BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Medea is Responsible for her Actions

1.In Medea"s defense, the killing of her children represented her marriage with Jason; to seek revenge 2.Under the assumption that my opponent believes that revenge is a reaction of anger; revenge can also be sought to show superiority or power. 3.Medea might have wanted to use her children deaths" as a way to prove that she is capable gaining power away from her husband. 4.Seneca viewed anger as a philosophical problem that could be treated. 5. So though Medea"s actions might seem wrong, it was a problem that does not deserve punishment"according to Seneca she needs to be treated. 6.Who"s to say that Medea reacted to her divorce out of anger, which can easily be misinterpreted. Like Seneca, for example, he reacted calmly before execution; Medea could have been just as calm while murdering her sons. 7.Thus, Medea may have wanted to seek revenge on her husband, however, it may have been to gain superiority. And in the act of the murder, Medea may have also been entirely emotionless.
Medea is Responsible for her Actions

1. Referring to my opponents arguments 2: so referring to your quote about violence, violence is then something controlled because you become aroused or relaxed, not angry so that would mean that if she is violent then Medea is responsible for her actions because violence is a conscious act. 2. From opponents argument 3: even if the children"s death was arousal, doesn"t that still make her responsible? Seneca talks about how anger is something we can control and so is violence and if arousal is a form of violence then it is a conscious decision. 3.From opponents argument 4: I'm not sure what you mean by this? My premise stated that there was no way to prove her innocent so in ancient times, she was considered guilty because there were no courts of law or psychiatrists to prove other wise. 4. Referring to opponents 6: There actually is a law stating that it is legal for a man to divorce a woman whenever and adultery was legal back in Medea"s era which makes her responsible for her actions because it is legal for her husband to do this to her. 5. Medea"s actions were of pure revenge, which holds her accountable for them. 6. Every human life is valuable and there are laws against murder, even in Medeas time, which makes her accountable for her actions. 7. Thus violence, as per Seneca"s definition, can be controlled which leaves Medea accountable.
Medea is Responsible for her Actions

Con- 1.Medea is not responsible for her actions 2.I agree with the statement my opponent has addressed in premise 3; Seneca believe that anger is something that can be controlled. However he has also mentioned that violence "Whenever there is need of violent effort, the mind does not become angry, but it gathers itself together and is aroused or relaxed according to its estimate of the need." 3.Referring back to premise 2, the death of Medea"s children could have easily been from the arousal 4.As mentioned in my opponent"s 4th premise, no Seneca was not around to justify Medea"s actions"BUT to prove the "court of law, trials, or psychiatrists" we date back to these times to come up with logical excuses for people"s actions. 5. *( as mentioned in the 2nd premise Medea"s violence was due to some sort of arousal"according to Seneca)* 6.There is also no law stating that it"s legal for a man to commit adultery. 7.Thus, there is no possible proof why Medea should be held accountable for the actions she has committed against her children. Non- controversial Premise 1 is my counter argument Premise 2 is in slight agreement with my opponent *(can be controversial) Controversial #2. With slight agreement with my opponent, I also mentioned that there is are also statements made by Seneca that suggest that there is also a reasoning for the violence people commit. Going back to the quote mentioned. #4 Premise 4 is explaining Seneca"s logic behind ""violent effort, the mind does not become angry, but it gathers itself together and is aroused or relaxed according to its estimate of the need." #5,6. This premise is proving that there is no right nor wrong to anyone"s actions. There are no documents stating that having affairs nor committing adultery is legal.
Hand orientation is justification for genetic engineering of gender

Offended? I apologize if my opponent is hurt by the statement I made regarding his lack of knowledge in biology however I am terribly sad to say in this second round unless it is by mistake he has shown further lack of knowledge in biology.Dropped ArgumentsUsually if a opponent doesn't address a argument than it is considered dropped, my opponent has literally dropped all 5 arguments and charged me with misunderstanding him. He seems to be more concerned with debate political policy but I am committed to defeating his notion in a biological sense so he never has to make that decision because it is largely irrelevant and terribly unlikely. Chromosomes and GenesSo regarding this, genes and chromosomes are not the same thing. My opponent seems to use these terms interchangeably. The reason why humans have hand orientation has to with genes not chromosomes which are made up of genes(remember fallacy of composition here). Right handed is probably homozygous dominant and heterozygous trait, as that would explain the statistics well. However being male or female is not a genetically based in that sense it involves Mitosis and the genetic information shared between sperm and egg with the gender of the sperm determining sex.ConclusionMy opponent has dropped all of my arguments and has shown he doesn't understand genetic exchange in sexual reproduction. I urge a Con vote today :)
Hand orientation is justification for genetic engineering of gender

I think my opponent totally misunderstood my debate and am personally offended considering my high level of studying DNA structure and microbiology that he would insult my knowledge on the subject.There is a 50/50 chance of your child being right or left handed based on genes, it's one chromosome, just like the X or Y. The difference here is this. A vast majority of humans are right handed despite this chance. We have by pure luck happened to end up with a world where there's relatively equal distribution of men and women. Nonetheless, one day it could be disastrous and just like the fact that despite ONE GENE of 50% chance controlling hand orientation, FAR MORE people are right handed then despite it only being the X or Y chromosome on the sperm there could be a generation with a HUGE gender imbalance. Sure if there were few men and many women it would be huge benefit for the men but the reverse would probably result in gang rape and violence to the hilt. People have an urge to reproduce at ANY cost (how the heck do you think we evolved to be so smart? Only the smart ones survived, as opposed to the strong ones in most other species). We are a brutal species, don't let civilisation fool you. As a socialist I believe it is a government's role to not gamble the safety and distribution of their people away on the roll of a dice. Believe me 90% men and 10% women in a generation would tear your country apart (and left and right handedness proves that despite 50% factor chance, it doesn't mean that anywhere close to 50% distribution will be the outcome) We MUST ensure this never happens!.
Hand orientation is justification for genetic engineering of gender

All I need is show that my opponent is incorrect in his reasoning for hand orientation. I do not believe my opponent has a background in biology otherwise he would realise there is no genetic way to produce such ridiculous effects. There are five problems with this:Arguments1. Assuming Genetics works the way my opponent says it does:So lets assume my opponent is right in that genetics are simply probability. 1/2 of people are male and likewise with females. If my opponent is correct this would not change. People would reproduce normally and since there is no particular genetic advantage in being a female the results would not be abnormal. If Genetics works by simple probability than the only possible way that it could come close is if there was some genetic advantage at being female.2. Mutations and sexual reproductionMutations are the main cause of genetic variability along with sexual reproduction so when we follow that to its logical conclusion we can see STILL assuming my opponents logical process that it is rather doubtful any change would be made to regard gender because genetic variability isn't random it is based off mutations and reproduction.3. Mutations on the Sexual ChromosomesMy opponent may ask what if a mutation on the sexual chromosome happened? Organisms have many redundant genes, and many genes are turned off. Odds are against a mutation actually affecting the organism. Also, many genetic effects on the sexual chromosome can be seen as negative as they damage the organisms ability to procreate.4. Any population inequality would be easily fixed. If 75% of people are males and 25% are females, it follows from the monogamous nature of humans(in general, not to say there isn't exceptions) that the population should change, even from natural selection perspective there would be genetic advantage in being a female(being one of the only is a advantage)5. Male and Female ratio in general isn't really based on genetics. Obviously there is a little variability here but in general there is no genetic dependence on sex of the baby. The only possible would be male to female sperm inside the testes however other than that the dependence of sex is 50 50, XX or XY chromosome.
Hand orientation is justification for genetic engineering of gender

Assuming the theory that 3/4 of the world is right-handed and 1/4 is left-handed, this is warrant to support parents choosing their child's gender or a government regulating this since one day as it easily could end up being that a generation ends up with a gender share similar to that of the hands and if 3/4 of the world is male that's a huge reproductive strain on the 1/4 women.
Hand orientation is justification for genetic engineering of gender

1. Assuming Genetics works the way my opponent says it does: No answer=Psy gangem style defeat 2. Mutations and sexual reproduction Answer? Daily Double 3.Mutations on the Sexual Chromosomes Argument really not answered 4.Any population inequality would be easily fixed. Argument not answered :) 5.Male and Female ratio in general isn't really based on genetics. Argument not answered :) My opponent has failed to meet his BOP :) Therefore he is the weakest link goodbye :)
Your kid is NOT "smarter" then you. Unless you believe smart phone savvy is smartness,

I will just touch on the obvious to me, which apparently is voodoo to you, but your is clearly more voodoo then what my observations are as you are a zombie maker in my mind. You have zero debates. even though you are debating this your count is zero. That is a total fallacy as every debate I make is counted and as a newbie, your is neglected. total fallacy of this site. I cannot tell you how many times zeroes have debated me and won, but I will let you check if you are interested in the truth. More then thrice, I bet. IQ 135, is me, and you? Smart phony? How many now consult their brain phone to pass an IQ test? Me, never. Whatever you say gladiator of technology, Rome will fall.
Your kid is NOT "smarter" then you. Unless you believe smart phone savvy is smartness,

Would you mind providing a definition of 'smart' for context within this debate in your first argument? I will also assume that we are not talking about my child in specific (because you do not know my child and because my child does not yet exist), but rather children and parents to a more general degree. If you have any specific idea of 'child and parent', I would also like to know that for context as well. I look forward to our first debate together, and my first debate on DDO!
Personal interest should be subservient to public interest

It will be useful to define and describe the ambit of the issue at hand. I firmly believe that the individual interest should be subjected to the interests of the society at large. This subservience should be observed in the utilization of resources, division of benefits , providing opportunity etc. The only exception being that the basic rights should be guaranteed to the individual. Here by basic rights I mean those rights which are absolutely necessary for ensuring a minimum living standard and enabling him to prosper both mentally , physically , emotionally and spiritually. Please make your opening remarks about the issue
Should abortion be illegal in the United States (In Most Cases)

My side is that it shouldn't be allowed in most cases. First of all abortion is known as murder in most cases. Also it wouldn't make sense to do it to a gift you have been given. It's also very dangerous and will make the mother feel bad in most cases. It brings gossip and such into families and causes pain to the mother. It's very clear to see that abortion only leads to more pain to yourself. I look forward to the next round.
We Should Tax Women who are Pregnant

I am starting to see this is kind of a joke so I will loosen up a bit. Maybe. The population doesn't lead to global warming! Slippery Slope Fallacy! Read what I said before! Therefore, it does not have a direct effect on the polar bear population. Last thing, when I say diet, I am correct in most cases because you can not eat or drink things you did before, most obviously, alcohol beverages. Here is a site with many foods. http://americanpregnancy.org...
We Should Tax Women who are Pregnant

Something has to be done to prevent overpopulation. Once the population gets too high, polar bears will die out, and the world will overheat. Thus, my best solution is to tax women who are pregnant, at $300/month. Global warming is caused by overpopulation Humans consume resources, chop down trees, and burn fossil fuels. See, if we can prevent overpopulation, then we can reduce substantially, if not completely get rid of global warming. You say that "your diet shrinks while pregnant." That is false, I believe. A pregnant woman actually eats more to let her baby grow and have strength.
We Should Tax Women who are Pregnant

If you were to look a population clock there is a gain of a person every 15 seconds. This does seem like a lot but remember one thing, when the population is too high, natural selection will take place and less fit people will die, which is good because it advances our society by leaving us with a stronger population. This will, in turn, help the population, which will soon be able to increase the carrying capacity, since we will adapt to a loss of resources. As for global warming, that is completely unrelated to population. We could half 20 billion people using electric cars with emissions, being greener than 5 billion people, all of whom use fossil fuel cars. Last of all, $300 monthly for 9 months is too much, especially considering your diet shrinks while pregnant. Anyways, the family will pay for the food anyways, so you are just doubling the costs, putting us closer to poverty. I would end it now if I were you. I won.
The worst debate ever

I am still here bitches... Your almighty god has failed to defend his honor or punish the child who had forsaken him. People who have no lives will believe in whatever crap people serves them you are just a poor pathetic unevolved human who cannot develop the simple logic that god does not exist. This is all there ever will be nothing more the sooner you learn that then sooner you can be a sensible part of humanity. God had failed to prove his existence and no amount if evidence can prove his existence only children should believe in fairy tales not adults disgraceful
The worst debate ever

Con implies that some how God is equal to imaginary things. This is clearly false, my God is real, yours isn't. I am glad that Con brings up the love of God, cause we all must love God, and tell him how big and powerful and good he is, lest he get angry and strike us down and send us to hell, praise the lord ! !! Now can mr atheist explain where the universe came from ? Can mr atheist explain why the laws of physics are they way they are ? Can mr atheist explain why there is something rather than nothing ? Of course not, thereby proving that the God I believe in exists. Now lets go back to this evolution humans from monkey nonsense. When we look at this so called scientific evidence by so called scientists, what we need to do is use the bible as our standard to see whether that evidence is correct. This is how REAL science should be done. So if there is some evidence that suggest that humans existed over 7000 years then its wrong, if their is some evidence that suggest the humans did not exist over 7000 years ago then its correct. See that's how REAL science works, by accepting the evidence that supports our beliefs and rejecting those that don't. Beliefs based on the holy bible Gods word. We have to be brave enough, to reject evidence that doesn't support our view. It is difficult but with Gods help I know we can do it. For instance, I know the bible says that believers can cure the sick in the mighty name of Jesus. Now I have never seen an amputee get a restored limb, but never the less I can be quite confident that my views are correct based on what the bible says. If the bible makes a claim that is proved true in one thing, that means ALL the claims of the bible are true. BAM take that mr atheist. Atheists reject such justifications cause they want to deny God and rape children. Can you prove God does not exist ? nope, Can you prove that Jesus did not raise from the dead ? nope Can you prove that Noah did not put 2 of every animal into an ark ? nope Can you prove that God did not command the killing of homosexuals ? nope Can you prove that their aren't invisible, immaterial fairies, plotting the over throw of mankind in the back of my garden ? nope Thus all those things are true. .. .. .. .. .except fairies cause that is just stupid to believe in fairies. Thus God exists. Next stop Iran.
The worst debate ever

To equate god to the holy word of Hogwarts is BLASPHEMY... If you keep this up sir... he who must not be named will smite you i guarantee it!!! Well this delusional, idiotic, and senseless tooth fairy believer accepts the fact that some all mighty white guy in the guy is constantly watching him with love, muah muah muah. Christianity is created because some hoe spewed some garbage about her miracle pregnancy. My Christian friend sure loves to talk about gays. You should look in the mirror and ask yourself who do you love more than anyone. Is the answer god? all you ignorant, beer drinking, gun loving, conservative christians are just angry you gay fantasize about a man in the sky... H_O_M_O!!! I would also like to point out another truth JESUS WAS A HOMOSEXUAL how else can you explain him always being on a table with 12 other men... HOOOO....MOOOOO. You christians create this little fantasy to entertain your secret redneck fantasy. It's either that or you enjoy worshiping a rapist... I HAVE TOLD MY OPPONENT in the last round, that it is GOD's WILL that he eats his own nutsack... if you were a TRUE CHRISTIAN and you wanna feel the love of gods sweat nutsack on your face than you better do it... Do not take the chances that i might be lying. Would you want pepper on your nuts... you gullible, dumbshiet, redneck. LETS SETTLE THIS RIGHT NOW BRUH... if their is a god... PLEASE SMITE ME DOWN RIGHT NOW... WAIT FOR IT... If i do not respond in round 3 than there is a god... because most likely I would be dead by then because i must feel the wrath of God's giant beard bitch slapping me to hell. Bottom line... I don't have to sit by and listen to a white man spew about how everyone should have the same homosexual feelings for a man in the sky. Go take it up with your 2nd god George W Bush you guys can talk about how badly you wanna suck the cock of this almighty being... best way to please him for sure... I MEAN your christians are always on your KNEES FOR SOMETHING. BOO YAH PEACE
The worst debate ever

I thank the minion of satan for their response. Con talks about harry potter, harry potter is witch craft for children, and needs to be banned. To equate harry potter to the holy word of God is blasphemy !!!! this too also needs to be banned. Now the demon possessed, terrorist loving, monkey from humans atheist may ask well its not like any harm can come from allowing these things. See the atheist is stuck in their carnal world, blinded by satan to the spiritual realities. And what is that spiritual reality you ask ? simple, that the terrorists attacks on 911 were caused by allowing gays, abortions and witchcraft. Jerry Fawell confirmed as such, and their is no reason not to believe him what so ever. Mr liberal agenda atheist here, makes all sorts of charges against God, I am deeply offended, and I urge all christians to write to congress to stop this attack on God, cause if their is one thing that needs to be protected, its an all power all knowing God. How much hatred the atheist has in their heart for God, do they not fear the wrath of God coming down on them ? see God will stand by and watch murders, and rapes and babies being born deformed, but if you assaults God character then that will spring God into action. Atheists will stop at nothing at their assault on christians and the God of christianity Jesus christ. These atheists are deeply wicked, how can one argue what Jesus taught ? To forgive others, love one another, and allow a few people to control the wealth and power. Was it not Jesus that said blessed are the tax cuts for the rich, for they are the job creators ? Was it not Jesus that said, life is sacred, but if 1 dollar is spent on welfare that's communism and satanic ? I would also like to point out this liberal agenda, like socialized health care. Let me tell you something, the only health care we need is the healing power of Jesus Christ. What we need is less vaccinations, and more exorcisms. Less cancer treatments and more repentance of sin. Don't let these God hating atheists fool you, next time you get sick, don't seek some one with a medical degree seek some one with a bible. Health care is just for people who refuse to trust in God for their deliverance. In conclusion, I know I am right, cause God told me so. Thank you.