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

1. I agree with the definition of responsibility. 2. In order for a person to be responsible that person must be able to think clearly. 3. Emotions can cloud a person"s judgment and prevent them from thinking clearly. 4. Pressure from outside sources can also cause a person to make decisions that they would not have made otherwise. People can sometimes choose how to react to pressure, depending on their situation. 5. The events of Medea"s life have caused her emotions for her children to flare up and get in the way of her making a choice. Her feelings for them were not her choice. 6. While at first Medea might have had her anger under control, it quickly grew to the point where it greatly influenced her decision. She did not choose to get angry, she felt that way as a reaction to her situation. 7. Medea"s enemies are going to sacrifice her, by doing so they are putting great pressure on her to make a decision. They are involved in her ultimate choice. 8. The pressure from Medea"s enemies becomes even more apparent, when she mentions them while thinking about the fate of her children. 9. Medea is very indecisive, because of the situation she has been put in, and the confusing emotions she feels as a result of that situation. 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. My opponent has brought up some good points, but ultimately my conclusion has remained the same. While I agree that Medea had slightly more control of the situation than I originally thought, her judgment was still clouded by anger, and her final decision was almost certainly influenced by her enemy"s actions. There is just too much evidence that shows that Medea"s actions were caused by forces beyond her control.
Medea is responsible for her actions

1.Both parties define responsible as answerable for something within one"s own power or control. 2.For a person to be responsible for an action, there must be a clear indication that they had control over the situation that occurred. 3.Within the play, Medea contemplates killing her children and thoroughly thinks of reasons why they should no longer live. 4.Although Medea"s thoughts were flipping back and forth, she still shows that she is capable of thought and therefore has some control over her feelings. 5.In the play, Medea also recognizes that her misery stems from her own "hard-heartedness". This statement would indicate that Medea knows she is miserable, not from external forces, but from her own emotions inside of her. 6.Regarding this premise, if Medea"s emotions are inside of her, this shows that she has control over them and she also knows that she is responsible of them. 7.Furthermore, Medea claims that she must kill her children to protect them and also to get revenge on Jason. 8.Her revenge on Jason was not a necessity and, by trying to get revenge, she is taking control of the situation rather than accepting her misfortune. 9.Also, although she may feel that external forces lead her to kill her children, she is the person that made the decision to kill her children. She may not have control over what external forces do to her, but she has control over what she does to others. 10.Therefore, due to the fact that killing her children was within Medea"s power and control, she must be considered responsible for their deaths. Now that we have discussed this debate, I can see how others can believe that Medea cannot be held responsible for the death of her children. However, my view on her responsibility in her children"s deaths have not changed. I have slightly changed the wording in a few of my premises but my conclusion remains the same. In the end, Medea had power and control over the life of her children and she choose to take their lives. She cannot control what others do but she has control over what she does. When looking at the definition of responsibility, it is clear to me that Medea must be held responsible for the death of her children.
Medea is responsible for her actions

3. I agree emotions don"t just occur at random. They occur as a reaction to whatever situation a person finds themselves in, and when a person is put into a situation like Medea"s where they have to make a big decision in a short amount of time, while under pressure, it can be almost impossible to react to these emotions with sound judgment. 4. Similar to what I said in number 3, people can choose how they react to their emotions, but when put in a situation like Medea"s; there would almost be no chance of her making a clear and rational reaction. 5. Like I stated before, People all have different emotions, and different reactions. People are different because of the way the world shapes them; Medea could only have ever allowed herself to feel that way if her heart was somehow molded before hand to do so. The way we use and allow our emotions to work, is always dependent on the events of our lives. She did not choose to feel that way; situations in her life made her feel that way. 6. Medea did not allow herself to get angry; like I said in premise 3, that emotion was simply the reaction to the situation she was in, not something she consciously did. 7. I agree she was the only one who made the decision about her children, but it was the situation she was in, with her enemies that led her to it. The pressure they put her under has to go into account; they did have some sort of influence on her decision, even if they didn"t specifically tell her to kill her children. 8. Medea"s need for revenge, was fueled by anger, which clouded her judgment, and caused her to come to a conclusion that had more to do with the acts of others, than her own thoughts. 9. Medea did not allow her emotions to take over; they came on so fast and strong that she had almost no control over them at all. I agree that Medea should be responsible for ideas that come from herself, but when her ideas come from the pressures from others, and the overwhelming emotions she feels; she should not be held responsible
Medea is responsible for her actions

3: I agree that everyone"s emotions are different and how they react to situations depends on who they are. However, emotions do not just occur. Each person has input over how they react to these emotions. 4: Although it can be difficult for people to control how they react to outside forces, this does not mean it is impossible. The fact that a person is capable of controlling their emotions, regardless of how difficult it is, shows that they still should be held accountable for their emotions as well as the actions that result from her emotions. 5: Similar to 4, Medea allowed previous events to make her feel certain emotions. Her heart got in the way because she allowed herself to react to situations in a negative way. Ultimately, she did choose to feel that way. 6: I agree that anger is a powerful emotion and it can affect decisions. However, Medea allowed herself to become angry and therefore opened the door to allowing anger to make irrational decisions for her. Medea allowed anger to be the master of her plans and is still accountable for her actions 7: Medea did not have control over what her enemies were about to do to her. Medea did, however, have control over her own actions. She is the only one that had a say in whether or not to kill her children and no one else can be considered responsible for her decision except her. 8: Her need for revenge did affect her decision to kill her children. However, Medea must still be held responsible for her need for revenge as well as her decisions that were a result of this. 9: I can agree that Medea was not thinking rationally but she had control over her mind and should still be held responsible for her thoughts, whether they are rational or irrational. If anything, she allowed her emotions to take over and should still be seen as responsible.
Medea is responsible for her actions

3. Everyone"s emotions react different, depending on who they are. Emotions cannot be chosen for specific events happening. A person"s emotions generally just happen without any input from the person. 4. People can choose how they will react to outside pressure, but that can be very difficult, and that does not mean that the pressure she feels will not affect her judgment, and influence her decision. 5. The situation that Medea is in, as well as the events leading up to it, have caused Medea to feel this way. Her heart would not get in the way of ending her children"s lives, if events preceding this did not cause her to feel something for them. She did not choose to feel the way she does. 6. Anger can be a very powerful emotion, and when it comes on quickly and stays, it can be very hard to make a rational decision. Even if anger is only part of what is Making Medea"s decision, she cannot be held accountable for it. 7. Medea does not have control over what her enemies are about to do to her, but the fact that Medea is thinking about her enemies while making this decision proves that they have some sort of involvement on what the outcome of her choice will be. Since the decision is not entirely dependent on Medea herself, she is not responsible for it. 8. Yes but they did affect her, which caused her to feel emotions that led her to make a decision she would not have otherwise. 9. Medea flipping back and fourth shows that she is not thinking rationally. She only made her final decision because of the circumstances she was put in. Her time was coming to an end and her emotions took control.
Medea is responsible for her actions

2: I agree that, in order for a person to be considered responsible, they must be thinking clearly. 3: I also agree that emotions can cloud a person"s judgement. Emotions, however, are controllable. Each person chooses how they allow others to affect how they feel. This would mean that people are still responsible for their emotions as well as the actions that result from their emotions 4: Similar to premise 2, people have power over how they let external forces affect their emotions as well as their actions. Therefore, the responsibility of her actions cannot be passed to anyone else. 5: I agree that Medea"s heart is affecting her decisions. However, if she is not held responsible for her heart, who can be? 6: Anger, in some ways, is the master of Medea"s plans. Still, as stated before, anger is an emotion and people hold a responsibility for how they let external forces make them feel. 7: Medea does not have any control over her enemies sacrificing her. However, when Medea tries to get revenge and protect her children, she is, in a sense, taking control back in the situation. By taking action, Medea then becomes responsible for what occurs. 8: I agree that Medea"s decision was affected by her need for revenge but, similar to premise 2, Medea had control over how she let her enemies affect her. 9: By flipping back and forth, Medea shows that she is capable of thought and therefore responsible for what resulted afterwards. Medea came to a conclusion that she believed was the most rational and therefore must be held responsible.
Christians should enslave non-christians.

Clearly, the Bible allows for slavery. Christians could use these slaves to build and maintain churches. With global climate change, the story of Noahs Ark comes to mind. It is time we repent out sins and go back to the ways of old. "When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money." [0]"5 Bondservants,[a] obey your earthly masters[b] with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ,"[1]"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?" [2]Sources0. https://www.biblegateway.com...1. https://www.biblegateway.com...2. http://biblehub.com...
Christians should enslave non-christians.

I don't see the relevance of my opponent's 1st round argument. Those are all human made laws. God's laws are divine and take precedence. We have deviated from God's way by abolishing slavery. Labeling what is considered moral by God as immoral. "When man’s law contradicts Gods law, how you respond is between you and God. I am just here to point out that there is biblical precedence for going against man’s law and government to keep the laws of God." [3]As you can see there is biblical precedence for obeying God's laws over man's laws. As Christians we should enslave non-Christians regardless of what human made laws dictate. Sources.3. http://preparedchristian.net...
Heath Ledger is this Generation's James Dean

The passing of one of the most versatile and talented actors, Heath Ledger, shocked me more then any death since Cobain. I think it might have to do with that I, along with many others, have grew up with this guy and seen him produce hits and flops. And he had so much potential. Well what I am saying is this man, Heath Ledger, will live on like James Dean and River Phoenix, to a lesser extent and become immortal. RIP Heath
Frozen isn't a bad movie

Hello there. I once tried a debate "Frozen is Better than Aladdin", but recieved overwhelming criticism on how "Frozen was terrible". (so I changed the debate, but that's not the important part) Well, I'd like to argue Frozen isn't a bad movie. You have to argue the movie is bad. You may not compare Frozen to Disney's Renaissance Movies. (That sets up too high of a standard. Frozen may be good, but it's not "Disney Renaissance good"!) Good luck to you con. bad:ofpoororinferiorquality;defective;deficient http://dictionary.reference.com... Round one is for acceptance only. You may not forfeit any round. Breakage of any rules results in a full 7-point forfeit.
Frozen isn't a bad movie

Okay, so first of all, Disney is the highest grossing Disney film, and even more than that, it's the highest grossing animated film of all time. If a movie is financially successful, it can't be too bad. http://boxofficemojo.com... Furthermore, it has decent reviews, with a pretty high 89% fresh on RottenTomatoes, and it has an average score of 7.8/10, making it the highest-rated family film in 2013! Even if you argue that Frozen is far from being the best movie ever, it is the best family film in 2013, based on its rating, and because such, it can't be too bad of a movie. (2013 wasn't really the Year of Bad Movies.) CinemaScore gave Frozen an "A+" on an A+ to F scale, and even Metacritic gave a 74 out of 100. This can't be said a bad movie, as a score of 74 on a test if average. However, it seems that only Metacritic heavily disagrees that Frozen is an amazing movie, so we can safely assume that Frozen is somewhere between, in the "Decent" range, which is the opposite of bad. Frozen won a load of awards, especially for its catchy song Let it Go. The film was nominated for two Golden Globes at the 71st Golden Globe Awards and won for Best Animated Feature, becoming the first Walt Disney Animation Studios film to win in this category. It also won two Academy Awards for Best Animated Feature and Best Original Song, the BAFTA Award for Best Animated Film at the British Academy Film Awards, five Annie Awards (including Best Animated Feature), It received other similar nominations at the Satellite Awards, and various critics' groups and circles. sources: http://www.boxofficemojo.com... http://www.usatoday.com... http://awards.bafta.org... http://www.hollywoodreporter.com... All these awards are very positive, clearly showing that Frozen isn't a bad movie. In fact, it's very good. You should watch it with your kids! (or parents if you don't have kids)
My opponent is wrong

So, you want a debate with maximum characters, here's your chance, I will prove you wrong in all your arguments, accept, and I will send you my argument. Here is the debate I am referring to: http://www.debate.org... And yes, I am a Native Aerican, so I am good with the spear. Now don't try this "you are going to hell buisness, I've gotten this from Christians and Muslims alike, both of which you hate seeing your doctrines, so unless you want to be fitted in with them, yeah, you don't. For ease of debate, I will only cite the old testament, don't worry, most of the good stuff is there anyway.
Did Jesus Exist

The statement you make about it being impossible for Jesus to be executed, as it went against Jewish law doesn't in any way shape or form prove he didn't exist or wasn't crucified, all it demonstrates is the fact that Jesus' death by crucifixion in that particular matter was unlikely, but doesn't discredit the multiple sources we have attesting to the particular single event. , I would like to know the sources you have chosen to come to that conclusion? The chances are, they are actually the New Testament writings, which wouldn't make much sense, quoting from, as you have to defend the position that they hold no truth and are completely usefulness, to come to such conclusions Your second point also demonstrates some flaws, absence of evidence is never evidence of absence within historicity, it's very easy to set up standards that particular historical figures, you have to demonstrate the sources such as the New Testament, hold no truth whatsoever, even like Alexander the Great, couldn't pass, I would like to know the standard you implemented, into coming to the conclusion Jesus never existed. Secondly, the majority of the towns Jesus visited in 1st century Palestine, were highly illiterate places, the majority of the people also lived in poverty, and couldn't afford such scribes, with the further events of the Destruction of Jerusalem, which would've destroyed many Jewish archives, or simply particular writings, thirdly, you're obviously assuming the gospels weren't written by eyewitnesses, which I can take, but to ignore Paul's letters, which are contemporary accounts is very peculiar. In my opinion, the burden of proof isn't on the one who supports the view of his existence due to the fact there are multiple sources stating his existence, it's on the one who goes against his existence, and that particular person, actually has to show, all the sources which comment on Jesus' life, have no validity and hold no historical truth, otherwise, it's most likely Jesus existed.
Did Jesus Exist

First of all, it is against Jewish law to have someone executed by foreigners even if they were sentenced to death, so it is impossible for him to have been executed by Romans at the will of the Jews. And, Jesus wasn't crucified under the orders of Pontious Pilate, Pilate didn't have anything to do with it except not preventing it from happening, it was the supposed "mob of Jews" that ordered he be killed, again,this was in complete violation of Jewish aw so they couldn't have done it. Secondly, we have no record from any of the towns he supposedly visited showing that there were miracles done there, if they really happened, or even if a "great religious leader" went through that town there would be records wouldn't there? So, it is impossible for him o have gained his disciples and became so popular since there are no records of this. I didn't get into the really hard facts but this is only round 1 so I'm going to wait for rebuttals.
Did Jesus Exist

Hi, I'm Oliver and I'm looking forward to debate the issue as to whether or not Jesus existed; however before debating I want to make a disclaimer that when talking about the existence of Jesus I'm not talking about a miracle performer or did he rise from the dead but rather the following positions: 1. Founder of Christianity who was a teacher of morals and religious issues 2. Gained a following of "disciples" or simply followers, who caused controversy for the Jewish Sanhedrin and Pharisees 3. Was crucified under the orders of Pontius Pilate
Did Jesus Exist

No, we aren't sinless, but it's ridiculous to say we would violate the laws because you don't see why not. Truth is truth, we wouldn't get in a mob and demand the Mitzvot be violated, it isn't realistic. Christianity came into existence around 100 C.E., while the Catholic Church came into existence at 312 C.E. so that's 212 years in between where Christians were persecuted, on the other hand, everyone believed in Jesus because someone else told them about him, not because they met him, and the scrolls of the New Testament weren't circulating all that much, there weren't very many of them, and the ones that were often conflicted each other, for example, in the original scrolls of the book of revelation, the number "666" was sometimes written "666" and sometimes as "616," a contradiction in the texts thus disproving their reliability. {1} P.S. Constantine got to decide what went into the New Testament and what didn't {2}. Also, the Talmud is extremely unreliable in every way imaginable, {3} so it really doesn't matter what it says. Number two, it actually said stoning, which never happened to Jesus. Number three, yes- there are many people named Joshua, including Joshua the prophet, and the Talmud was referring to another Joshua just as it was when it said Joshua is in hell boiling in hot excrement. {1}. http://www.endtime.com... {2}. http://www.equip.org... {3}. https://docs.google.com...
Did Jesus Exist

It is a historic issue because a roaring mob of Jews demanding the Mitzvot be violated, not going to happen, thus, the story of Jesus's crucifixion is unrealistic. And yes, we can't violate the laws of G-d, think of it, when is the last time you saw a Jew eat of the pork? Yeah, never going to happen, much less a law like this one, and an entire mob of Jews all wanting to violate this law, it isn't going to happen, sorry. And I didn't say trial, I said hearing, see the difference? A trial includes a Jury a Judge and etc. A hearing is only when they decide to punish you. To deal with the rest, there is a reason his existence wasn't question until the 1800's, that being before this you would be burnt at the stake for something like that. And most arguments deal with the divinity of Jesus is because claiming you are G-d is far worse than not existing. Oh, and here's a good point t bring up, Mark 16:9-16, it isn't in he original manuscripts, {1} {2}. And the Sanhedrin isn't a historic record, even if it was its story is different than that told by the Non-Testament since it says Jesus was hung, number three, there are many people who are Named Joshua, fourth of all, Josephus was born in 37 C.E., 4 years after the death of Jesus, {3} so..... {1}. http://www.bible-researcher.com... {2}. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net... {3}. https://en.wikipedia.org...
People should stop trying to prove or disprove that god exists.

Congratulations. That was the best use of circular logic I've ever seen in my life. "I don't know about you, but that sounds like a point that comes from your stereotypical conspiracy theorist. All the arguments are nonfalsifiable." I think you have missed the whole point of the debate. My challenge is for someone to come along and give me evidence (one way or another) about god. We're not here to discuss the legitimacy of the debate. Your statement actually reinforced my entire point about god. Our fundamental lack of any significant knowledge about the universe leaves the existence of god a very open-ended one. The bible is not proof of god's existence and the lack of evidence does not prove he doesn't exist. "I think it's sufficient already to say that God DOES NOT EXIST if we cannot find evidence that he does." The proceeding statement is a good example of the kind of flawed thinking that makes people think they can disprove god. Lack of evidence is a poor way to prove your case. Take for instance the discovery of germs and bacteria. A few hundred years ago (the invention of the microscope) some scientists theorized that tiny microrganisms were the cause of infection and illness; unfortunately they couldn't prove that germs were real, and without any real evidence not many people believed them. Does that mean germs don't exist? No. It took the invention of the microscope to prove they existed. The lack of evidence for a god (just like germs) does not mean there is no god.