BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is it possible to romantically love more than one person at a time

2. It is very common in today's society for people to romantically love each other and not engage in sexual acts. This is called being asexual and being asexual is a good gateway to loving more than one person at once because there is no risk of contracting STI"s or the disappointment of an underwhelming sexual partner. 3. I agree that loving someone is more than just a physical attraction, as lust is. But if you are not planning on settling down with one particular person you can open yourself up to anyone who is willing to take you as you are. This is both in a sexual way and an emotional way, if you put your heart out on the line chances are someone will take the bait or more than one person will for that matter. 4. Although that may be the case regarding some polygamist relationships, the majority or polygamist families are completely comfortable with the multiple partner aspect of their life. Jealousy is a natural emotion which people experience on a daily basis, unless you are crazy a little jealousy should not ruin a relationship of any sort, polygamist or otherwise. 5. Why restrict romantic love to only one person at a time when platonic love can be for several people all at once? Love is love, you shouldn"t restrict something so powerful. 6. I disagree. Of course there are instances when people cheat because they no longer love their partner but there are also instances where people want to have their cake and eat it too. This means that they love their partner but want something new or something different with someone else. And that something new or something different can turn into a love affair.
Is it possible to romantically love more than one person at a time

1. I agree with this definition of love. 2. Romantic love usually involves sexual relations but I suppose there are certain situations where a sexual aspect is lacking. 3. Although it is true that one can lust over multiple people at once, I disagree that love is the same way. Loving someone is more than just a physical attraction, as lust is, and involves various feelings and emotions that are not so easily put out on display. 4. I agree with the definition of polygamy but I think that polygamy does not apply in this case. Polygamy can lead to the person developing stronger feelings for someone over another which can cause jealousy. Jealous people would do just about anything to regain the affection of their loved one and feelings become less genuine. 5. Love is different than being in love because you love family and friends but are not actually in love with them. Platonic love is definitely for more than one person but being in love is restricted to one person at a time. There is too much at risk to throw such strong feelings around like that. 6. When people have affairs it is usually because they have lost feelings for their significant other and are searching for that in someone else while still being their partner. That is not romantically loving more than one person at a time because you are betraying that person"s trust and going behind their back which is anything but love. 7. Therefore, it is not possible to romantically love more than one person at a time. Non-Controversial Premises: Premise 1 is non-controversial because I agreed to the definition of love. Premise 2 is non-controversial as well. Controversial Premises: Premises 4, 5, 6 are controversial. Premise 4 is controversial because I am disagreeing with the previous statement regarding polygamy and giving reasons as to why I disagree. Premise 5 is also controversial because it states that being in love is restricted to one person at a time which is what my partner is trying to prove, that it can be for more than one person at a time. And premise 6 is controversial because cheating is always a hard topic with many different sides and angles to it.
Is it possible to romantically love more than one person at a time

1. Love can be defined as an intense feeling of protection and a strong intimate connection with someone. This definition of love has been agreed upon by both sides of the debate. 2. Romantic love is along the same lines but can include a sexual aspect as well. 3. Love is different than lust but people can love more than one person at a time just like they can lust after more than one person at a time. 4. The term polygamy refers to the relationships someone has with multiple people. All the people involved are aware and consenting of the main person"s relationships with the other people. 5. Loving someone is different than being in love and it is easier to love more than one person at a time than to be in love with more than person. It is more likely to see someone in love with one person and then romantically love a couple other people at the same time. 6. Although cheating is wrong it can be considered one person romantically loving more than one person at a time. Having an affair is a better example because it is two relationships at once but one is a secret. 7. Therefore, it is possible to romantically love more than one person at once. Non-Controversial Premises Premises 1, 2, and 4 are non-controversial. Premises 1 and 2 are non-controversial because they are definitions of love and romantic love that were understood by both parties. Premise 4 is also non-controversial because that is the definition of polygamy. Controversial Premises 3. This premise is controversial because my opponent may think otherwise that love is similar to lust because of the possibility of having more than one object of affection. 5. Premise 5 is considered controversial because although I feel as though there is a difference between love and being in love my opponent may disagree. 6. This premise is controversial because cheating is always a touchy subject and is very situational.
Children should be stoned to death if they disobey their parents.

Hi. The resolution is simple. I claim that children should be stoned to death if they disobey their parents. My argument is based on the most powerful source of Truth in the whole Universe: The Holy Bible. 1) Look what Deuteronomy 21:18-21 says: 'If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not listen to the voice of his father or his mother even when they punish him his father and mother must take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elThey shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard. All the men of the town must then stone him to death. You must banish this evil from among you. 2) We know that the Holy Bible cannot be something else then Truth because God is all knowing and all powerful and he cannot lie. Therefore, what Deuteronomy says in the bible must be true. 3) Even more logical, The Bible is God's Word, and we know that because the Bible says so. Conclusion: Children who disobey their parents must be stoned. Source : Holy Bibel. http://www.holybible.com...
Children should be stoned to death if they disobey their parents.

Unfortunately I am not a true Christian, but I doubt many of them would be too pleased with this either, what with that commandment banning killing. I know what an eternal hell is like - I live in Scotland. But the fact that the age of a text does nothing to its value, I will now ask my opponent to concede to this term: witches and wizards are real, because it says so in the Harry Potter books. May I ask what people will do when they refuse to take the authority of your "God"? I'll hope you assume that all people are born atheists. Take a baby of 1 week old and put it on a desert island (ignore that it will die without care for arguments sake) and it will not baptize itself. It will not give itself holy communion by the time it is 10, nor will it throw on a black robe and a yarmulke. "Studies show that the countries where people are religious and listen to God are more advanced in terms of social order, less criminality rate, less rapes and abuse and perversity, less homosexuals. So it is logical to assume that if all laws and traditions would be adjusted so that they conform to the bibel , the society as a whole would benefit greatly." I'll assume you mean countries such as Saudi Arabia, where there is, of course, less crime, because being gay constitutes a crime and carries the death penalty, and the religious police regularly beat women who speak when they are not allowed to. All in the name of blind obedience to a man in the sky that cannot logically be proven. Also, the oldest Abrahamic religion in the world - Judaism - doesn't have a "hell", so your argument is null considering that the bible and Christianity was based entirely upon this religion. My argument stands that breaking some arbitrary "rules" does not warrant death.
Children should be stoned to death if they disobey their parents.

The argument is not absurd because it comes from the most important book in the history of the world - The Holy Bible. A true christian must live by the teachings of God as they are instructed in the Bible. And the people who reject God's authority and talk blasphemously about the Holey Bible risk burning in Hell for all eternity so you should be careful what you say in this debate. "justifying it on a scripture written thousands of years ago" It is irrelevant when something is written, the age of a thing implies nothing about it's value. "is only going to change society for the worse". This only your opinion. God has different opinion or else he wouldn't have ordered us to stone the evil children to death. And between you and me.. if I have to choose between your opinion or God's opinion, I think I'll take my chances with the creator of the univers, thanks. Even more powerful argument, it doesn't even matter if the change would be for the worse, because we must listen to God's teachings regardless of their impact on our petty little lives. "Where does the bible get its authority from, and why should society change all current laws and traditions in order to satisfy some insane ramblings in a book?" How dare you speak such blasphemies? The bible takes it's authority from God. And God is the Only authority for us to obey Studies show that the countries where people are religious and listen to God are more advanced in terms of social order, less criminality rate, less rapes and abuse and perversity, less homosexuals. So it is logical to assume that if all laws and traditions would be adjusted so that they conform to the bibel , the society as a whole would benefit greatly. "the bible says so is just another way of forcing religious beliefs upon young children" Since when saving a children's soul so that he doesn't burn in Hell forever means forcing beliefs on him? Regardless, it's nothing wrong with forcing Bible on sinners.
Children should be stoned to death if they disobey their parents.

The argument that children should be killed for disobeying their parents is quite frankly absurd. Even the strictest of parents would disagree that disobedience (however that can be defined) warrants death. Saying that the murder of children is acceptable due to them breaking entirely arbitrary "rules" set by the parents (who are supposed to look after their children), then justifying it on a scripture written thousands of years ago, is only going to change society for the worse. For what defines disobedience? A child refusing to eat something they don't like? My opponent think that warrants death? Even children saying the most insulting things possible to their parents does not mean that they should be punished by death. Where do the parents get the authority from? They are just adults with a blood link to the children. Where does the bible get its authority from, and why should society change all current laws and traditions in order to satisfy some insane ramblings in a book? The idea that the stoning of children for disobedience because the bible says so is just another way of forcing religious beliefs upon young children who have no way to think otherwise. I'm not going to turn this into a religious debate, but there is no proof for the existence of God. No logical proof at all. The murder of children based on this illogical fantasy, I'm sure, would not be accepted by 99.9% of the population. I look forward to my opponent's argument.
There is more than two genders peoples

I personally say there is more than two genders. Sex and gender are different things. There is basically two sexes but there is a few more genders. There is 7+ billion people, we can't all fit into two boxes. Gender is a bit more on how you view yourself, what you feel comfortable being labeled as, and overall your own happiness. Obviously there is a limit to this, as to where that is, I don't know. I will admit Tumblr created a lot of fake genders though. Cultures long before us have acknowledged more than two genders. Gender is more of a social construct. People are so quick to say XX is female and XY is male, but if you bring up the fact that some people have different combinations, they say it doesn't matter and they are still female or male. It's nearly impossible to tell someone's chromosomes so you might as well not be a bigot and just respect them. Not everyone is like you.
Vaccines or something inside vaccines cause autism or autism spectrum disorder.

" Pregnant women may nearly double their risk of giving birth to a child with autism by inhaling smog spewed by vehicles or smoke stacks, according to a new Harvard study that could help unlock the deepest autism mysteries." nbcnews.com [1]"The dramatic increase in the number of children diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder is largely the result of changes in how the condition is reported, Danish researchers contend. At least in Denmark, the researchers say, most of the increase -- 60 percent -- can be attributed to changes in diagnostic criteria and the inclusion of out-of-hospital diagnoses." Steven Reinberg [2] Autism and ASD (autism spectrum disorder) is not caused by vaccines and instead is caused by air pollution and better detection methods. http://www.nbcnews.com...http://www.webmd.com...
Torture can be morally justified

Torture can be morally justified in extreme circumstances. In the case of a ticking time bomb that could destroy a city and potentially kill millions of people the use of coerced interrogation to extract information can be justified. I am not arguing that torture should be made legal. Torture, like theft, could be ethical under certain parameters and still be against the law. Nor am I arguing that a general practice of torture can be made from the scenario I outlined above. What I wish to argue is that torture, as unsavory as it may be, has utilities which in rare situations far outweigh its negative attributes thereby rendering it moral. In order to demonstrate that my position is incorrect then there must be an argument that categorically repudiates the use of torture at all times. Indeed a plausible argument must be outlined which shows why torture in and of itself is morally wrong regardless of what benefits or utilities may be achieved by using it.
Agricultural Subsidies are a waste

A business would observe another business getting to know it's competition. they tend to avoid price competition, using non-price means to increase their market share. However the farm sector is different. they will not, as a rule, respond to falling prices by taking land out of production that is, working to raise prices by limiting supply. Just the opposite: confronted with falling prices, farmers will attempt to increase output in hopes of offsetting falling per-unit revenues by a higher total volume of unit sales. Failure to do so will put them out of business sooner rather than later.Since when do businesses avoid competition? This is completely innaccurate. The farming sector will respond to profit not prices. If it becomes unprofitable to be a farmer, then people will stop becoming farmers, sell their land, and retrain in a new industry. Increasing output produces more profit. So the general effect of removing agricultural subsidies will be lower prices for the consumer and a more efficient use of the farming land that is profitable. If demand for farming products is relatively inelastic to the price (which it is not) then farming will become unprofitable and we will have less farmers which will reduce the supply in the long term.My opponent is also completely ignoring goods which are elastic to price(ethanol, soda, ice cream, etc.)So the normal operation of the market which aggregates the decisions of many individuals is for lower prices to trigger higher output, leading to even lower prices.I don't seem to see a problem, more efficient farms and lower prices for the consumer.Ok so I concede that it is a negative externality how is it a waste though that's what this debate is about. Paying money for a negative externality is by definition a waste of taxpayer money. Another example would be like saying the government is using your tax money to produce more pollution with no other benefit. It would be a complete waste of your money, because the government could be using that same money to build public water fountains, maintain roads. Anything that benefits the taxpayer. The governement is spending taxpayer money to pollute the rivers, streams, kill fish, boost methane content in the air, etc. This is a waste of the taxpayer dime when it could be used to do something that actually benefits the taxpayer (positive externality) or just not used in the absence of a positive externality to subsidize (less to pay in taxes) and thus be used by the taxpayer for consumption which would provide greater utility than pollution.Do you not see that from a taxpayer perspective spending tax money on something that harms the general tax payer is a waste?I have shown that Agricultural subsidies are a negative externality. My opponent has conceded this point. Negative Externalities are waste by definition. Therefore Agricultural subsidies are a waste of taxpayer money.Taxes are used (or are meant to be used) to benefit the taxpayer. If they are harming the taxpayer or not benefiting the taxpayer, then they are being wasted.
I will contradict myself

I am slightly confused as to the format which Pro has chosen. He has undertaken to contradict himself but has so far employed no evidence to his case. Now if he wishes to show any alleged contradictions in his statements he only has the last round. Perhaps he just didn't contradict himself last round. Oh well, if my opponent does not provide reason why he has contradicted himself he has not fulfilled the onus on him to uphold the resolution. With that said, there is nothing more for me to do but provide my questions for R2. 1. What color is your hair?2. What color are your eyes?3. What middle school did you or are you attending?4. Do you have ten toes?5. Have you ever had intercourse with a human?6. What ethnicity are you?7. What country were you born in?These are all the questions I wish to post in this round.
I will contradict myself

1. Are you currently alive? 2. Do you post false information on this site? 3. Do you ever lie when talking to people on this site? 4. Who is posting the answer to this question? 5. Will you contradict yourself in this debate? 6. Are you a liberal in regards to social issues? 7. What is your favorite color? 8. Have you ever spoken to Bertrand Russell in person? 9. Will you win this debate? 10. Have you ever had sexual intercourse with something that is not a human? 11. Do you know that you will go to Heaven after you die? 12. Do you believe that God exists? These are all the questions I will post in this round.
Publicly tax paid post-secondary/college education in the U.S.

The way financial aid works in the U.S. is not very efficient and is more difficult than need be- I believe that all or at least a majority should be paid through taxes. This would allow even those who would otherwise be unable, to attend college and better there lives. California is an example of a state that uses to do this through property taxes. Several countries including Norway, Brazil, Sweden, and France do this and has proved to be very effective. Taxes initially would be high (up to 50%-60%) but this can also be fixed by taxing corporations more than the individual and favoring the benefit of society. And as time goes on, the benefit will go up in compared to the amount invested. As the wages of those who take advantage of this goes up, society as a whole also will make more money- Leading to everyone eventually benefiting. Over about a ten year period, the cost to invest will go down and the country will still continue to show improvements in wages and lower poverty rates. While this is great- There still need to be some control over the situation. Colleges should be cost controlled. Spending needs to be made more economical as to reduce the total needed while still being effective. The government also needs to NOT cut costs/spending in general, but to find better ways to spend and alternatives to currently inefficient spending plans. This would greatly improve society and the way we live- imagine if education became more accessible to the masses. There would no longer be that "middle of the road" where you make just enough money to no longer be eligible for financial aid but still cannot afford college and lose potential future opportunities. This is a debate where I feel a younger generation should be able to put in there input as they are the ones mainly affected by the current financial aid situations as they look to forward there education now or in the future.
God Exists

The standard policy followed in DDO is that the Instigator provides definitions of the terms in Round 1. While not explicitly under a "Definitions" subheading, I assumed the God was a theistic deity in the Round 1 argument itself, which means it must be considered as the definition of this debate. Also, as you did not provide any contradicting definition in Round 1, I may provide a definition in Round 2. If you had provided a different definition, it would not have been counted as my mention in Round 1 counts as a definition. I provided a definition in Round 1 which I substantiated on in Round 2 as you had not provided a different definition. The definition still stands. R1) God is ExistenceAll of Pro's arguments in this section are bare assertions. As Pro must share in the BoP, he must prove that God is existence itself; he is rather merely stating his beliefs. R2) God is ConsciousnessSame as above. Bare assertions are not arguments. All assertions must be demonstrated or shown to be probable. R3) God is BlissSame as above. All of Pro's "arguments" are bare assertions, and must be backed up with proof. I clearly provided a definition within the argument in Round 1; as it was unchallenged by a different definition, I clearly stated it in Round 2. None of Pro's definitions are present in any viable semantic source (e.g. a dictionary), and, therefore, are not backed up. If these random definitions count, then I can define God as "anything impossible", and show that, by definition, God does not exist. I extend all my arguments. ConclusionWhether God is existence or not, Pro must show that God most likely exists. The resolution remains negated.