BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It"s possible to romantically love more than one person at once.

1. There are many definitions to the word "love"". 2. I want to restate what is mentioned in the topic question. We are specifically talking about romantic love. 3. Having romantic love with someone is defined as having a strong and passionate affection towards someone or something. 4. Never in the definition does it give a limit to how many people you can romantically love at once. 5. For example, one can have an old boy/girlfriend that you still romantically love, even if he/she are to never see them again. 6. He/she could have moved on to others, and eventually learn to love them, but they could still potentially harbor romantic, passionate feelings of love for their ex. 7. Having intercourse, or being with a person is not needed in order to romantically love them. 8. Conversely, although one may have intercourse with numerous people, they can still harbor romantic feelings for them all at once. 9. The idea of only having one lover, the idea of monogamy, is only popular because it is instilled in our society to get married and raise a family. 10. Many religions/cultures in history have practiced polygamy, which is the act of having multiple spouses. 11. Marriages today half of the time end up in divorce. 50% of the married population divorced in order to find a new lover, which shows the ability of a person to romantically love more than one person. That 50% also doesn't represent the number of people who actively cheat, or harbor romantic feelings for another person. 12. Therefore, it is possible to romantically love more than one person at once. Non-Controversial: Premises 1, 2, 3, and 4 are either statements, clarifications, or definitions. Premise 10 is a statement. Controversial: Premises 5 and 6 are pertaining to a hypothetical scenario in which someone loves multiple people. Premises 7, 8, and 9 are all ideas as to which why it is acceptable to have multiple romantic lovers at once. Premise 11 is an introduction of information. All of the premises listed maybe representative of my feelings because of the stance I'm taking so they possibly can be refuted.
It"s possible to romantically love more than one person at once.

5. I agree as I previously stated that one person can still have feelings for the other without the feelings being mutual, however that does not mean that they are in love with that person. There is a big difference between the two and i still hold to my position regarding this premise. 7. I see where you're coming from, however they may very well still love the other person who died but they simply cannot be in love with them because they are no longer able to be with each other, only the memories of that person and what they once had does. 10. Similarly to my previous premise, even though one person may still have feelings and the other may have lost them doesn't mean that person is in love with them, even though they may believe that they are and constantly be thinking of what they had in the past when there relationship actually existed physically.
It"s possible to romantically love more than one person at once.

3. I still agree with our definition of romantic love, which is "Having romantic love with someone is defined as having a strong and passionate affection towards someone or something." This type of love is completely different from a platonic love, or one shared with a family member. 5. I am still a believer in the idea that a one sided love can exist. Although the feelings of are never present or no longer there for one individual, they certainly can be there for another. It's kind of like the riddle "If a tree falls in a forest, but no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" Just because no one is around to observe doesn't mean that it doesn't exist at all. 7. I understand your claim in that without physical interaction that true romantic love won't exist. I agree that physical interaction can help enhance a love, but it is not the sole reason as to why the love is there. Before a physical connection is made, there needs to be a mental and emotional connection already established. That is where, in my opinion, how true romantic love is started. If a lover has died, and one can no longer have a physical connection, does their love die with their partner? 10. I agree that there are many marriages in where there is no true love established, but the majority are not often that way. This still leads me to believe that many scenarios have existed in where a divorce takes place and the romantic love that one has had had for another still existed, even if that person has moved on to another. Love is not just something you can choose to be in one day and not the next. You never know when it'll hit you, or for how long that love will remain. All I know is that emotion is very strong, and will not wither even if attempts to move on are being made. There have been premises that we have agreed upon, and definitions have been made for certain areas of love, however I still hold strong to my argument. The feeling of love is one of the strongest emotions a human can feel. It cannot be easily started, and likewise it cannot be easily extinguished. Throughout life, everyone will experience lovers, loves lost, or the lover that got away. These emotions , although often experienced in dismay, are being experienced nonetheless. This angst that one feels after a past love, is still love; which leads me to believe that it is possible to romantically love more than one person.
It"s possible to romantically love more than one person at once.

5. I still dispute that with no interaction whatsoever it is not possible to truly be in romantic love with an ex lover. I restate that it would be more along the lines of missing what that person once had and trying to feel the same way as they once did when they were indeed interacting physically and truly in love with one another. 7. I still think that in order for us to argue about if you can romantically love more than one individual it requires us to agree to a definition that truly loving someone requires at least a small amount of interaction between individuals. For example if a person who has went through a break up moves on and starts seeing somebody else whom they are in love with and is physically interacting with them then eventually there is an imbalance. Even though they may still love that ex, they aren't truly in love because that would eventually require mutual feelings or interaction as they are having with the person they are moving on with whom they are now in love with. 10. I agree that the majority of marriages may be justified and based around romantic love, however just because the majority are like that doesn't mean they are divorcing because they are unable to commit there love to only one person. There can still be many other reasons for a divorce/ breakup. 11. Just because they may still have feelings for their ex and love them doesn't necessarily mean they are romantically in love with them, even though they may have been in the past.
It"s possible to romantically love more than one person at once.

5. Although there is no physical interaction in a one-sided romantic relationship, I still feel that it is a romantic relationship nevertheless. The feelings aren't returned, however the feelings of love would still be there from one person. I agree with you that there is a difference between love, and a romantic love between two people. You can love someone without having any romantic feeling towards them. 7. We don't have a definition of what true love is, but I don't think that it is needed during this debate. We are debating whether or not it is possible for someone to romantically love more than one person. As you said, "truly" loving someone is different than romantically loving someone. 10. I am aware that there are marriages that are performed under the wrong pretenses; whether it be over money, or arranged marriages. However, these two examples are very rare compared to the marriages we see today in everyday society. People get married out of love and passion for one another more times than not. These same people at the astonishing rate of 50% are getting married for being unable to commit their love to one person. 11. I think you may have misinterpreted what I was trying to say. As I said in my previous response, I feel as if people more times then not get married out of love. Based on that it is more likely for someone to get divorced, and then remarry out of love for their new partner, yet still bare feelings for their ex.
It"s possible to romantically love more than one person at once.

4. I agree with this response. 5. I agree that one of the individuals may very well still have feelings for the other in these circumstances, however just because they may still love the other individual doesn't necessarily mean that they are romantically in love with them. I believe the specific category of romantic love is deeper than just having feelings for another person and I believe to romantically be in love with someone there must be some sort of connection or interaction between the two individuals. Without any interaction it would essentially just be reminiscing on the past. 6. My response to premise 6 is the same as premise 5. 7. As I stated in my first premise 7 response, I agree with you that sexual interactions are not required nor the basis for being in love with someone, however I do think as stated in my last two premises that some sort of interaction is required to truly be romantically in love with someone. yes, we agreed to the definition, however the definition says nothing regarding what it means to be truly romantically in love with someone. And yes, this is based on my personal interpretation because we have not agreed upon what is required to truly be in love with someone yet thus far. 9. I concede with this premise because this was solely my opinion and I feel I didn't provide enough evidence to support it. 10. There are many instances where people are married with false intention and where marriages are formed without true feelings of love for one another. Arranged marriages, "gold diggers", and marrying someone to gain a position of power are some examples. 11. I feel as if your response supported my previous premise. As you said, "if someone was to force themselves to marry in hopes of getting over a previous marriage, wouldn't they just be in denial of the romantic love they lost yet still have for their ex?" would mean that they solely love the person whom they were once married to and are not truely in love with the person(s) in which they are trying to move on with.
Adhd

I'm sorry but there is nothing else to say it is scientificaly proven. The disease describes how the brain functions. Hence the name attention deficit HYPERACTIVE disorder. Meaning the kids brain activity is faster and cannot focus on the task at hand. As victim of ADHD i can say without my medication is helping me a lot. I'm doing better in school and focusing on my work. ADHD, is simply a modifications of add, of course stating not only does the victim have attention problems, but is also hyperactive. I don't know why do you think this isn't real. I mean if someone has trouble paying attention the. They have add. If they also hyperactive they have ADHD. Simple
Adhd

No your missing the point don't you see? Admitting its not real is the ONLY way to solve the problem. For if it is believed to be un changeable, un preventable and determined by genes, we seek to relieve the symptoms only and don't mend the factors that, in my opinion, actually cause 'ADHD'. If we look at sufferers the way we do, we do not try to cure the problem because we believe it is inevitable and biological. So if we look at ADHD as a reflection of something in the society we may tackle the causes properly. What is scientifically proven? That kids can be mischievous? Yes ino. But if you label getting jealous in a relationship as 'acute jellosic syndrome' does that mean that is exists? Technically, from a language point of view, yes. But it doesn't mean anything else. It doesn't mean its rooted in the genes, or actually IS something more that a personality. Gene biology has come along way recently and I don't know how much you know about genes and biology, but lay people typically have an oversimplified understanding of them. For example Robert Sapolsky (genius, renowned, biological and behavioural psychologist) says 'to say a behaviour is genetic is shear nonsense' also that that argument between nature and nurture is ridiculas as both are false. It is not even the case that genes effect to a degree, and environment effects to a degree and the outcome is the sum. Enviroment completely effects behaviour, and biology learns how to survive in the setting its in, genes change to fit the settings and it is much much more complicated that this I cannot go into it here. But no, treating it like an inevitable fluke that cannot be fixed but only reduced, is what is damaging. Trying to solve the social circumstances that facilitate this behaviour is a step towards understanding it. I don't want this to be personal, but its not fair on the sufferers of ADHD. For one the problem, however much a gene influences the behaviour, is facilitated and nurtured in the home. Now parents don't have to be bad, it could just be that discipline was low or they had certain role models, they where not suited to school (intelligent in other ways, not stupid) their personality is a complex mozake of of all factors, stimulated, concontrated and re-enforced by self fulfilment. Again I ask you, what evidence is there and what is ADHD? Can you explain to me what, physically, ADHD is and what proof is their that it is not mearly a name given to people who exercise an extremely broad spectrum of behaviours? To call ADHD genetic and predetermined is not only simply and scientifically proven to be fase, but it is damaging, ineffective at preventing it and makes the problem worse some of the time. Accepting that children who have trouble concentrating in school, behavioural problems, or are hyperactive-are either misunderstood and not being helped in the way they need, lashing out at some other conflict, or are just spoiled children who know no bounds. Therefore we can start looking at active, sensible ways to reduce these effects. To call it inevitable is dismissive and harmful
Systemic Racism Does Not Exist in America

All Pro has offered thus far is the flimsiest of opinions. . . . . . "I do not think systemic racism exists in America". Which is in fact grammatically incorrect and therefore a counter intuitive statement. Nonetheless. Where is Pro's evidence for a non- racist society? 1) Check out the S. P. L. Centre. 2) Check out the current U. S. Administration 3) Check out Trump rhetoric. And then tell me that racism is not systemic in the U. S. A. Any society depends upon the goodwill of the majority in order to maintain a decent level of social stability and international respectability, Especially the U. S. A the so called leaders of the Free World. But this still hasn't prevented the proliferation of up to 950 hate groups in the U. S. Of which 650 are hate groups directly related to racism. Undeniably these groups represent a minority of the population. But also undeniably these groups are indicative of an appreciable level of systemic racism in America. And quite frankly to any rational thinking outside spectator of the current U. S. Presidency. Donald trump quite clearly has an inherently discriminatory mind set. And this guy is supposedly the leader of the Free World. And let's not forget that the U. S. A. Is a nation founded on the brutal subjugation of the indigenous people of the "New World". With regard to inherent racism. What I am referring to is the way in which racial sub-groups and especially minority sub-groups tend to agglomerate rather than directly integrate into a society. This is true throughout the World and is certainly no different in the U. S. A.
Systemic Racism Does Not Exist in America

The U. S. A. Is a big Nation. A big Nation with a big system containing a hundred and one sub-systems. Any sub-system can be radically different to another. Notwithstanding the fact that racism is probably naturally inherent anyway. I would suggest that your assertion is incredible naive and far to specific and therefore unsustainable. Also bear in mind that Racism is a two way street where everything isn't simply black and white and governmental edicts are in no way representative of all of the people all of the time.
Systemic Racism Does Not Exist in America

I gave you evidence and asked questions to your rebuttal. This is what the left does, If they get too triggered or disagree with you because you asked tough questions. I already made rebuttals, But obviously you did not read them which shows you do not care. Evidence the SPL is biased- https://mediabiasfactcheck. Com/southern-poverty-law-center/ https://www. Dailywire. Com/news/8967/7-things-you-need-know-about-southern-poverty-law-aaron-bandler I asked you about unsourced claims you made. "What about the current administration is racist? What Trump rhetoric is racist? Even if you think trump is racist, That is not systemic, But rather an individual. " You are the one who has not made any response or rebuttal. I quoted you on a claim you made ""But this still hasn't prevented the proliferation of up to 950 hate groups in the U. S. Of which 650 are hate groups directly related to racism. Undeniably these groups represent a minority of the population. But also undeniably these groups are indicative of an appreciable level of systemic racism in America. " I then asked for a source, But you failed to provide one. If you expect me to believe something, I have to have proof it is reliable. You made claims that Trump is racist. I asked how he is, You failed to say. I said this was an opinion, Which was a response. I also said even if he is racist, It is not systemic but rather an individual. You again failed to respond or rebuttal. It seems as though you are the one not making rebuttals, Not me. This shows a lack of intelligence on con's part. It also shows he is not reading the debate carefully, Or doesn't care, Or simply knows I'm right and knows he can't prove systemic racism in America. In conclusion, Con has failed to provide sources or rebuttals on my points, Therefore showing he is not proving that there is systemic racism in America, The topic being discussed.
Systemic Racism Does Not Exist in America

The S. P. L. Center is biased. On the home page, The first thing it claims is that Trump is racist. What about the current administration is racist? What Trump rhetoric is racist? Even if you think trump is racist, That is not systemic, But rather an individual. "But this still hasn't prevented the proliferation of up to 950 hate groups in the U. S. Of which 650 are hate groups directly related to racism. Undeniably these groups represent a minority of the population. But also undeniably these groups are indicative of an appreciable level of systemic racism in America. " Source please? "Donald trump quite clearly has an inherently discriminatory mind set. " How? This is an opinion, And it is not even systemic, Which is the topic being discussed.
God and evolution can't both be true

You have a very literalist sense of the bible. Also you seem to think that disproving the bible disproves God. This is not true. God would still exist whether or not there was any sort of bible. God faced a dilemma when creating the bible. How could he explain evolution to people who had limited knowledge on almost everything, including time? The bible would have been almost immediately rejected if it talked about evolution and billions of years of gradual bacteria growth. Rather, God had to explain it in a way that the Israelites could understand. Saying Earth was created in seven days easily summed up God's plan. And think about it, it makes sense. I believe we are currently in the "seventh day" of god's creation. God is taking a break, not doing much. Humans were a very recent development, coming about in the last few million years (the sixth day). God made us then took a rest. God made all the creatures in the beginning but then let them evolve to their current forms. I would also like to point out to my opponent that nearly every Christian denomination believes or at least accepts theistic evolution. The Pope, who is supposed to have direct conversation with God, says that God was the guiding force behind evolution. Therefore, we have God and we have evolution, with no conflict. We can observe evolution at work. Antibiotics sometimes become outdated because the bacteria are no longer affected and killed by the drug. Here's the process. 1. ) Bacteria are treated with antibiotic. 2. ) 99% of the bacteria are killed. 3. ) The remaining percent are immune and pass this trait onto their offspring. 4. ) Eventually all bacteria are immune to the antibiotic Thus we know evolution is real. There are billions of Catholics who believe in God and evolution.
God and evolution can't both be true

Thank you for acepting the debate and good luck for the both of us ;) Answer to your argument: Q: People sat that God created the world in seven days. They aren't literally days, just random amounts of time, for example a million years. A: First of all, the Bible says that God worked for six days and rested on the seventh day as an example to the mankind. If he would've worked, say, six million years and rested for a million years, we would have a serious problem. Second of all, God created Adam in the sixth day. He died when he was a little over 900 years old. If a day would be even a thousand years, we would once again have problems. Think about it. 1000+1000=2000. So, when the seventh day ended, he would already have died a long time ago. That is not what happened. The Bible tells us that AFTER Adam and Eve were driven out of the paradise, death entered the world. In the Garden of Eden there was no death, so how could Adam have died in a place where there is no death? My argument: Before Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, there was no death. However, those who believe in evolution say that death has always been around since the very first living thing. Every living thing has an end. You're going to die and so am I. Romans 5:12 says, that "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men..." However, if we take the evolutionist's viewpoint and say that it took millions, maybe trillions of years for a simple bacteria to evolve into a human, we must accept that before humans, there was death. Bible: Humans brought death into the world. Evolution: Death had been around for millions of years before mankind. The two contradict each other. One can be true, the other cannot. Sources: The Holy Bible (NIV, New International Version) Argument number two: "Thus the heavens and the earth were *completed* in all their vast array. By the seventh day God had *finished* the work he head been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work." Genesis 2:1-2 So, according to the Bible the creation is over. However, those who believe in evolution say that evolution is still happening. If someone believes in evolution and the Bible, s/he must also believe that the creation is still going on. According to the Bible, it is not. Bible: The creation is over. Period. Evolution: The species continue to evolve. Both can't be true.