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

3. Anger is too an emotion that could be controlled which is what Buddhism agrees on. The views of practice Buddhism is too agree that anger should be close to being non-existent as possible. This philosophy also teaches how a person should control their anger and not act on solely on it. Breathing exercises is the most common form to reduce the level of anger. Anger is an emotion that is meant to be controlled or else others would not be so convinced in the many ways of meditatin and etc. Medea could have controlled her anger because even though she had hopes of her children taking care of her as she did to them she could have taken a moment to rationalize and meditate on her plans. 6. I made the assumption Medea was depressed based on her reasoning behind her actions. Yes, she was overall angry at the fact that she could not live the life she planned but perhaps this was due to years of depression. A person does not simply wake up one day and want to kill their children because she just noticed they are not living their destined life. This overwhelming urge to kill could have stemmed from months or maybe years of depression. As mentioned before anger come from feeling betrayed or thought less then and that sounds like symptoms stemming from depression as well. 7. There is a saying that goes "two wrongs do not make a right". Medea being the grown up in the situation should have known better angry or not. She had moments were she was lucid and knew what she was doing and that is all that really counts. If this case were to go to trial she would have been found guilty for consciously knowing what she did and still did it. 9. Okay I can now see what you mean by not having the special bond because then she would have not killed them at all. I agree with your arguement for this statement. 11. Yes there was a typo I mean to write selfish. Regardless of how fed up Medea would have been she was suppose to understand that they will not understand and process their actions as being good or bad, that is why a child is constantly taught what is wrong or right as they grow up with due time but Medea wanted to rush this process as if a five year old can have the same thought processing system of an adult. It is unreal to think a child could understand majority of the stuff going around them. Boys at that age are still trying to figure out why they have certain features that are different from girls. Everything at the age is confusing and knowing how to be considerate is far from anything they are able to understand as well. It is common psychology.
Medea is responsible for her actions.

2. I agree with your statement. When a person is angry, they are capable of ignoring the person they are angry at or even harming that person physically. 5. I agree with your statement. Medea"s anger originated from her high expectations of her kids. She had too much hope for them. 6. I do not agree with your statement. Medea is not fully responsible for killing her kids. Her kids provoked her to kill them. 7. I partially agree with your statement. It is possible that Medea could have controlled her anger. However, that is not a capability that everyone has. Acting out of impulse is human nature. It is not easy to control yourself. It does take a lot of practice. If you think of it from Medea"s point of view, it was the only choice she had. 8. I agree with your statement. Medea should know the difference between right and wrong because she is an adult. However, not all adults know the difference. 9. I do not agree with your statement. Medea being responsible or not for her actions has nothing to do with her being a mother. 10. I agree with your statement. She contemplates the situation several times. 11. I do not agree with your statement. Medea"s children didn"t take Medea"s needs and wants into consideration. They should have been better children. Medea"s action, of killing her children, was not selfish. 12. Therefore, Medea is not responsible for her actions. Non-Controversial Premises: Premises 2,5,8, and 10. Premise 2 is just describing the stages of anger. Premise 5 is just stating the cause for Medea"s anger. Premise 8 is stating the knowledge a person should normally have. Premise 10 is just a fact from the narrative. Controversial Premises: Premises 3, 6,7, 9, and 11. 3.If anger can be controlled, then how is it a natural instinct? A natural instinct is like a reflex, something that you automatically do. 6. You are stating your opinion on Medea"s actions, but mine are different. I do not believe that she is fully responsible for her actions. 7. Anger cannot always be controlled, it is something that needs a lot of practice, as you have stated. So maybe, Medea does not have the capability to control her anger. 9. Not all mothers develop a special bond with their babies during pregnancy. If they did, then the idea of adoptions wouldn"t exist. Medea"s cannot be fully responsible for her actions. 11. Medea was not selfish, her kids were selfish. Questions: 1. What do you mean by a person experiencing a wrong-doing? 6. What can you define "slight" as? Can slight be defined as being disrespected, or treated wrongly, or fooled by someone that you expected more from? 4. Are you saying that anger only has to do with not being happy?
Medea is responsible for her actions.

Premise: 1. Anger is an emotional feeling of being displeasured when the person experiences a wrong-doing. 2. There are different stages of being angry starting from ignoring the person to display acts of violence towards the person. 3. Anger could at times be controlled but overall it is a natural instinct when living organism feels betrayed. 4. Anger can stem from discontent of certain outcomes that comes out negative when you hoped for a positive. 5. Medea's anger stems from being betrayed by her children who she thought would take care of her in her later years as she has done for them in their earlier years. 6. Although Medea was slighted in some way by her family the deaths of her children is entirely her fault without any excuses. 7. Medea has the capability of practicing self-control whenever placed in a a difficult situation however difficult it might have been and should not act out of impulse. 8. Medea is the adult in the situation of the narrative and should know the difference between right and wrong for her years of wisdom. 9. Medea is responsible for her actions because as a mother her main concern should be of taking care of her children and never letting them get into any harm which she did the opposite. 10. Medea consciously knew she was wrong because she would at times talk herself out of committing this crime. 11. Medea did this crime out of spite and greed because she only worried about herself and did not take into consideration the needs or wants of her children. 12. Therefore, Medea is fully responsible of her action since she is the one who is physically and mentally more capable then the children themselves. Non-Controversial Premise: Non-controversial premises will included 1,2,3,4,5, and 10. Premise 1,2,3, and 4 are general definitions of what anger means. Premise 5 is simply stating why Medea feels this type of anger in the play. Premise 10 is facts reinstating how Medea knew the decision was not a right one or else she would not have feel guilty. Controversial Premise: 6. I am stating my belief to the best of my understand about this play that her actions were her fault and is not able to justify it just because she was angry. Anger is a feeling not a method of confinement. 7. I believe as Medea has been given education, even the smallest amount, she was taught when to speak when spoken to, when to and how to react to certain situations, etc. that will help her develop self-control. 8. I believe Medea has experienced situations in the past for example knowing when not to cross the street or knowing not to put her hand in the fire for her to have common sense. 9. A mothers instinct is to always want to protect their kids since the develop a special bond with them through pregnancy. 11. Medea committed this crime for selfish reason as soon as she realized her kids would not be taking care of her exactly how she would have hoped. A thought of such sort is selfish on its out because one should not bring a child into this world so that the person can feel loves it should be because they want to spread the love.
should 16 year old girls have boyfriends

Welcome to the Debate. I strongly believe 16-year-old girls should be allowed to have boyfriends. There are some life lessons to be learned. Having your heart broken is something that can be learned via young relationships. There is nothing wrong with learning and moving forward into your life. Relationships may actually make you stronger, and a better thinker. Another reason why is that if you don't let them do it now, and restrict them now, they will go behind your back and do it anyways. You can't stop someone from having feelings for someone. Yes there are possibilities of pregnancy, yes there are possibilities of depression, there has always been that in this world. You need to let your kids learn. They will never "succeed" without learning how to deal with heartbreak and disappointment, and there is no better way to learn this with a breakup/ allowing them to be dating. On another note as a teen I do not believe I'll get the most happiness out of marrying my "sweetheart" I have much to learn and live in life but what I know damn well is that restricting your daughters/sons ability to date is just plain stupid. ANOTHER NOTE: Suicide is very common in teens from bad areas, and some of the teen population in general. You can't just restrict someone in order to protect them from being harmed because there will be something worse to come if you don't let them find out now. Get close to the person you're allowing and ask them to give you the details, become part of the relationship itself. Riddle me this, how can someone perform at their best when they are alone when they're not happy?
should 16 year old girls have boyfriends

I strongly believe that teens should be discouraged from a romantic relationship. The only rational thing that they ought to do is to focus on their career and make their life meaningful by pursuing the purpose for which they were sent here on Earth. Each of us has a specific purpose and power of making our dreams come true lies within. However, we can see many youth indulging in romantic relationship where breakups, match-ups are common. The teens have the false belief that they"ll get most happiness if they"ll be able to marry his/her girlfriend/boyfriend. But the fact is that they"re just trapped in a vicious circle. A girl commits suicide just because she couldn"t marry the guy she wanted, while that guy for sure will fall in love with another girl again. So, sacrificing a beautiful life just for a romantic relationship is a blunder. Instead, they should focus on their career, how they can perform their best in everything they do.
Sentence "Attempted" Crimes The Same As Successful Ones

Definitions:Attempted-Crime was intended by the perpetrator but did not fall through, such as "attempted murder".This debate concerns sentencing in the criminal law system not the civil law system.Saying to "sentence" them the same means that when the required or recommended sentence for a given crime is stated in law it should be stated the same for the "attempted" version of the crime.I do NOT mean "same" between individual cases. This proposal still allows judges to make what ever considerations in individual cases that they could before. However, as part of sentencing being the "same" any considerations that would be allowed to be made in sentencing for a crime would be allowed in both "attempted" and "successful" cases of it.Initial ArgumentCurrently crimes are treated differently based on whether the perpetrator succeeds.Yet regardless of success the perpetrator has proven themselves to be just as much of a danger to society, and to have just as much criminal intent. There is no good reason to sentence failed criminals more leniently.There are 3 rational reasons for the state to use sentencing within the criminal law system:1. Incapacitating offenders and protecting society2. Deterence-Letting would-be offenders know what's coming to them if they commit the crime.3. Rehabilitation-Reforming the character of the offender.Compare two identical scenarios, in one the murderer succeeded in another the murderer failed.In both cases there are no relevant considerations that justify being lenient against an offender just because their crime failed. A person who tried to commit a crime and failed shows just as much propensity to commit that crime as a person who succeeds at it. The former person was just not as lucky.1. This makes both individuals just as dangerous to society, so there is equal reason to incapacitate both criminals.2. Since we want to deter people from even trying the crime in the first place the same purpose of deterrence is fulfilled by equal sentencing.3. Failing at a crime is not evidence that a person will take less time to rehabilitate or that they will be easier to rehabilitate.When the same reasons to the same extent as to why the state sentences would be the same for a given offense then it stands to reason and hence justice that the sentencing rules for the two crimes should be the same.
Sentence "Attempted" Crimes The Same As Successful Ones

My esteemed opponent has forfeited the final round - which is unfortunate. A 5 round debate, requires considerable effort and he has completed 4 rounds but skipped the final round. It is very likely this was not intentional and he was caught up in some pressing engagement. That can happen to anyone. I am sure the forfeit can be explained by some 'RATIONAL' reason! Extending all my arguments, I will quickly summarise and conclude. ==Conclusion==The difference between successful crime and unsuccessful crime is that in successful crime some wrong has been committed to the victim. This is the main reason why the treatment of successful and unsuccessful crime has to be different. The difference may be because justice demands retribution. I established the retributive system of justice by reference to various appropriate authorities. I also gave rational reasons as to why retribution in some form is integral to judicial system. The rights of victims are given full importance in restorative system of justice as well. Full effort is made to undo the wrong committed to the victim up to the extent possible. This again means that the approach has to be completely different. There are other minor reasons why successful criminals should be given heavier sentence. Successful criminal have already committed the crime once. This means they are more experienced. It can be argued that in general an experienced criminal will spot more opportunities. And opportunity has been established as a major motivator of crime. It may be suitable to give bigger punishment to successful criminal so as to incapacitate him. Pro conceded that it may be inferred that it will be more difficult to rehabilitate successful criminal. And that gives you yet another reason why successful criminals should be given stronger punishment. Vote CON========Many thanks to MasturDbtor for debating this issue with me.
God's existence, not proveable

Very interesting. So, I think I'd like to start with an observation, that for the sake of this debate we should assume God exists. While I'm not persuaded of this myself, it seems clear if God does not exist, then it would not be possible for existence to be known. Hence, assume existence. I think the bulk of your argument commits a status quo bias--that you assume the status quo is a reliable marker for the future. Of course, we know this often isn't the case. For example, since we assume God exists, we must also assume elements of God's religious story exist--if we were to take Judeo-Christian conceptions, we'd assume that God has furnished evidence in the past. Since evidence has occurred in the past, there's no reason it could not occur in the future. Thus, if God can provide further evidence of existence, there's no reason existence could never be known. This goes to the semantics of the debate topic, that God could never be provable. The flaw here, is that God can prove God. It might be unlikely, but it's not impossible.
Indian Schools waste our precious time.

Pro clearly is against the concept of homework and giving homework in schools is not restricted only to India. I would like to give some definitions. - (All definitions from Merriam-Webster)1) School - an organization that provides instruction: such as a) an institution for the teaching of children b) college, university2) Homework - an assignment given to a student to be completed outside the regular class periodI have a good understanding about the Indian education system, and I would like to point out that it is highly unlikely that all Indian schools do is waste an individuals time. Though, I don't deny that a fair amount of exceptions might be there, such as schools that do waste a person's time; but classifying 'Indian schools' as time wasters as a whole is not really smart. A single Google search will educate you about the many schools, colleges and universities in India that are actually very good. Such schools include The Doon School, Dehradun; Indian Institute of Technology (IIT); University of Delhi (DU), etc. Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore ranked 5th among the BRICS countries in 2015 and 6th in 2016. Now schools and universities with these stats won't really be called time wasters, would they? Pro should realise that every school is not the same as pro's own school. Every group of schools works according to different Boards of school education, and thus have different teaching styles and syllabi. Also, pro is just 13 years old, I don't think students from most countries, including India, of this age have a lot of pressure as compared to the senior students. The stress levels are high in people around the age 18 globally, proving my point. Sources: Merriam Webster Wikipedia GoogleThank you. Looking forward to round 2.
Indian Schools waste our precious time.

My question is whether the schools we go to learn new things waste our time. I think yes, I am an Indian and when I go to school, It does not feel like school, It feels like some sort of office. The teachers do not come to teach or to make you learn new and amazing things. They come to prepare you for the race and that race is your life. Why on earth do the teachers give us homework. Why do not they encourage us to explore and discover new things rather than giving us pointless HOMEWORK? The reason i do not like the concept of homework is that they are pointless. Here, in India, the teachers in schools discuss the exercises of the chapter, make us write the answers in our books and tell us to copy the answers from the book to our notebooks. They call this "HOMEWORK". So, with all the burden of homework and the pressure to complete it by the next day resists the student from doing the things he likes. Not just resists but wastes his time. What do you think of schools?
Masturbation is not a sin

You have yet to explain why my appeal to Catholicism, which is Christianity, is "inappropriate" and how it fails to use The Holy Bible. Your personal rejection of the source is unsupported and biased which does not hold. Using Strong's dictionary (which is your source, now linked to the word) [http://www.blbclassic.org...] [ epithyme!3; 1. to turn upon a thing 2. to have a desire for, long for, to desire 3. to lust after, covet of those who seek things forbidden ] [ Kardia the heart 1. that organ in the animal body which is the centre of the circulation of the blood, and hence was regarded as the seat of physical life. 2. denotes the centre of all physical and spiritual life A. the vigour and sense of physical life, the centre and seat of spiritual life, the soul or mind, as it is the fountain and seat of the thoughts, passions, desires, appetites, affections, purposes, endeavours B. of the understanding, the faculty and seat of the intelligence C. of the will and character D. of the soul so far as it is affected and stirred in a bad way or good, or of the soul as the seat of the sensibilities, affections, emotions, desires, appetites, passions 1. of the middle or central or inmost part of anything, even though inanimate ] "In Greek, the word "epithyme!3;" comes from two root words. 1. is epi which means upon 2. is thymos which means passion. In other words, this means "on passion." According to Strong's Lexicon, it means "to set the heart upon" (1). Kardia is the will, thoughts, feelings, etc. of the human being. Jesus was essentially saying that if you act upon your feelings to get what you want when it isn't yours, you are already sinnning and you should therefore find the root of the problem. Sexual fantasies alone are not sinful." Looking at these two definitions I would say that it is more likely that lust / coveting is less behavioral (therefore undermining the idea of "acting upon" versus "holding or having" the emotional impulses) and more cognitive. I'm pretty sure this would suggest that sexual fantasies are actually sinful since coveting is likened to lust in that terminology and it is the best definition relating specifically for things you should not have. Well, that concludes this debate as this is the final round!
Masturbation is not a sin

i. Catholicism is an adequate source for the discussion. There is no reason that they would not be an authority throughout the entirety of the languages used whether it be Hebrew, Greek, or English. Con requests a reason why The Church, the oldest maintained standing of major power in Christianity, is not sufficient or meets your requirements. It definitively states, based on the 6th commandment, the matter of masturbation and does not discuss Onanism, which I would propose is a non-sequitur to the point anyway as it is your wish to assert Onanism as my position versus allowing me the use of the entire Bible. ii. Baseless claim. iii. Baseless claim. You're refusing a viable source and authority without an actual reason. Con calls to question another claim: "Adultery is having sex with another person's wife or husband. This obviously cannot happen to someone who fantasizes of another." by asking for the actual representation of this verse in argument one as written ""27 "You have heard that it was said, "You shall not commit adultery. 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully [epithyme!3;] has already committed adultery with her in his heart [kardia. 29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell." as Pro failed to actually source this. Please provide the Greek translation you claim to derive from and explain why we should hop languages considering if we do indeed swap from language to language and translation to translation we are essentially arguing in ambiguity. I have in Greek w/ Translation this source (http://www.bible-researcher.com...) which does not support your translation of the scenario which, if you cannot show for, may indeed further extend the condemnation of masturbation through inherent coupling lust when using your word focus alone. As per agreed upon debate guidelines if you wish to avoid talking on lust and focus only masturbation disconnecting the two I completely understand and you may refuse this request for clarity relating to language barriers. You need not feel obligated to answer for the second claim.