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

1. Yes, she is responsible if Medea does not then she should uses her common sense at this time. 2. If she shot by she husband than she children did not cheat to her so why did she choose killing? she could chose something else except killing. 3. Disagree because of her. How come a mother only thinks about herself? Only for falling trouble she killed her children? 4. She wants to have few pleasure but it does not means she has to kills for have a pleasure. 5. She did care for law of killing but while a person lost her mind, does she care for law? 6. Agree, Killing is a moral crime but while she committed a moral crime she was not really in her own because of her husband. did she killed for it? 9. Therefore, she is a killer. and she is responsible for this action.
Medea is Responsible for her Actions

1. Medea is not responsible for this action.2. Yes, she chose to kill her children because she was mentally shot by her husband and the movement she had not any other chose except killing her children. 3. Yes, she may thought if anything catch that she killing her children she may fall in a big trouble.4. Could be the movement she lost her mind and killing was only ways what she felt give her a pleasure.5. Agree. 6. She may felt after her children get oldest then they also will behave just like their father.
Medea is Responsible for her Actions

1. Medea is responsible for her action. 2. Seneca said, "Anger is unnatural bad, and we should get rid of it." Then why did them? 3. She wants to kill them and she also was not recommended by anyone to kill them. 4. She wants to give her husband a lesson for hurting her. 5. She did not care for any law of killing. 6. Killing is a moral crime so she committed a moral crime. 7. She was not crazy. 8. It was only for jealousy. 9. Therefore, she is a killer. She knows it is sinful, still she did. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Non-Controversial: Terms of #1 and #3 could be debate. #9 is conclusion. Controversial: #2. Anger can controls her anger, but depends on anger"s mind. It does not mean that she felt angry because of that reason she committed a crime. She had time to think and then make a decision but instead, she killed them without thinking. That is why she is responsible for this reaction and she also is a biggest criminal.
Battle of France was won only because of Luftwaffe.

The British Expeditionary Force and French Armoured Dvisions were clearly superior: you haven't countered my argument about the weaker and less Panzers against the better quality and outnumbering French Tanks. The Ardennes tactic was used by Erich Von Manstein, and his tactic was unknown to the Allies. Had they simply watched the area, they could've stopped this trap, ordered a counter attack, and disallow German Victory in France. Germany was not yet close to it's peak in army strength: by May 1940, Germany had 40 army divisions: 25 were still in Poland. The French and British heavily outnumbered them. Thus, without air superiority and weight of numbers, Germany would've been crushed and the war would've ended possibly 1941.
Battle of France was won only because of Luftwaffe.

My opponent I am going to have to call you out on the Causal oversimplification of your argument that because the Luftwaffe destroyed several French Tanks during a skirmish in the battle of France, the Luftwaffe ensured Nazi Germany's victory in France. There is however, little doubt there was some Close Air Support provided by the Luftwaffe, although much of it was focused on maintaining aerial supremacy over occupied lands, with just a mere 15% the Luftwaffe devoted to Close Air Support (Buckley, John (1998). Air Power in the Age of Total War. UCL Press. ISBN 1-85728-589-1.) Meaning that the Panzerkorps had to do the bulk of fighting before the main Wehrmacht could sweep in and finish off resistance.The bulk of the Allied forces were deployed in the Low Countries (Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg) to the North of France to fight against the Nazis who entered Belgium and the Netherlands. The Allies were also completely taken by surprise when Nazi Germany entered France through the Ardennes bypassing the formidable Maginot line. In addition the entry of the Panzer Korps into France through the Ardennes also allowed the Wehrmacht (Main German Army not to be mistaken with the Waffen SS) to splice through allied supply lines essentially cutting off the the Allied forces in Belgium. In addition to the sudden loss of supplies necessary to maintain a campaign to repel the allied forces as well as a lack of a centralized base to coordinate a successful counterattack, the Allies were forced to make a hasty retreat before they were effectively encircled by the much faster Panzerkorps who had reached Amiens by May 20. Faced with annihilation or fighting another day the British Expeditionary Force sent to aid France had little choice but to make a desperate run for evacuation at Dunkirk.(http://www.history.co.uk...) (http://www.bbc.co.uk...) Thus while air support did assist in Blitzkrieg it was by no means a key spear to victory, since that was reserved for the Panzerkorps.
Battle of France was won only because of Luftwaffe.

Firstly, thank you for accepting. Secondly, I would like to argue about a battle in Central France. As Guderian's tanks swung up North to trap British Expeditionary and French Armored Forces in Belgium, they were held up by a counter-attack. The French sent their superior in number and ability tanks against the Panzers. Guderian's tanks were being smashed, so Hitler ordered Goering to send the Luftwaffe's Stukas to bomb these French tanks. They were destroyed, simply because of the lack of French Air Corce, which was outnumbered one to three against German fighters. This German victory ensured the surrounding of French and British forces in Belgium, and the victory of the entire battle of France. All because the Stukas bombed those tanks. Further resistance was useless, as British and French forces only had, at best, machine gunners and snipers, bullets that couldn't penetrate the German armor. My only source is Apocalypse World War 2 Episode 2 Crushing Defeat.
Battle of France was won only because of Luftwaffe.

I will assume that Pro has the burden of Proof of showing that the battle of France was won only because of the Luftwaffe. I will start my arguments and rebuttals in the Second Round and write my final conclusions in the third round. However, it is my firm belief that the Battle of France was actually won by Nazi Germany because of Nazi Germany's superior tactics of Blitzkrieg that overwhelmed the Allied Powers. Air power alone is insufficient to win any battle, and the key to smashing the enemies of Nazi Germany during the battle wasn't the Luftwaffe it was the Motorized Corps (aka the Panzerkorps, from 1941 onward) that won the battle of France.
THW not grant developing countries the right to host major international sporting events

This House believes that developing countries should not have the right to host major sporting events because; 1. They are ultimate unsafe due to political tension and higher crime rate therefore when people are attracted to these major events the likelihood of their belongings being stolen is high. Furthermore it is important to recognize that developing countries are still developing and hosting these events can be beyond there current capacity to provide accommodation, entertainment etc. Therefore when they host event it is unpredictable to know whether they will be able to satisfy the criteria because you can't host a event on just the whim alone you need to have the resources money etc which some developing countries will lack. If anyone Would like to share something please feel free i would really appreciate it. Thank you! :)
THW not grant developing countries the right to host major international sporting events

Why should we not when it comes to developing countries? Sorry if I may not put much effort into this first round but I never heard of developing countries. I believe though that the world is equal because we are all human beings. And if it is a developing country, international sporting events will help with sponsoring the country to aid in helping speed up developing. And I laughed when you mention stealing. Where's the evidence?
Armed guards in the public school systems

Armed Guards cost to much in funding for schools, some schools don't even have enough money to support the program. Having armed guards could possibly shape a different attitude for children that have not yet formed their mental understanding. Armed guards give children the perception that a place where they should have fun and feel safe in is not at all safe, Only an average of 10 children die in the united states yearly in schools. Also the matter should not be federal. It should be up to the school administrators and local citizens to decide if their area is safe enough or if they should invest in armed workers, armed workers should not be forced Upon the school systems.
Islam Is a Religion of Peace: part II

“Those who can win a war well can rarely make a good peace and those who could make a good peace would never have won the war.” - Winston Churchill Pro said: “I will go through the two kinds of Islamic wars and progress to the conclusion to this contention.” Rebuttal: Islam cannot be a religion of peace if we acknowledge a concept like “Islamic wars”. They are polar opposites. Pro said:” The first kind of Islamic war is for self-defense.” Rebuttal:” Any type of war is an anathema to peace. The two are polar opposites. Peace by means of war is called a “military occupation” or “genocidal extermination”. For example, the Nazi empire's official policy was that it must strike down it's enemies to preserve German purity. As per the German political doctrine, it also claimed to fight in self-defense to prevent racial corrosion. Nazi Germany was terribly oppressive toward it's enemies. Yet after it's defeat, the Soviet military occupation raped and murdered an astounding population of German citizens. As per the source:” At least 100,000 women are believed to have been raped in Berlin based on surging abortion rates in the following months and contemporary hospital reports, with an estimated 10,000 women dying in the aftermath. Female deaths in connection with the rapes in Germany, overall, are estimated at 240,000. Antony Beevor describes it as the "greatest phenomenon of mass rape in history", and has concluded that at least 1.4 million women were raped in East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia alone.” [1] When my opponent stated that I seem “to think that fighting for your self-defense is not peaceful”, he was absolutelycorrect. I'm not debating the merits of self-defense, nor it's justification. I am asserting that it is violent. Islam, by this very same token is violent. Pro quoted: “[2:190] You may fight in the cause of GOD against those who attack you, but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors.” Rebuttal: Allah ordains the use of violence in this text. We are not concerned with the reason, we are concerned with the method. Any act of war is not peaceful. Peace is axiomatic. If the United States invades Iraq to stop a dictator, it requires congressional approval to declare “war”, not “peace”. My opponent is seeking to draw a parallel between Justice and Peace. They are different virtues. Justice may employ war to meet it's satisfaction. Peace may not. Conclusion: My opponent has displayed a massive list of verses that are designed to convince you (the reader) that Muslims cannot engage in warfare without conditions. He asserts that these conditions justify the war. This entire list, nay, the Qur’an is it's entirety can be stricken from the list of “peaceful religions” by my opponents own definition. I do not need to discredit his scripture line by line. It condemns itself. God cannot give us a happiness and peace apart from Himself, because it is not there. There is no such thing. - C. S. Lewishttp://www.bbc.co.uk... [1]
Fast food outlets that sell "hamburgers" should be fined or closed down.

Please go to Google and type in Define:Hamburger, right off the bat you will see 6 different sources (not all American) define hamburger as being made of beef. One of the many great things about a Capitalistic Economy is that we have the freedom to choose what we purchase. If the govt. was to shut down fast-food restaurants because it made people obese then it would be defeating the purpose. Note how my opponent stated this: "My opponent referred us to a link to an American dictionary with a definition of a hamburger as a patty of beef in a bun. What? So we are all supposed to carry American - English, English - American phrasebooks with us every time we pop out for a takeaway?" ________________________________________________________________________________ I have given 6 definitions. Not all from an American Dictionary. Note how my opponent failed to offer a definition in response that challenged the "American" definition. Thanks for the Debate Brian Hope to debate you again sometime!
Fast food outlets that sell "hamburgers" should be fined or closed down.

First of all, I would like to make it absolutely clear that I certainly do not want to see reputable takeaways closed down, although, from the point of view of the health of the nation this might not be bad thing. The countries my opponent referred to, the US, the UK and Australia, have some of the highest rates of obesity in the world. However, this problem could be alleviated by requiring fast food restaurants to have narrower entrances to stop the obese from getting in. http://www.debate.org... I would like, if I may, to invite you to visit the website of a nationwide chain of pubs: http://www.jdwetherspoon.co.uk... As you can see they offer: Beef burgers (made out of beef) Chicken burgers (made out of chicken) Lamb burgers (made out of lamb), and Vegetable burgers (made out of grass and leaves, or whatever it is that vegetarians eat) This is a very good deal - the equivalent of ten dollars gets you a burger and fries with a pint thrown in gratis - but you soon get tired of eating the same things. That's why I asked my local branch to rustle me up something a bit different for a change and I ordered a burger with a nice bit of ham in it. It was lovely and several other customers tried it and voiced their approval. Now the chain are thinking of introducing it to the menu. What do you think they should call it? A "ham burger" (since it contains ham) or a "smoked salmon and cream cheese burger" which it doesn't contain, but what the hey? My opponent referred us to a link to an American dictionary with a definition of a hamburger as a patty of beef in a bun. What? So we are all supposed to carry American - English, English - American phrasebooks with us every time we pop out for a takeaway? Wouldn't it be simpler for for fast-food outlets just to amend their menus to accurately reflect what they are actually selling?
Fast food outlets that sell "hamburgers" should be fined or closed down.

I will Debate with these perimeters. 1. The effect of closing or fining fast food restaurants on the world market. 85,000 fast food restaurants are in the USA "In the United States alone, consumers spent about US$110 billion on fast food in 2000 (which increased from US$6 billion in 1970). [14] The National Restaurant Association forecasts that fast food restaurants in the U. S. will reach US$142 billion in sales in 2006, a 5% increase over 2005. In comparison, the full-service restaurant segment of the food industry is expected to generate $173 billion in sales. " Now what would happen if you suddenly fined or closed 85,000 Businesses with $173 Billion USD in sales? Catastrophe. Recently on New Year's Day 2008 a study was conducted worldwide counting the number of fast food restaurants per person. The UK has name claimed this title with Australia second and the United States third. England alone accounted for 25% of all fast food. Also found on Wikipedia. 2. The definition of Hamburger "A sandwich consisting of a cooked patty of ground or chopped beef, usually in a roll or bun, variously garnished. " The definition of hamburger says it is made of beef. Therefor no false adds. . http://dictionary.reference.com... I negate my opponents argument. I have made 2 points. 1. It would harm the world economy if fines or closing were to happen. 2. A hamburger by definition is made of 100% beef. Therefor their is 0% froud.
Fast food outlets that sell "hamburgers" should be fined or closed down.

These cretinous catering conmen are swindling their customers and getting away with it. They are passing off what are just ordinary beefburgers* as "hamburgers", but they are not hamburgers at all because: 1 – They do not contain 100% ham. In fact, they don't even contain 1% ham. Indeed, hamburgers are actually totally ham-free products. If you are forbidden by your religion to eat pork, don't worry; you can eat as many hamburgers as you like without jeopardising your chances of making it into the afterlife. 2 – They are not made in Hamburg. If they were, the "h" would be capitalised as in Parma ham or Cheddar cheese. To add insult to injury, these miserable tricksters ask you if you want French fries with your beefburger, even though the fries are patently not from France. If a jeweller advertised a timepiece that he knew was made in China as a "Swiss watch" or an antique dealer described a rug that was made in Chicago as a "Persian carpet" or a liquor store sold bottles of Scotch Whisky that actually contained a mixture of rain, spit and anti-freeze and were bottled in Bangladesh, they would be rightly punished. These fast-food fraudsters should be fined by the consumer protection authorities and those that continue to pass off beefburgers as "hamburgers" should be closed down. * http://www.askoxford.com...
The validity of 0.99999... = 1

No problem that you can't use the symbol, the work was very easily read. For future reference though, you can copy-paste the symbol.Just like division by 0, multiplication by infinity makes no sense and cannot be done.For example, 3x5 = 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 = 15But 3xinfinity = 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 +... It doesn't come to a definite answer as an operation demands.Essentially, this line: "Subtraction: -1/x = 0Multiplication: -1 = 0x" Is flawed and cannot be done. Rebuttal to 1.λ = 1 is not like saying 9999999999 = 10000000000, because this would imply a finite amount of 9's.Instead λ = 1 IS like saying 9999999999.99999... = 10000000000, and that is a statement that should be expected, since I implied that λa = a.Statement 2 is a non-issue to the claim that λ = 1.
The validity of 0.99999... = 1

I have no clue how to use that symbol, so my representation will be ]{= .99999... First, let me ask you a question; Do you think that .3333333 is equal to 1/3? What about .666666 being equal to 2/3? Now I shall begin. Here is my proof: The function y=1-1/x is often used to show how the repeating decimal 0.9999... is equal to 1. When x=1, y=1; x=10, y=0.9; x=10000, y=.9999, and so on. The limit of 1-1/x as x approaches infinity equals 1. An assumption is often made, however, that if the limit of an expression as x approaches infinity is 1, then that expression must equal 1 when x equals infinity. Assumption: 1-1/x = 1 when x = infinity Subtraction: -1/x = 0 Multiplication: -1 = 0x Zero Property: -1 = 0 -1 does not equal 0, therefore 1-1/x does not equal 1 when x = infinity. You cannot treat "infinity" like a normal number, you can only think of it in terms of limits. Some things to think about: 1. Saying ]{ = 1 is like saying 9999999999 = 10000000000. The numbers are completely different. They change completely. 2. Just because someone should not wish to write down the whole decimal out every time doesn't mean that it becomes the number one. At any time, you could make a simple symbol that represents the repeating decimal./
The validity of 0.99999... = 1

Before I begin, I'm going to let λ = 0.99999. .. so it is easier to read the work. C1: They have no difference in valueSubtracting λ from 1 results in zero, showing they have no difference in value. They can be used similarily in an equation. Therefore, λ = 1C2: You cannot make it "not 1"λ to any power is still λ. This is a property that only the number 1 is capable of. a*λ is infinitessimally less than a. This is also a property that only 1 is capable of. C3: There is Mathematical proof of thisLet's begin by noting that λ can be made by just adding 9's infinitely. In summation notation: λ = Σ [9 / 10^n] --- {The sum goes from 1 to infinity}λ = 9 Σ [1 / 10^n]λ = 9 Σ [1 / 10]^nThis is just a geometric sequence, and can be solved using: Σ a^i [from i=m to n] = [a^m - a^n] / [1 - a]λ = 9[(1/10)^1 - (1/10)^infinity] / [1 - (1/10)]λ = 9[1/10] / [9/10] λ = 9[1/10][10/9]λ = 1
Rejecting The Existence Of God Is Reasonable

*Voters must use Opt-In voting standards when voting.*1st round is for acceptance.*By accepting the debate, the definitions are agreed to.*I request that moderators remove crappy votes.Full ResolutionRejecting the existence of god is reasonable.ProHas 3 rounds each with a 10,000 character limit + 3 days to post.Pro also has the BoP to show that rejecting the existence of god is reasonable.ConHas 3 rounds each with a 10,000 character limit + 3 days to post.Con also has to negate Pro's claims in order to cast enough doubt on the resolution.Definitionsrejecting - dismissing as inadequate, unacceptable, or faulty.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...existence - the fact of having objective reality.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...god - the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...reasonable - having sound judgement.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...creator - an entity that brings something into existence via creation.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...creation - the process of bringing something into existence.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...process - a series of actions taken in order to achieve a particular end.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...series - a number of events of a similar or related kind coming one after another.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...after - in the time following an event.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...time - the indefinite continued progress of events and three-dimensional space regarded as fused in a four-dimensional continuum.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
Rejecting The Existence Of God Is Reasonable

Well this just keeps getting better doesn't it? Con has managed to make no attempt at casting doubt on the resolution. What's worse is that Con has dragged readers through this debate with his lack of effort. Worse still, Con's not very good at writing, so our eyes must suffer through it all. *Wrappin' Up*I maintain the rejection of a creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority for the untouched-by-Con reasons provided 2nd round. Extend. *Responding to Con*Con goes off the rails and starts talking about wolves, vampires, lesbians, racism, and psychology, none of which are funny or relevant. Boo Con. Con asks:"Did you know wolves don't actually howl at the moon? "My response:Did you know that irrelevant debaters litter the site with debate garbage? Con continues:"we be howling to god. "My response:Irrelevant debaters howl to a creator of a universe that wasn't created? You're the expert on this I guess. Con inquires: "Why do think the lesbians love watching/reading twilight, for them its their bible OKAY, so there's yr proof. "My response:Lesbians + Werewolves + Vampires = Reason to accept a creator of a universe that wasn't created. .. baffling really. *Conclusion*Opt-in voters, please vote seriously and I apologize for Con's performance. His owner should never have let him use a device to post. I'm in utter awe of how stupid Con is. .. utter awe. Wolfy should be put down like the dog he is.