BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is it possible to romantically love more than one person? (2)

2.Giving someone your all does not prevent you from giving someone else that same attention. In the early stages of a relationship, you are not spending every waking moment with whomever you"re dating. With that being said, it is possible to give two different people that same amount of attention, time and effort. Giving each of those people the same chance, it is possible to develop the same feelings for both people and eventually falling romantically in love with each of them. 3.I concede that having sex with more than one person does not mean that they are romantically in love, but continuously putting in time to spend with those people would bring about the opportunity for them to fall romantically in love with one another. 4.I realize you stated that premise (4) was uncontroversial, but I would just like to point out that in your definition, you stated that it is possible to be romantically in love with more than one person. Even though it may not end well, the fact still remains that for a moment in time, it is possible to be romantically in love with more than one person. 5.If a man or women cheats on their spouse once, then I concede to your statement saying that it is out of infatuation and lust. But if he/she cheats more than once and starts to spend more and more time with this other person, then there is a possibility that he/she could start to fall romantically in love with that other person as well as his/her spouse. In doing so, he/she may get divorced or separated, but for a short amount of time, he/she could have been romantically in love with his/her spouse as well as the person he/she cheated with. 7.For arguments sake, let"s say the man is cheating on his wife. If he starts cheating continuously with the same woman and that woman knows about his wife, then the man and his mistress could strategically plan their relationship around his and his wife"s relationship. 8.In your argument (8) you once again support my side of the argument. A man/woman trying to romantically love two people would, indeed, reek all of the benefits and in doing so, he/she would romantically love both people equally. Although, he/she may need to break it off with one of them to keep the other, but then again, for a moment he/she did love more than one person at a time. To further my argument, if he/she could not choose because he/she did love them both equally, then he/she would be the one that ends up heart broken because he/she would have to lose them both.
Is it possible to romantically love more than one person? (2)

1.Romantic love is the expressive and pleasurable feeling from an emotional attraction towards another person 2.The definition of romantic love does not limit an individual"s emotions to one person. 3.There are instances, such as open relationships, where both participants date other people successfully. An example where someone dates other people and the multiple partners accept such behavior is the television show, The Bachelor. 4.Dating more than one person gives both parties an opportunity to fall romantically in love with someone else as well as his/her significant other. 5.Being married does promise an individual to another until death, but there have been many situations in which one party cheats on his/her spouse and falls romantically in love with someone else. 6.Traditionally, marrying someone means that you are romantically in love with that person, but that does not mean that, if you cheat and fall romantically in love with someone else, you"re not still romantically in love with your spouse. 7.Therefore, it is possible to romantically love more than one person.
Marijuana should not be legalized in the United States

First of i would just like to clarify that by the comments that my opponent made it seem as if he isn't taking this debate seriously. meaning that because my opponent didn't argue against marijuana being legalized, he has conceited all of his arguments and has agreed that marijuana shouldn't be legalized. MARIJUANA KILLS BIO-DIVERSITY Like i had stated in the previous round, marijuana kills bio-diversity in which can kill forest and other natural reserves, killing the animal population's shelter and food resources and killing animals kills the animal pyramid which will eventually start to kill people off. THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T BENEFIT Marijuana will be able to grow in a lot of places and therefore cannot be taxed. and extend my fiat that crime will increase because of the want of more marijuana, and this will not benefit the economy because it will crash instead of rise. I would also like to state that it wouldn't be fair to bring up new arguments because this is my last speech and it would be unfair, thank you all for you time and I hope you have a wonderful day!
Marijuana should not be legalized in the United States

I will first answer my opponents arguments then I'll add other arguments. Personal Choice My opponent meantioned that the Governement has no bussiness basicallly in the choice a person makes. the government has all the right to be in our bussiness especially if it affects the population as a whole. like my opponent also said that the governement looks out for us, well that's what their trying to do, and by not legalizing it they will do a good job at trying to protect us. My opponent also stated that marijuana is like alcohol in that if you use it correctly everything will go right. Let's be serious and mature about this, when in the world has anything gone right when alcohol has been used? marijuana is like alcohol in that everyone will abuse it, it will become a habit like that of when someone begins to drink. ONTO THE NEXT ARGUMENTMarijuana Prohibition is not worth itI fully agree with this argument so therefore i conceid it. ConclusionMy opponent stated that people will be degraded from their free will. This is just bananas. People will not be degraded. they will still have all of the rights in the world, yes some of the things that they do aren't legal but no one is stopping them from doing it, they just have to know that there will be conssiquences if cought. ONTO MY ARGUMENTSGovernment will not benefit. Because marijuana is a plant, it could grow in a lot of places and therefore can be planted just about anywhere. Meaning that the governement in fact will not be able to tax it, meaning that the government wouldn't be making money from the marijuana. Kills Bio-diversity Because marijuana is a plant, it can grown anywhere with the right soil and the perfect amount of exposure. once marijuana is legalized growers are going to begin to expand and can start taking the homes of animals and the homes of other plants and trees, which kills trees and will begin to kill the food sources of the animals and this is bad. Economy I'd just like to state that my opponent never went into depth will the economy and how marijuanna will crash it. If marijuana is legalized people will begin to abuse it and never want to go to work because they would rather be high off of their minds (I'm fiating the next part) people will spend all of their money on buying marijuana and will go poor. The crime rate will increase because people will want more marjuana hence, would need money to get it, and so we will eventually die off of diseases and other inhumane illnesses. ^I might have exaggereated a lot. i apologize for that. . http://healthpsych.psy.vanderbilt.edu...
The world, as we know it, does not exist.

I will open up with a few definitions. World: Earth, the 3rd planet from the sun, the planet we live on [1] Know: be cognizant or aware of a fact or a specific piece of information [2] Exist: to have an existence or being (no need to explain, I hope) Argument If Earth, as previously defined, does not exist, then we wouldn't exist. But you and I both know we are sentinent beings capable of thought, physical movement, and we can display a physical force causing reactions in the universe and on this planet. We know the world and we know it exists. I can truly not expand from anything else besides this point, so I await my opponent's response. I am excited to see what the response will be. Sources: 1. . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... 2. . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... 3. . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
God most likely does not exist

Considering the truth of the Laws of Logic, Math, and Science. None of these objects are material objects they are all immaterial. These laws are all governed by the universe as a whole and an individual. These do not change because if you believe that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality are changing, then living with the expectation that they do not change would be inconsistent with your belief. No doubt, you wake up every morning expecting these laws to be the same as they were the day before. You don't think twice about drinking pure water because you know that the properties of water that nourished you yesterday will not kill you today. You don't wonder whether it will still be right to love your children tomorrow. You see, you deny that the universal, immaterial laws of logic, mathematics, science and absolute morality are unchanging yet you base your life on their unchanging nature. The Bible teaches us that there are 2 types of people in this world, those who profess the truth of God's existence and those who suppress the truth of God's existence. The options of 'seeking' God, or not believing in God are unavailable. The Bible never attempts to prove the existence of God as it declares that the existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse for not believing in Him. The God of Christianity is the necessary starting point to make sense of universal, abstract, invariant laws by the impossibility of the contrary. These laws are necessary to prove ANYTHING. The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything. Recap (Opponent) P1: God must have started rational thought because he is the only reason we can prove anything. P2: God's existence is fact due to the reason human existence is fact. P3: I must agree P4: Only one of my ways to prove his existance. P5: I have proven God creates these. P6: Without God there is none. C: God exist in imagination and started the universe as a force and proves everythin
God most likely does not exist

Rebutting my opponent's argumentsMy opponent just simply listed simple laws of logic, laws of math, and laws of science. He didn't connect these to God's existence in anyway so they can be dismissed on the grounds that his argument had no grounds or foundation to begin with. Also moral laws come from collective human thought based on negative emotional and physical responses that are commonly biologically true to most of us in our species (just like saying "steak tastes good" is a way to describe an objective biological response shared by most humans). You have provided no reason to assume God must be the moral law giver, and you continue to dodge the Argument from Physical Minds."The first being instilled Moral Laws and is "ruler" of our being and how we act. With God being considered a force this force must have been intelligent to spark morals and beliefs. With laws of science, math, and logic it shows God or the first being created logic, and rational thinking."Argument from Parsinomy P1: Either rational thinking, the laws of logic, and moral laws came from man's collective thought or God.P2: Humans existing is fact, God existing is not fact.P3: Based on the Law of Parsimony when chosing between two conflicting hypotheses, the one which makes the least amount of assumptions is most likely correct.P4: The claim that rational thinking, the laws of logic, and moral laws came from God is based on the assumption that God exists. The claim that man created God is based on the established fact that humans exist. P5: The claim that rational thinking, the laws of logic, and moral laws came from God are based on more assumptions than than the claim that rational thinking, the laws of logic, and moral laws came form man's collective thought. P6: God most likely was not the source of rational thinking, the laws of logic, and morals.Conclusion P1: Pro didn't logically refute the Argument from Physical MindsP2: I refuted all of his argumentsC: I have the upper hand in this debate
God most likely does not exist

Unless you can refute the following God must exist. Laws of Logic: An example of a law of logic is the law of non-contradiction. This law states, for instance, that it cannot both be true that my car is in the parking lot and that it is not in the parking lot at the same time, and in the same way. Laws of Math: The basic operations of arithmetic are addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Laws of mathematics then, are basically descriptions of what happens within these operations (and more complex ones as well) . For example, with the law of addition we know that if you take 4 things and add them to 3 things, you end up with 7 things. Laws of science:Laws of science are basically descriptions of what matter does based on repeated observations, and are usually expressed in mathematical equations. An example of a law of science is the law of gravity. Using the law of gravity, we can predict how fast a heavier than air object will fall to the ground given all the factors for the equation. Moral Laws:some laws like those that govern science, and mathematics describe reality, and how things do behave, absolute moral laws 'prescribe' how humans ought to, or ought not to behave.Rape, and child molestation, are two examples of absolute moral wrongs. The first being instilled Moral Laws and is "ruler" of our being and how we act. With God being considered a force this force must have been intelligent to spark morals and beliefs. With laws of science, math, and logic it shows God or the first being created logic, and rational thinking. This means he governed the universe from the day of the universes existence. Because it is Easter I have to go to a family event so there will be some time before my next response I apologize. Also could you please tell me how to bold underline and italicize?
God most likely does not exist

Definition of Godgod/gäd/ Noun: (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; You may be able to imagine a God, and therefore a conceptual God exists in your mind. However, if this concept which simply exists in your mind didn't actually create the universe, then by definition it cannot be God (an abstract human idea cannot cause universes to exist). Since the concept of God that you have in your mind wasn't couldn't have created the universe, then your concept of God is not actually God in objective reality and by definition. My argument is against God existing, not the concept of God existing (they are two different things). Newtons Law of Inertia"What this means is without and initial force which created the universe (God) nothing would move so without God we could not be in motion."That law only necessarily applies to the parts within the universe, not to the universe itself as a whole (you are committing The Fallacy of Composition). Also even if an initial force was required for the sake of argument, that in no way means the initial force was intelligent or sentient (without intelligence/ sentience, there is no God). God/ mindGod is defined as a "creator" and "ruler" therefore this implies sentience and a mind. You didn't show an initial spark is necessary due to a Fallacy of Composition, even it was necessary, that doesn't imply sentience or intelligence. Your argument for God based of an initial spark is a non sequitur.ConclusionP1: My opponent didn't logically refute the Argument from Physical Minds against the existence of GodP2: I logically refuted all of his arguments for the existence of God.C: I have the upper hand in this debate
God most likely does not exist

Quick road map I will mention why God exist by the definition of God. Then I will mention why he must exist due to science and last refute the Pros. 1. God is defined as "The one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe." (http://dictionary.reference.com...) So we know something created the universe which this thing is God. His existence must be true. Why? Because simply existence is defined as "Continued survival." God survives in my mind. Due to that God must exist because in my imagination he exist. 2. Newtons Law of Inertia "Every body persists in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by force impressed." What this means is without and initial force which created the universe (God) nothing would move so without God we could not be in motion. 3. As I mentioned God dose not have to be looked as a mind God can be looked at as the spark that began the universe by definition meaning without his existence nothing could exist or move. Summary Without God there is no motion, so with out motion there is no universe. Thus God must exist. Lastly with anything I imagine existing and I have an imagination of God it must exist.
God most likely does not exist

X= A mind Y= A brain Z = Matter If X is dependent on Y, and Y can only exist if Z exists, then X cannot be the cause of Z’s existence. If God is defined as a mind that created matter, then it’s an illogical concept like a perfectly round square. We can safely say it most likely does not exist. P1: A mind is an effect dependent on a brain. P2: Brains are dependent on matter’s existence. P3: A mind could not be the cause of matter’s existence. P4: God is defined as a mind that caused matter’s existence. C: God does not exist. The Theist could rebut the above argument by saying it’s possible for something to exist that goes against claims resting on observation from within the universe (brain-independent minds could be possible for example), however if this is true then the following argument is valid: P1: “Whatever begins to exist has a cause” is a claim resting on observation from within the universe. P2: If brain-independent minds are possible, then it’s possible for something to exist that goes against claims resting on observation from within the universe, because “A mind is an effect dependent on a brain” is a claim resting on observation from within the universe. P3: A Cause-independent beginning of something’s existence is possible, because it’s possible for something to exist that goes against claims resting on observation from within the universe. C: The Kalam Cosmological Argument fails. Re-Cap: Argument from Physical Minds "Since all known mental activity has a physical basis, there are probably no disembodied minds. But God is conceived of as a disembodied mind. Therefore, God probably does not exist." Kalam Cosmological Argument "Since all known things that begin to exist have causes, there are probably no things that begin to exist that don't have causes. The universe is conceived of as something that began to exist. Therefore, the universe probably had a cause" Either my opponent must accept the APM's logic, or reject the KCA's logic. We'll see where he goes with this.
Alien life

To be honest i don't know what else to say. i have already put my opinion across. i respect my opponents opinion and i have heard her out. i respect her beliefs. people will believe what they want. i just ask for people to have an open mind about the bigger picture. this planet our species is just one part of this picture. also to think about their place in life and in the universe. there could be other species out there asking them selves these same questions. one day god will send them to our door step or send us to theirs. I think its better to believe that ,gods children have many different faces and come from different worlds. Thank you for excepting my debate and thanking you for your time.
Alien life

Ok but the definition of life is always changing. i agree that it would take primitive non human life to get to where we are. also when i say life, i just don't talk about intelligible life. im also talking about germs, viruses, fish, or even quadrupeds. don't get me wrong i believe in god too.to me evolution is a more descriptive version of creationism. one of the conditions of life is water, where there is water there s some kind of life. like on icy moons. scientist have even found that molecular life can exist even on comets. from fossils from comets. Also you don't have to agree with evolution but the evidence for it found every day. i also agree that god created the earth and the universe. it just took a lot longer than the two or three thousand years the bible said it took him. evolution is part of god just like we are apart of him.
Alien life

Life on other planets, in other galaxies, is it possible? Or a better question, is it probable? I will be arguing the Con. For life to exist there must be specific conditions. Taking it from a religious (Christian) perspective, God created the world. This is the world. There are wonders out there. But not human-like life. People were made above the animals. Looking at the science of it, it is highly improbable. To get a planet like Earth, statistically, you need millions of planets. Also, if you believe evolution, you will see that any other life forms wouldn't yet have human-like intelligence. Note: By life I don't mean 1 or 2 cells that happen to exist. I am from the religious view of God created the world. I don't agree with evolution.
Alien life

First i like to say that i am new at this. so don't be surprised if im not that good. with out further ado lets begin. Is life a rare phenomenon, or a more constant. When you look at the sky you see thousands if not millions of stars. Each of those stars have giant planets floating around them. there is the possibility of one these planets to inhabit some kind of life. if not intelligent like we are. I believe that in the most inhospitable environments some kind of life exist beyond and within the Milky way Galaxy.
Hip Hop vs Pop music

Since my opponent has not made any valid arguments yet, I will begin with my one. And, here it is: Hip Hop Music: Hip Hop music is famously known as rap music. https://en.wikipedia.org... That said, it requires a very good breathing rate(a pair of good lungs and a healthy heart). So, there isn't much old people who can really do some Hip Hop. Conversely, it is more suitable for the young generation. Pop Music: Pop Music is also being known as Popular Music. https://en.wikipedia.org... The good part of pop music is that it has a variety of styles which is borrowed from urban, dance, rock, Latin and country.Furthermore, it suits more for the the general audience because it does not have a boundary limit. The most dominant person(Pop King) in Pop Music is Michael Jackson. There is his piece of art. K-Pop: Conclusion: Pop Music is more suitable for ALL PEOPLE whereas Hip -Hop is just more or less for the youth. Rebuttals: +Pop is for young teens who dance around in their pink bedrooms, while hip-hop is feeling and passion for the tough, and the strong at heart.+ I think my opponent misunderstands that only CERTAIN people can really do Hip-Hop. Not all of them. Everyone has different passions. It is entirely up to them to choose whatever suits them the best. +Hip hop has beat, whereas pop has some chick screaming while there is a mix of random music.+ I don't see pop must have girls screaming. Yes, Some of the Pop Music might have but not all. This has also proven what Hip-Hop does not have. +Hip hop has a history, people have gone to jail for their love of hip-hop, whereas the only person in jail for pop is Justin Bieber when on drugs.+ Both Hip hop and Pop does have a long history. Will history make Hip Hop proud?