BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Love does not exist

CLEARIFICATIONS : 'IF LOVE DOES EXIST, THE DRASTIC INCREASE IN ABORTION WOULDN'T BE AND THE UNWANTED PREGNANCY WOULD HAVE BEEN A TALE' when I stated this premise, I was wise. Now to explain this, what I mean is this:if we follow the definitions of love by different authors and writers, as some will call it a natural phenomenal then the unwanted pregnancy and abortions will not even be existing. Because one who you claim you love naturally, you won't even like to have sex or do anything that will affect the person physically and psychologically either by pregnanting the person. REBUTTALLS In my first argument, I defined emotions and love stating that they are different but my opponent continently choose to ignore that fact. NO WOUNDER!!! He said: Loveisan emotion. It's an emotion because it's "a natural instinctive state of mind" that is universally recognized by human experience regardless of culture or religion. Love is more easily explained by experience than defininition, but there different kinds of love. A love for doing my favorite hobbies will be a different kind of love than the love I might have for my wife or girlfriend. Lust might be contrued as a kind of love (referencing your previous example of an attractive girl) but ultimately love is subjective to the person experiencing it so nobody can definitively say that someone else isn't experiencing love. Now based on this argument, I will define emotions again and equally define love then compare both and state its difference to clearify my opponent. EMOTIONS: an affective state of consciousness in which joy, sorrow, fear, hate, or the like, is experienced, as distinguished from ... dictionary.reference.com/../emotion LOVE:a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person. 2. a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, ...dictionary.reference.com/browse/love IN COMPARISON Emotions, normally go with hunger for something that is why I term it emotional hunger is different from love and love does not exist. One can see why somebody is been maltreated, and the person will feel emotionall distress because the person don't like how the other person is been treated and that is emotional feeling. But based on the definition of love, they said that love is a natural phenomenal' which then shows that the two are not thesame. Emotional feeling and love are not and cannever be the same. Now when I gave example of attractive girl, I mean't what I said because they will end up telling each other I love you but that is Lust. Thank you very much for using the term. This even shows that love does not exist rather what we practice is lust.
Love does not exist

Love is an emotion. It's an emotion because it's "a natural instinctive state of mind" that is universally recognized by human experience regardless of culture or religion. Love is more easily explained by experience than defininition, but there different kinds of love. A love for doing my favorite hobbies will be a different kind of love than the love I might have for my wife or girlfriend. Lust might be contrued as a kind of love (referencing your previous example of an attractive girl) but ultimately love is subjective to the person experiencing it so nobody can definitively say that someone else isn't experiencing love.I am having trouble understanding your argument: "'IF LOVE DOES EXIST, THE DRASTIC INCREASE IN ABORTION WOULDN'T BE AND THE UNWANTED PREGNANCY WOULD HAVE BEEN A TALE'"
Love does not exist

DEFINITIONS: LOVE: 1.a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person. 2. a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, ... dictionary.reference.com/browse/love. Urban Dictionary:love love. nature's way of tricking people into reproducing. by anonymous April 07, 2003. 71825 17906. Mugs& shirts Buy ... www.urbandictionary.com/define.php%... love -definition of love by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and... A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, ... www.thefreedictionary.com/love. EXIST:to have actual being : to be real. : to continue to be or to live. Full Definition ofEXIST. 1. a : to have real being whether ... www.merriam-webster.com/../exist Based on this definition, my stand is this: 'IF LOVE DOES EXIST, THE DRASTIC INCREASE IN ABORTION WOULDN'T BE AND THE UNWANTED PREGNANCY WOULD HAVE BEEN A TALE' NOTE:There is quite a great difference between love and emotion. And my argument is that love does not exist. So my opponent should not use them interchangeably. EMOTION:1. a natural instinctive state of mind deriving from one's circumstances, mood, or relationships with others..... Sometimes, people feel emotional about something and yet they call it love. Take for instance, if am going to school, I might see a girl that looks sexy in the eye and I might feel sexually attracted to the person. May or maybe not, I will meet the person and start telling the person 'I love you' seriously, that is no love. It is emotional feelings and emotional feelings are not love. I will continue my argument in my next round.
has religion done more bad than good for our world

Pro has preserved his perfect record of forfeit. Pro started another debate rather than responding in this one, so it was bad conduct and not a personal crisis of some sort that prevented his response. Pro's entire opening argument was "If my title is unclear i am saying the negatives religion has had on our world outways the positives i will allow my opponent to make the first arguments" This does not make a prima facia case, and it contains multiple spelling and grammar errors: "I", "outweighs", and the missing period. None of my arguments were addressed. This seems to me to be a good topic. If someone would like to have a serious debate, you might read my rebuttal argument and prepare an affirmative challenge accordingly.
Shopping: Paper is Better than Plastic Bags

I believe that the people are at fault, not plastic bags. As you said 80% of the nation had access to a recycling program. Paper bags produce 70% more air pollution then plastic[1] and 50% more water pollutants in production. It takes more then 4 times the energy to produce paper bags[1]. It takes 91% less energy to recycle a pound of plastic to a pound of paper[2]. In 1999, 14 million trees were cut to produce 10 billion paper bags[2]. 1:plasticvpaper.weebly.com 2: www.projectgreenbag.com
Shopping: Paper is Better than Plastic Bags

1. About 2.1 million tons, or 6.8 percent of plastics generation in 2008 was actually recycled.(U.S. EPA) 1bout 1% in 2010 (http://www.gogreenstreet.com...) 2. That is in spite of 80% of the nation having access to plastics recycling programs. (American Chemistry Council) 3. Opinion: Plastic bags rip far faster than paper when boxes with sharp corners are place in them. 4. Approximately 1 billion seabirds and mammals die each year by ingesting plastics. ( Just One Thing: Green Your Grocery Bags)
Shopping: Paper is Better than Plastic Bags

To start I will address each of your points. 1. While trees are a renewable resource, this also promotes clear cutting of our forests. This destroys many ecosystems for the animals that live in these places. 2. It is true that paper bags can be recycled however, plastic bags can be recycled as well. 3. This seems like more of a opinion then a fact. I do know however, that paper bags are more prone to ripping, becoming wet which in result leads to wet items. 4. I believe this is an opinion.
Shopping: Paper is Better than Plastic Bags

Paper bags are better for several reasons: 1. Paper comes primarily from trees. Trees are a renewable resource. 2. Paper can be recycled and reduce the number of trees needed to keep up with demand. 3. Paper bags are simply easier to pack and do not fall open in the car on the way home as easily as plastic. 4. For stores that still hire "baggers" (those hired to place the customer's goods in the bags for them), it is easier to finish packing paper and keep up with the checkout process.
Same Sex Couples Should Be Able To Marry

I think you've misinterpreted my argument and in fact bolstered it. My argument simply states that the reason the Government could be able to deny marriage to gays is because they can not meet the need the Government has placed upon married heterosexual couples; which is to say, having children. My position encourages increased populations because a country with no people can"t exist, therefore the State uses marriage as a mechanism of self-perpetuation. I could expound as to why a country needs to continually replace its citizens but I think it's self evident. By acknowledging that gays can't reproduce (which is false, but you're the Pro, not me) they fail to meet the reason why the State would recognize a couple as married. You acknowledge that if we let gay people get married the desired effect of increased population will not occur. Ergo there is no reason to perform an action (granting marriage) which does not produce desired results. As far as adoptions go, anyone can adopt, regardless of marital status. So if we're concerned about those in need of adoption granting marriage to gays does not affect the plight of orphans because gays are already capable of adoption. If you want homosexual couples to have the same rights (hospital visitation, inheritance, shared insurance policies etc.) as heterosexual couples we could play semantics and agree on "Civil Unions", it's all the rights as marriage but none of implication of a contract between couple and State to reproduce. But we are debating Marriage, not Civil Unions.
Same Sex Couples Should Be Able To Marry

This world is already Becoming overpopulated. There are so many children in need of adoption. I agree with the point that reproduction is a big thing. However, allowing gay people to be married to one another will not change that. Gay people, whether married or not, will not have children. Seeing as that is true, if all states legalizes the marriage between two people of the same gender it will not change that. Therefore, your argument about sexual reproduction is invalid. Men who like men but are not married will not have children unless they adopt. Women who like women will not have children unless they adopt You are stating that if gays are allowed to be married then there won't be as many children? -Debate Strong. -
Same Sex Couples Should Be Able To Marry

I will be playing God's Advocate on this one, but I won't be using Religion in my argument. The basis for argument is marriage as a value to the State. Marriage, although originally a religious institution, has been co-opted by the government and given privileges/benefits above single and unmarried couples. Why does the Government choose to bestow benefits upon the married? Because it makes it easier to raise children. If children are our future then the State has a vested interest in their creation and upbringing. Heterosexual Marriage represents reproduction, therefore it is a self sustaining continuation of the State. Motivation behind marriage is irrelevant, the government needs people to have a "fruitful" marriage for its own survival, to aid this endeavor benefits are given. But what about the heterosexual but infertile you ask? It would be burdensome on the State to have to monitor the fertility of all newlyweds. However the symbolism of reproduction, man and woman, supports the aims of reproduction in a way Homosexuality does not.
Same Sex Couples Should Be Able To Marry

I will not accept any irrational arguments such as "gays already have enough rights" to be a valid response. Pro will have to respond with logical reasons as to why "gay" people should not be able to marry. Same sex marriage is becoming a growing issue. Even though this has been legalized in some states, I say it needs to become that way in all states. Allowing the marriage of same sex couples would not hurt anyone. It may offend some people but those people can choose to ignore it rather than having a fit about it. If two human beings love each other, they should be allowed to be married and carry on life just as everyone else is allowed to. Saying that gay couples cannot get married to their significant other is depriving them of their rights. To allow same sex marriage would not mean you have to accept their ways. It simply means that you are treating them as if they are normal human beings, which they are. Being gay, lesbian, bisexual, asexual, transgender etc. does not mean that these people are any less of human beings than you yourself. Same sex couples areal lowed to ride in the car, go out to eat and live in a house together, so why not let them be married? Many gays and lesbians do not feel safe or secure in the world. However, a few "gay" married couples said they felt more protected. Marriage is marriage. Love is love.
State's should regulate limit of time for parmanent useres of internet

Sure, I'll admit that; that's their prerogative. People do plan their own days, and some people include a lot of online time in their plans. It's not the government's job to plan people's days, or even to get people to plan their days according to an ideal. What would be the limit on internet time that would be placed? Five hours? What would it be based on? How would it be monitored? What if someone was using the internet on someone else's network? Would there be a new law against internet time theft? Regulating internet time for each individual would be a waste of resources.
Free Trade

I don't think there's anything for me to rebut in your round 1 argument. I admit there are pros and cons to free trade, I just took the position I did because I believe the cons outweigh the pros. The only objection I have to what is stated in round 1 is that everything stated there is without evidence. I suppose I could ask this for your first main reason: why would we want to have good relations with a nation that is diametrically opposed to our way of life? China is much more authoritarian than us, and liberties are restricted there. We could easily put a condition on our trade: we can say: we will trade with you again if you make changes to make your country more democratic, end slavery/child labor, and pay your workers more... it's sad that we would be the ones telling a supposed "socialist" nation to pay their workers better and to get rid of things like child and slave labor lol, this is why I don't consider China to be socialist, that and many other reasons. I have no objection to your second point though, other than that your claim that cheaper priced means more jobs. My points in round 2 refute that claim already.
Free Trade

Round 4 will be waived, don't worry :) First, my opponent talks about the slave labor and wages. However, these things will happen regardless of if we trade with them. We may not agree with it, but it's what happens. Also, if we trade with China they will be more willing to listen to the US because of incentives provided by trade, such as the economic benefits they will gain. If we trade freely with China, and then tell them to stop human rights abuses, they will be more likely to listen to us than normal. Second, he/she talks about how we will lose jobs because of free trade. However, this is not true because all it does is change the jobs we have here, often to better and more successful ones.[1] Also, the problems are in the US economy's inability to adjust to the market fast enough, not trade.[2] Finally, automation is the biggest job killer, not trade.[3] I won't bring up any new arguments here [1] https://fee.org... [2] http://www.nationalreview.com... [3] https://www.nytimes.com...
Free Trade

We should support free trade for 2 main reasons: A. Trade restrictions strain relations, which means we can't work with countries as effectively as we could with free trade. We need to work with other countries in order to better solve problems in the world Sub A) A big example of this is with China, we try to limit trade with them a lot, which makes them mad at us in turn Sub B) Because China was mad with us over restrictions, they started a trade war (defined as when countries increase restrictions on imports by each other trying to gain and edge over them) Sub C) Cooperation with countries is crucial to solving issues like climate change, terrorism, space debris, and more B. With free trade we would be able to import more materials and export more because exporting things would cost less to companies, meaning they can export without worrying about things like tariffs Sub A) Every country needs to import materials from other places and exports materials, so economic benefits effect everyone Sun B) Because prices wouldn't have to be raised to account for tariffs or other restrictions, products using those materials become cheaper Sub C) Cheaper prices means more people can buy the product and the company can hire more workers, which means more jobs
Free Trade

I am challenging the user "MehItsaName" to a debate on free trade. Rules of Debate:1) Burden of proof will be shared equally.2) If con chooses to post arguments in round 1, they should waive round 4 to keep the rounds used for debate even since I am not using round 1 for debate.3) The first round for debate should not include any rebuttals against your opponent's arguments. It is just for your own arguments. This would only apply to the person who posts their main arguments second, of course.4) The second round of debate can include new arguments and/or rebuttals against your opponent's main arguments5) The third round should only be rebuttals against your opponent's arguments, and/or defense against your opponent's rebuttals. 6) No personal insults, attacks, or ad hominemIf any of the above rules are violated, voters should award the point for conduct to the person who did not violate these rules, or who did so to a lesser extent.If con objects to any of the above rules, they should say so in comments, and I may tweak some of them, otherwise it will be assumed they agree to them.Definition:Free Trade: "a policy followed by some international markets in which countries' governments do not restrict imports from, or exports to, other countries."[1]Source:[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
The entire world is bound to become communist

My opponent has once again failed to counter my rebuttal with any response whatsoever. My definition of communist is the dictionary's definition. I would include an extract but I'm on my phone and currently can't copy and paste so I'll just include a URL. https://www.google.com.au...... That link leads to a Google search page with a direct definition. While that link does not support my defense with the correlation between communism and dictatorship, I have provided a link that will further explain the mutual relativity: https://en.m.wikipedia.org...... While yes it is Wikipedia, I will not currently argue the credibility of it as I personally do not see it as an entirely inefficient or even inefficient source at all. If the extract is too hard to find, I have it here: https://www.google.com.au......+ Now let's forget about the Chinese dynasty and the current capitalist movement as I do in fact still have the defense of Mao's communist reign. As for tyrannical reign, this is my source: https://www.google.com.au......+ It is another Google definition search, if you ignore the definition for now and focus on the synonyms you will see "dictatorship" which I have correlated to communism. While yes my defense is somewhat abstract, it is still in fact there as I have provided multiple sources, and sporadic justification. my definition of communist is the dictionary's definition. I would include an extract but I'm on my phone and currently can't copy and paste so I'll just include a URL. https://www.google.com.au...... That link leads to a Google search page with a direct definition. While that link does not support my defense with the correlation between communism and dictatorship, I have provided a link that will further explain the mutual relativity: https://en.m.wikipedia.org...... While yes it is Wikipedia, I will not currently argue the credibility of it as I personally do not see it as an entirely inefficient or even inefficient source at all. If the extract is too hard to find, I have it here: https://www.google.com.au......+ Now let's forget about the Chinese dynasty and the current capitalist movement as I do in fact still have the defense of Mao's communist reign. As for tyrannical reign, this is my source: https://www.google.com.au......+ It is another Google definition search, if you ignore the definition for now and focus on the synonyms you will see "dictatorship" which I have correlated to communism. While yes my defense is somewhat abstract, it is still in fact there as I have provided multiple sources, and sporadic justification. My notion on Australia's close subjugation by Japan in WWII would fall under the category of tyrannical. As for American civilians being incarcerated in FEMA camps in 1942, I would place that under Marxism, maybe even Leninism or even Stalinism. These are my words from the comments message board clarifying my definition on communism, well more of my interpretation of it. Since I have provided clarification for my initial rebuttal, I will conclude my agenda with cordial apologies to my opponent after this debate, just a polite gesture.
The entire world is bound to become communist

I have been thinking about this topic a lot lately and have decided to turn it into a debate. I will be taking pro and therefore will be arguing that the entire world will, one day, more than likely become communist. This is not based on the NWO conspiracy, rather, it is based on the notion of the US founding fathers as stated "a democracy can and will not last". First round is acceptance, then following two are rebuttals with the fourth being the conclusion. Good luck to my future contender.