to accept this debate, you will be carrying the burdens of the Pro/For/Affirmative.Rules: No Ad HominemNo Kritiks You must cite ALL sources IN-CASE or else they cannot be supportedYou are allowed to miss ONE round but you'd be giving your opponent a chance to expound his case. And last, but not least, you must respect everyone, debaters and voters alike. Thank you and Good luck
The state of Utah should establish a policy significantly deceasing plastic waste

I would just like to say to the person debating this, thank you for debating a actual issue. I am very excited to debate this. I will now prove why we should decrease plastic waste Plastic waste is filling up in landfills. Landfills take up spaces for houses, are toxic, and ruin the environment overall. I have two evidence card to prove this and extend a bit more about it Landfills Are Getting Too Full http://plasticpollutioncoalition.org... Plastic Pollution Coalition Organization In the US, 93% of plastics are NOT recovered (put in plastic "recycling" bins). These go straight to landfills. Artist Chris Jordan offers the following visualizations. Imagine 8 football fields covered thickly with plastic bottles: this is the equivalent to the number of plastic bottles discarded in the US every five minutes. Our Landfills Can"t Hold All the Plastic We Demand Plasticwastesolutions.com Dr. Ross Headifin Promoter of plastic waste issues. Over recent decades we have moved to a society of disposable plastic products. The rate at which we are demanding these items is growing rapidly and is unsustainable. the total world plastic production in the first decade of this century has roughly equaled the total plastic production of the entire 20th century. However that has gone unnoticed by almost all of us is the disposal problem this has made and continues to make. We now have millions of tons of plastic to dispose of every year. 30 million tons in the USA, 5 million tons in the UK and 1.5 million tons in Australia, let alone the rest of the world. Much of this plastic was manufactured for very short time use such as disposable products. They are used once for a few minutes then discarded, where it goes to landfills. There it will persist for many 100"s to 1000"s of years So in the landfill they do not biodegrade and take up space for 1,000 years. Second they poison us. I also have a card backing this up. Russell McLendon Wed, Dec 09, 2009 Plastic has made a lot of things possible in the past century, proving so durable and versatile that people were soon taking it everywhere with them. In fact, there's a good chance you have some plastic in you right now. That's because a chemical called bisphenol-A, or BPA, seeps out of countless plastic products and ends up in us " more than 90 percent of Americans have the manmade compound in their urine, according to one CDC study. And due to BPA's knack for wreaking havoc with hormones, many health experts are now worried plastic might be making too many things possible. BPA belongs to a broad group of substances known as "endocrine disruptors," which can cause early puberty in mice, sex changes in fish and a wide range of other animal ailments. That's raised red flags about human health risks A policy can stop this. Policies could make it so we decrease plastic waste and plastic consumption. Overall I have proven all of my points with evidence and thats why I strongly urge you to please vote pro/for.
The state of Utah should establish a policy significantly deceasing plastic waste

I almost don't feel the need to post anything , however I will. The resolution that Pro himself established and has yet to actually defend is clear. "The state of Utah should establish a policy significantly deceasing plastic waste"If pro is confused or failing to comprehend the terms I shall define it from Meriam-Webster. "Policy a high-level overall plan embracing the general goals and acceptable procedures especially of a governmental body"In my opening case I effectively demonstrated that the issue is NOT the plastic waste but rather what Utah Is DOING WITH the waste. Therefore implementing a policy to suppress and decrease the plastic waste being produce would not solve the actual problem , however what i proposed would.1. If the state of Utah would establish a policy to decrease plastic waste this company would certaintly suffer since it would have no or less plastic to convert into fuel. 2. This debate is if Utah SHOULD establish a policy to decrease and limit the plastic waste . The resolution is negated since i provided a far better alternative rather than limiting the plastic produced. Utah should keep producing plastic or increase the production so there is more plastic to convert into fuel , inturn this would be better for the economy , and the enviroment. As PRO pointed out. "BPA belongs to a broad group of substances known as "endocrine disruptors," which can cause early puberty in mice, sex changes in fish and a wide range of other animal ailments. That's raised red flags about human health risksA policy can stop this. Policies could make it so we decrease plastic waste and plastic consumption. "I presented a far more viable alternative rather than implementing a policy. I therfore win.
The state of Utah should establish a policy significantly deceasing plastic waste

The con side stated that if we made a policy it would make this company that turns plastic into fuel would absolutely "perish", but that company is a POLICY! A policy is defined as: a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by a government (Webster Dictionary) and every company has to be registered by the Utah state government and they can take away that company at any time so therefore it is adopted by the government. Also the con is making a way to DECREASE PLASTIC WASTE which is NOT what the con is supposed to do. They said "The resolution is negated since I provided a far better alternative rather thandecreasing plastic" (yes with the error) but the alternative IS DECREASING PLASTIC WASTE so therefore there are not negating it, in fact they're just giving us a reason HOW to decrease plastic waste. So they are not negating the resolution at all, they are HELPING the resolution. Then at the very end they said "I presented a far more viable alternative rather than implementing a policy. I therfore win" (again I am getting this directly from their round), but there alternative IS A POLICY AND IS DECREASING PLASTIC WASTE! They also again dropped my point on plastic poisons people and therefore they agree with it. They can attack this however they like but no matter what they say they ARE SOLVING THE RESOLUTION and decreasing plastic waste by turning it into fuel.
The state of Utah should establish a policy significantly deceasing plastic waste

Pro has nearly conceeded. "The state of Utah should establish a policy significantly deceasing plastic waste"In my opening case I effectively demonstrated that the issue is NOT the plastic waste but rather what we are DOING WITH the waste.1. If the state of Utah would establish a policy to decrease plastic waste this company would absolutely perish since it would have no or less plastic to convert into fuel. 2. This debate is if Utah SHOULD establish a policy to decrease plastic. The resolution is negated since i provided a far better alternative rather thandecreasing plastic Utah should keep producing plastic or increase the production so there is more plastic to convert into fuel , inturn this would be better for the economy , and the enviroment. As PRO pointed out. "BPA belongs to a broad group of substances known as "endocrine disruptors," which can cause early puberty in mice, sex changes in fish and a wide range of other animal ailments. That's raised red flags about human health risksA policy can stop this. Policies could make it so we decrease plastic waste and plastic consumption. "I presented a far more viable alternative rather than implementing a policy. I therfore win.
The state of Utah should establish a policy significantly deceasing plastic waste

The con side said we should significantly increase plastic waste in Utah, but then they said that we could turn plastic waste into fuel which would DECREASE plastic waste, which is contradicting themselves. They are actually doing what the Pro is doing and solving the resolution. They are decreasing plastic waste by turning it into fuel so they are solving the resolution! Therefore they are not arguing for the con in the least bit, because they said we should increase plastic waste, but they would be DECREASING plastic waste and INCREASING plastic consumption, not plastic waste. The con side also dropped the point that plastic poisons people, so therefore they agree with it.