BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
More guns will cause less crime

First, I would like to say that I completely disagree. Why would letting Americans carry guns cause less crime?? You tell me.Supporting Ideas:1. The instinct to pull out a gun 2. Misunderstandings3. Not illegal for robbers and criminals to carry guns (who would ever know if they were criminals?) 4. Police and Law Enforcement Injured through careless conduct5. SAME concept for all ages! NO GUNS for anyone who possibly could use it against the innocent.
It"s possible to romantically love more than one person at once.

1. I am a bit confused as to which part of my premise you don't agree with. I agree that you can always build on your relationship with your partner. You can build on a relationship with anyone by showing them affection. However, you still have not clarified what you meant by passion and affection. I do agree that love isn't all about sexual pleasure, which proves my point clearly. Love has such a deep and passionate meaning behind it, that it can only be shared between two people. Sexual intercourse is just an added pleasure to the already beautiful,romantic relationship. 2. I have already agreed with this premise in round 1. You did not need to restate it. 5. I agree with your definition of polygyny and polyandry. If we consider this scenario, in a culture where polygamy is accepted, it does not prove that the man with two wives loves both of them. thinly proves that he is confused as to which one to choose. So he is taking the easy way out, and keeping both of the women as his wives. We cannot define "strong feelings" as love. We have already defined love in premise 2. If the man has strong feelings for both of his wives, this does not prove that he loves both of them. In fact, it doesn't even prove that e loves either of them. 6. You have forgotten to clarify on this premise. 9. If an individual has such strong feelings for his/her partner as to imagining the American dream with him/her, then why would the individual leave that partner? A smart individual wouldn't. One who was in love wouldn't leave the partner or even let his/her partner leave. However, let's consider that a person with such strong feelings left his or her partner, but then why would that person jump into another relationship? It wouldn't make sense. If you have feelings for one person, that are so strong, then you cannot fall for another one. You wouldn't even notice anyone else in that way. If they have such strong feelings for their ex, then it is not possible for them to fall in love with their current boyfriend. 10. If you fall for someone for their traits, while you are in a relationship, then this would be considered infidelity. We can define infidelity as not being faithful to your romantic partner. If you are not faithful to your partner, then you never loved your partner at all. Well, it's also possible for you to cheat on your partner, and fall out of love with that partner. Whilst, you are falling in love with with your partner on the side.
It"s possible to romantically love more than one person at once.

1. I don't necessarily agree with your statement. You can show your partner affection and build the relationship with them. Learn to know them such as there interest, desires, and goals. Isn't always sexual or desire for there touch and sexual feeling such as passion. 4. Agree 5. If they are with two people it's because they can't choose between both of them. Because what if that one person is your soul mate and the person you believe you will end up with, but the other person is the one that makes you look forward in life and gives you excitement and happiness and also makes you wonder what the future is between of you. So clearly they have strong feelings for them. 9. I disagree because what if the person still not over there ex its not necessarily lust it's because the feelings are still there. They believe that they had a future with that person, the white picket fence,the kids, and dog. They put everything they had into that relationship, but they also learn to grow together. 10. I disagree because their traits can make you fall in love with them. For example, the way they look, his interest, goals, the way he reacts to certain situations,and the way he acts with you and only you. Hence, making that person more attractive to you. Premise 5&7 Polygyny is where a man has multiple simultaneous wives Polyandry is where a women has multiple simultaneous husbands
It"s possible to romantically love more than one person at once.

1. I partially agree with that statement. However, love is much more than just passion or affection. Affection is usually found in the love between a mother and a child and passion is usually just between sexual partners. 2. I agree with your statement. 3. I agree with that statement. 4. Humans are not naturally wired this way, animals are. Also, men do not necessarily want to spread their sperm, they just want to have sexual intercourse. However, females are also like this so it is not just males. 6. That is not true in all occasions, it depends. 8. I agree with that statement. 9. You might have feeling for your ex but these feelings are not necessarily love, they can be lust or platonic love. 10. If you love someone for their traits, you are not in love with them, but in love with their traits. R03; 11. Therefore, it is not possible to love more than one person at the same time. Controversial Premises: 1: Your definition of passion and affection is unclear. 4: This premise is only based on certain stereotypes . All humans aren't sex craved creatures. Also all men aren't sex craved creatures. 6: Even if this is the case, it does not prove your conclusion. 9: This premise is just a possible scenario. 10: If you fall in love with someone who is not your partner, then it is because you have fallen out of love with your partner. Non-Controversial Premises: Premises 2,3, and 8 are points that I can agree with about the simple concepts of love. Questions: Premise 5 and 7 : What do you mean by polygamy and polyandry? What are the definitions of each?
It"s possible to romantically love more than one person at once.

1. Love is to be infused with or feeling deep affection or passion for another human being 2. Love makes you care about someone else well-being 3. To be in love you don't necessarily have to be in a relationship or have the title of it 4. Humans are naturally wired to be with multiple partners, especially men since they want to naturally spread their seed to guarantee a wide variety of offspring 5. Polygamy is accepted for Muslims in India, Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia, and etc 6. Relationship last longer when you have conjoint marriage 7. Women also have open marriages which are called polyandry so it's not only men. 8. We don't choose who we love, it just happens 9. You can be in love with your current boyfriend, but also still be in love with your ex. 10. Falling in love with someone else that's not your partner because of their traits ( personality,etc) C. It is possible to love more than one person romantically at a time. Non-Controversial Premises 1,2,3, and 8 are non-controversial because my opponent would most likely agree because it truly represents what love is between two people or more. Controversial Premises 5,7, are controversial. 5&7. Some people in a polygamy relationship because they cant choose between the two people they are involved with. This is like any other relationship, its about supporting each other like any kind of relationship. 6&9. It is a rhetoric analogy.
It"s possible to romantically love more than one person at once.

1. I agree with the definition of love. I also agree with the definition of passion and affection. 2. I also agree with that statement. I believe that if you love someone, you deeply care for them. 3. I agree with this statement. Love is a feeling that does not require any labels. 4. Animals are wired to have multiple sexual partners, not humans. 5. Being in love with someone means that you have strong feelings for that person. However, having strong feelings for someone is not the same thing as being in love with someone. If you have strong feelings for someone, these feeling could be feelings of hatred. 6. it is not true that relationships last longer when you have conjoint marriages. Maybe the marriage was never meant to work out in the first place. 7. I agree with this definition. Open marriages are not only for men, women can also have an open marriage. However, this doesn't prove that a woman is capable of being in love with both of her husbands. 8. I also agree with this premise. A person can fall in love anytime, anywhere, with anyone. They don't get to choose. 9. If you were in love with your ex, then you would have never begin a new relationship. 10. Infidelity can be defined as kissing, going on dates with, or having sex anyone else other than your partner. 11. If you fall for someone who is not your partner for their traits, then you are only in love with that person's traits and you are also being unfaithful to your partner. 12. Thus, it is impossible for one person to love two people at the same time. I have added another premise, my own definition of infidelity in the premises. I would like to point out that my opponent never clarified her statement in premise 6. I still stand by my thesis that it is impossible for an individual to romantically love two people at the same time.
It"s possible to romantically love more than one person at once.

1. Love is to be infused with or feeling deep affection or passion for another human being. Passion is define as an intense emotion, desire, and love. Affection is define as a gentle feeling of fondness or liking. 2. Love makes you care about someone else well-being 3. To be in love you don't necessarily have to be in a relationship or have the title of it 4. I agreed with your premise 5. I agree with your premise 6. Relationship last longer when you have conjoint marriage 7. Women also have open marriages which are called polyandry so it's not only men. Polyandry is define as where women has multiple simultaneous husbands. 8. We don't choose who we love, it just happens 9. You can be in love with your current boyfriend, but also still be in love with your ex. 10. Falling in love with someone else that's not your partner because of their traits ( personality, etc.) In premises 4&5 I came to agree with my opponent statements. I would like you point out that my opponent has contradicted herself in round 3 premise 9. So I'm sticking to my premises stating that you can still be in love with your ex. While being in love with your partner now. In premise 10 I'm still sticking with my premise because I do believe you can fall in love with an individual by their traits such as the way they look, his interest, goals, the way he reacts to certain situations,and the way he acts with you and only you. Hence, making that person more attractive to you. This would not be consider as infidelity. I can agree with your definition of infidelity, however nobody said anything about the individual having intercourse with the person. Thus, proving an individual can romantically love two people at the same time.
It"s possible to romantically love more than one person at once.

1. My point was that affection can be found in any relationship. I was not trying to say that affection is only found between a mother and a child. I was confused as to what you meant by affection. You gave examples for affection and passion. You did not give definitions for either of them. 5. It is true that love is composed of strong feelings. However, having strong feelings for someone is not the same thing as being in love with someone. You can have strong feeling for someone that you hate too. You can hate a person with a passion so strong that it would be considered having strong feelings for that person. So you cannot say strong feelings and mean romantical love. So having strong feelings is not being in love with someone. 9. If an individual can't start another relationship because theyre still in love with their ex partner, it proves that an individual can only be in love with one person at a time. If someone else makes that individual feel good, it would just be sexual pleasure. The individual would not be in love with the person they start getting involved with. Love doesn't exactly happen over night. It takes awhile for a couple to fall in love. Well, it usually takes awhile, maybe sometimes it doesn't. The time it takes doesn't exactly matter because either way the person can only be in love with one other person. 10. I would like to know how you want to define infedility. I see infedilty as being unfaitful to your wife. Being unfaithful to your wife would count as kissing other women, going on dates with other women, or having sex with other women. So are you saying that falling for another person is not cheating? Even if its not and we consider this okay, why would a man fall for another woman if he already loved his wife? He obviously doesn't love his wife anymore and so is looking elsewhere.
It"s possible to romantically love more than one person at once.

1. I don't agree with your statement stating that affection is usually found in the love between a mother and a child. Because you can have affection towards another human being that's not your mother or your child. I stated what affection and passion meant in my last premises. 5. If we cannot define "strong feelings" as love, than what can we define it as ? Because strong feelings for another person isn't puppy love or just liking the person. Yes we did define love, as stating that love makes you care about someone else's well-being, but caring for that person is also consider a feeling. So in the scenario that you created, where the man with two wives what feeling does he have towards them ? I believe he does have strong feelings for them which means he is clearly in love with both of them that he couldn't make up his mind. 9. Nobody said that the individual left his/her partner. The partner left the individual, let's say because the partner didn't know what he wanted anymore. But, is still in love with the individual. The individual tried to do everything possible to be with that person, but nothing would work. So the individual had no choice, but to try and move on. The individual had some people that would make him/her feel special and that would catch his/her attention in many ways. However, as soon as things started getting serious, the individual would remove his/ her self from the situation because he/she can clearly see that they are not over there ex. 10. This would not be consider as infidelity. I don't necessarily agree with your definition of infidelity, because infidelity is cheating on your partner sexually, nobody said anything about the individual having intercourse with the person.
A virgin should not be allowed to have an opinion on abortion.

I'll do my best to appropriately address all the points made. First off, my opponent talks about people working in the medical field and states that it's ultimately not their decision whether a mother gets an abortion or not. While this is true, my opponent made a major contradictory argument. Going back to my opponent's first source, it states that the maternal morality rate in the United States is 13 deaths per 100,000 births(. http://www.msnbc.msn.com...). As a doctor can give expert advice it's very possible that some of these deaths could have been prevented if the mother took the doctor's advice and aborted if the pregnancy was a threat to her life. This doctor, as mentioned earlier, could very well be a virgin. As for my opponent's second argument, he addresses the argument that we can't know if the developing child will be somebody's best friend as "we're not fortune tellers". This is correct. However, we can easily determine if that child is somebody's sibling, cousin, etc. Anybody is upset when they have a sibling or a cousin die and that developing child could easily be either to a virgin thus triggering an emotional response. As this is the last round, I'll now like to thank my opponent for an interesting debate and I look forward to seeing the results. Please vote fairly and good luck to both of us!
A virgin should not be allowed to have an opinion on abortion.

1- All Doctor's job is to tell them what the effects are. Whose job is it to choose whether the woman, aka the mother, has it or not? Is it the doctor who is having the abortion? No. The mother has it, and does not need any comments, or opinions from their doctor. 2- Of course, I would feel bad if someone I knew had died. My opponent's argument does state, in no way, how it should be an opinion of a virgin. These opinions of "anybody" could literally be non-virgins, so how can we go on the argument which doesn't state specifics. We can't. I'll answer this though as if it was specific on virgins: how would they know? Do you know when you're in the womb which other baby is going to be your best friend? No. We're no future-tellers, or Mind-readers. Again, opinions can hurt the mother in negative ways, such as harm to their life, and causing death in certain situations. My opponent disregarded this attack, so you can extend it. I end my rebuttals, and look forward to my opponent's 2nd Rebuttal, as soon my own.
A virgin should not be allowed to have an opinion on abortion.

Although a virgin may not have direct experience with childbirth or sexual intercourse, they can still hear about other people's experiences and be around pregnant women. This can give them knowledge of the issues around childbirth. Also, a virgin might happen to be trained as a nurse or doctor and work in a maternity ward. Surely these people, having direct experience with handling infants and giving birth can have an opinion. They know about the different effects a fetus or infant's health(or lack of) can have so they would be expert advice on whether the mother should get an abortion or not. My opponent failed to address this important point, that doctors and nurses, regardless of whether they're virgins or not, would know what's best for the mother. Secondly, my opponent points out that many US women die in childbirth. While this is probably true, the causes are listed as maternal obesity and Caesarean sections. Both of those have little to do with abortion so a virgin's opinion would be irrelevant at that point. However, it would be different if a virgin was trying to convince the mother not to get a Caesarean section or not to lose weight, but that is not what this debate is about. Thirdly, my opponent tackles the "emotion" argument. He states that another person's emotions are meaningless. However, he fails to address the fact that anybody he has an emotional attachment to could die. How would one feel if their best friend died? Their sister? Their mother? Anybody else? That fetus developing inside the mother could potentially be somebody's best friend, sister, mother, or anybody else so anybody should be able to have an opinion on whether to abort it or not. I see that my opponent attempted to answer my hypothetical questions I asked at the end of my first argument. I'll like to address those next. A virgin isn't pregnant and a straight person isn't gay so why should one group be able to have an opinion about the issue that doesn't directly affect them while the other group can't? As for the "Capitalism" question it is now irrelevant to the rest of the debate so I will move on to my opponent's last request for me to define the word "virgin" in my own words. Virgin: A person who has never experienced any form of sexual intercourse. Lastly, I would like to say I may not be physically handicapped myself, but just like a virgin can have an opinion on abortion and a straight person on gay rights, a non-handicapped person can have an opinion on the physically handicapped. Now I'll hand this over to my opponent. I look forward to interesting and intriguing rebuttals. Good luck! :)
A virgin should not be allowed to have an opinion on abortion.

I accept the resolution, and therefore Affirm: A virgin should not be allowed to have an opinion on abortion. I thank my opponent, and gratefully accept their definitions. My arguments stand as 1) Abortion is a matter that correlates to a couple who openly decide to have sexual intercourse, and want to prevent the child. Since abortion requires sexual intercourse, a virgin therefore, one who has NEVER had sexual intercourse, may not have an opinion because there is no way they may understand what the parents go through. 2) A virgin, if given the right to an opinion, could ruin the poor girls' lives by convincing them with their so-called "opinion" to not abortion. A recent study shows that many woman in the US alone die due to child-birth. http://www.msnbc.msn.com... There can be a great chance, though, not 100% proven, from not getting abortions. A) The first effect of their opinion would be destroying the lives of the unprepared, or unwanting mother. The inexperienced virgin, not understanding what their doing, could cause this onto the mother willingly. This could later turn and effect the friend, or family members of the mother. B) The second, and other effect is death. As the above warrant tells, women die often due to the child birth. Also, as a well-known fact, women are at a greater susceptibility to death in a limited period of time after the child birth. Rebuttal: 1- The "emotion" argument cannot stand, because even though they have emotions, they have no logical right to an opinion. I can have an emotion of sadness when hearing of abortion, but I do not require a single opinion on it. And as argued in my contentions, they are inexperienced, and will not understand this. 2- The "bonds" simply don't matter; I can have a bond with my best friend, or even my parents, but that means nothing. That gives me no right to have an opinion on sexual intercourse, nor a reason why I should have one. Next, to answer the questions. - Yes, to the "Gay Rights," simply because they can understand why or why not they deserve them. I myself am for Gay Rights, because I, like everyone, can see Heterosexual rights. If I can see it, without being it, I can easily compare them, due to what we have. - Please re-word the "Capitalism" question. - The last question has an obvious answer: no. To wrap up my Round ("1") speech, I'd simply like to ask a few questions. - Do you have any opinion on the Physically handicapped? - Why must people have an opinion on something they don't know, or have, entirely? - Can you define the word "Virgin" in your own words? Thank you, and good luck.