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

3. What if the new person you are with has similar personality and physical traits to the person you were formerly in love with. Since the new person you are in love with is not that different from you former lover you could love both romantically at the same time. 4. What if the feelings are not forgotten? once they move on they will remain the same and get the same new feelings for the new person 5. Love is an unpredictable feeling. 6. It is not possible to say that feelings for another person will not come at the same time as you have them for someone else. 7.. What if you are in a romantic situation with another person because both are under the influence, then you get romantic feelings that you would not have had unless you tried it. 8. You do not need to go looking around, it could come unexpectedly at your work, or school and this new person triggers the same romantic feelings you have already. 9. Therefore, It is possible to romantically love more than one person at once.
It Is possible to romantically love more than one person at once.

1. i agree 2. i agree 3. If the relationship ends on a bad note the feelings for the old lover will not be there anymore and you can find someone else that you can bond with and fall in love without having feelings for your past lover. 4. Many people tend to move on and slowly forget how that person made them feel so once that occurs they will move on to another person and love them. 5. if you romantically love someone and are loyal you do not get to the level of romanticism with someone else. 6. when you truly love someone everything they have to offer is enough, their characteristics are enough and you will not go around looking for another lover because what they have is perfect to you. 7. Therefore, it is not possible to romantically love more than one person at once. None-controversial: 1 and 2 Controversial: I agree
It Is possible to romantically love more than one person at once.

1. Love is defined as a deep feeling of romantic and sexual attraction to someone. 2. Familial love, friendships and poly amorous relationships will be excluded from this argument. 3. A person can be in one relationship and right after be in another relationship. Not getting rid of their old feelings and having both feelings of romantic love at once. 4. A person you romantically loved died, and then you fell in love with another person while still having the romantic feelings of your past lover. 5. Romantic love is a feeling that can no be planned, therefore it is not possible to know when or with whom you will fall in love, making is possible to get this feeling for more that one person at a time. 6. It is possible that more than one person has traits that make you sexually attracted or physically attracted to them. Therefore, it is possible to romantically love each of these people for their different characteristics at once. __________________________________________________________ 7. Therefore, it is possible to romantically love more than one person at once. Non controversial- 1and 2 Definitions Controversial 3,4,5,6 -people can still be in love with the person from their past relationship while chosing to be in another. It may not have been by choice that they could not stay in a relationship but because of circumstances that could not have been avoided. -people can be in love with different personalities and characterisics this can not be controlled.
THBT robbing the rich and helping the poor is justified

Government provides scholarship to deserving ones.So they are already being helped by government and there are NGOs which are really supportive. For real deserving people money has never been a barrier but just a hurdle. Every obstacle is an opportunity. And nobody can be sure if money induces greed or not as motive behind day to day crimes now a days is generally money.Human needs are basically never satisfied. So no matter how much money you provide them it would never be enough. So 'Robbing rich and helping poor' is not justified according to me. It may positively affect the lives of people but the negative impact can never be ignored. Helping is a kind act . Getting that help by robbing does not give the right idea to society.
THBT robbing the rich and helping the poor is justified

Firstly, money does not induce greed among the poor.The poor were born impoverished, their lives tough from the very beginning.Therefore, when help is rendered towards them, they would feel a sense of gratefulness, satisfaction and treat this as an opportunity to work hard and showcase their talents. It is usually the rich who are greedy, seen from daily examples. Secondly, I would like to point out that distributing money to the poor is not "directly taking them to the destination" but providing them with the necessary resources to reach their goals. According to meritocracy, everyone should be provided with equal opportunities to fulfill their destinies but by limiting the help we render towards the poor,isn't it that it is unfair per se?
THBT robbing the rich and helping the poor is justified

Money does affects one's level of happiness but is it just the positive affect? Money introduces greed among people.This idea of robbing the rich and helping the poor somehow and somewhere promotes materialistic nature among non-materialistic people. Also happiness is a journey , not a destination.Distributing money to poor people directly take them to destination and they would miss the pleasure of working hard ,earning money and then spending them.There exist a lot of self made rich people who worked hard, their miseries motivated them to goal big and achieve big .They never waited for someone's help and incentives to poor would no doubt help them but these incentives should be given to those who would really value them and work hard.
THBT robbing the rich and helping the poor is justified

Although it is true that happiness is not all about money but no one can deny that money does, in fact, affect one's level of happiness.After all, this world is regrettably materialistic and with money, the possibilities are widened.I do not agree with the point that giving money to the poor would be a "short cut". Many of the rich nowadays inherited their wealth from previous generations and therefore are able to easily continue the business and make ridiculous amounts of profits. On the other hand, the poor have worked immensely hard and in most cases much harder than the rich not to maintain their wealth but for survival.So, shouldn't the government should reward the poor's hardwork by giving them money to break out of the poverty cycle?
THBT robbing the rich and helping the poor is justified

Happiness is not all about money. Satisfaction is the key to happiness. There are many sad rich people and happy poor people.This act of robbing rich and helping poor would increase expectations of poor people a lot more.They would want more and more in life and in this constant need of wanting more, people would loose their happiness eventually . I believe on a larger view it has more negative points than positive ones . This is kind of a short cut for poor people. They instead of working hard would choose this option moreover it would lead to moral degradation as robbing rich people would make them insensitive about others they won't even mind to care about helping poor and somehow it would end up making world a bitter place.
THBT robbing the rich and helping the poor is justified

Robbing the rich and helping the poor is undoubtedly justified as adopting a utilitarian stance, it benefits society more as a whole. The meaning of "utilitarian" is that we should strive to achieve the overall maximum happiness regardless the process, meaning it focuses on the attaining of happiness in its eventual outcome. Now, why is this important? This is because arguably, many things in life can be said to be driven by the sole motivation of happiness. The same amount of money, taken from the rich's point of view, will seem less than in the poor's point of view due to the percentages of their current income. Therefore, taking from the rich and giving to the poor will mean more to the poor and cause the eventual happiness to increase.
jew is evil

No I am not! You are a sheep! Wake up fool! Jew owns everything. While the median household net worth of the typical American family is $99,500, among American Jews the figure is $443,000. Jew fake the holocaust! Every country kicked Jew out again and again because Jew was sneaky. I'm not saying all Jew is bad just the ones with the media and the banks. JESUS CHRIST, speaking to the Jews in the Gospel of St. John, 8:44 "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lust of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is not truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of it. - then answered the Jews -- " (which makes it clear that Christ was addressing the Jews.) Jew is behind everything. Jew controls hollywood. James Franco JEW Mila kunis JEW harrison ford JEW scarlett johansson JEW so many jew in hollywood media and banks but there arent many jew in the world! Jew hate arabs! Jew hate Islam! Jew hate white race that is why jew send arab and black to marry white woman and make white man angry then white man start new holocaust to kill muslim and that is what jew want!
jew is evil

jew is always sneaking in on you.... POPE CLEMENT VIII "All the world suffers from the usury of the Jews, their monopolies and deceit. They have brought many unfortunate people into a state of poverty, especially the farmers, working class people and the very poor. Then as now Jews have to be reminded intermittently anew that they were enjoying rights in any country since they left Palestine and the Arabian desert, and subsequently their ethical and moral doctrines as well as their deeds rightly deserve to be exposed to criticism in whatever country they happen to live." This prophecy, by Benjamin Franklin, was made in a "CHIT CHAT AROUND THE TABLE DURING INTERMISSION," at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention of 1787. This statement was recorded in the dairy of Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, a delegate from South Carolina. "I fully agree with General Washington, that we must protect this young nation from an insidious influence and impenetration. The menace, gentlemen, is the Jews. In whatever country Jews have settled in any great number, they have lowered its moral tone; depreciated its commercial integrity; have segregated themselves and have not been assimilated; have sneered at and tried to undermine the Christian religion upon which that nation is founded, by objecting to its restrictions; have built up a state within the state; and when opposed have tried to strangle that country to death financially, as in the case of Spain and Portugal. For over 1,700 years, the Jews have been bewailing their sad fate in that they have been exiled from their homeland, as they call Palestine. But gentlemen, did the world give it to them in fee simple, they would at once find some reason for not returning. Why? Because they are vampires, and vampires do not live on vampires. They cannot live only among themselves. They must subsist on Christians and other people not of their race. If you do not exclude them from these United States, in their Constitution, in less than 200 years they will have swarmed here in such great numbers that they will dominate and devour the land and change our form of government, for which we Americans have shed our blood, given our lives our substance and jeopardized our liberty. If you do not exclude them, in less than 200 years our descendants will be working in the fields to furnish them substance, while they will be in the counting houses rubbing their hands. I warn you, gentlemen, if you do not exclude Jews for all time, your children will curse you in your graves. Jews, gentlemen, are Asiatics, let them be born where they will nor how many generations they are away from Asia, they will never be otherwise. Their ideas do not conform to an American's, and will not even thou they live among us ten generations. A leopard cannot change its spots. Jews are Asiatics, are a menace to this country if permitted entrance, and should be excluded by this Constitutional Convention. the jews are degenerate pigs and apes!
jew is evil

I don't have financial/emotional problems, my only problem is that the Jew is abusing its power. I am woke. Benjamin Franklin wanted to exclude the Jew from the United States of America. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson agreed. Winston Churchill didn't like the Jew. Martin Luther didn't like the Jew. These were all great men who loved their country, who did what was best for their nations and peoples. The Jew is dangerous. You should study more about the Jew and you will realize this.
Turkey is a good country

Turkey is a good country because there are a lot of economic opportunities such as entrepreneurship's, being worker any place that has a job opportunity and many work fields. Besides, Turkey have a lot of good universities such as METU,which is the best university in Turkey, Bogazici University, Istanbul Techie University and Koc University etc. These universities contributes to grow up well-educated people.Indeed, these people are the ones who make Turkey best.
Black ops 1 better then black ops 2

Your argument again shows your sibjective attitude towards this debate. A "better gun" is not objective. What is a better gun? One that is more accruate? One with a faster rate of fire? One with more velocity? One with more ammunition? One that looks better? One that fires slower? One that fires water rather than bullets? To a pacifist, a better gun might be a non-existant gun. "Better gun" means different things to different people.
Suggest an interesting Topic and choose a position

My opponent has again forfeited. I request all courtesy points. I will choose my own side to allow voters to give me the points for best arguments. We should cuz 'Murica. Kidding of course. The USA should become the world' police because it has the most powerful military, and thus has the most power to back up what it does. In addition it should want to becasue this will give it more global power.
Suggest an interesting Topic and choose a position

Because in the interest of fairness I will only give the resolution and not pick sides, I propose this new speech layout. If you dislike it we can choose a different one in the comment section.1) Acceptance/ Resolution2) Side+Constructive/Constructive3) Rebuttal/Rebuttal4) Summary/Summmary Resolution: The United States of America ought to act as the "World's Police".Police: the civil force of a national or local government, responsible for the prevention and detection of crime and the maintenance of public order.
I am a better internet troll than my opponent

"Please send me your signature on that line to know you agree with the rules. If failed to do so, you forfeit 7 points." You failed to do this, forfeiting your full 7 points."do not attack me personally"...you attacked me personally, breaking the site moderation policy. I will report you and you will recieve a full 7-point forfeit along with possible ban.I am sorry. This debate was supposed to be fun but as you were offensive, breaking the rules, I was forced to turn serious.
I am a better internet troll than my opponent

I doubt "internet troll" is an insult, so this won't go within the "personal attack" in the new moderation policy. (I'm serious. Seriously.) And besides, I'm willingly insulting myself, even if this does break site rules.Con must argue why he is a better troll than me.I don't think it will go against site rules because con willingly accepted the debate himself and was willing to "insult" himself. If troll is even an insult. Seriously, everyone loved the biggest troll of them all-imabench. (at least on this site...)So now we go to the argument. Internet trolls: "An internet 'troll' is an abusive or obnoxious user who uses shock value to promote arguments and disharmony in online communities." http://netforbeginners.about.com...;Good luck to con, and I hope you don't lose too bad!Round one is for acceptance.No spamming, insulting, breaking any moderation policies, and etc. etc. Otherwise a FULL-7 POINT FORFEIT will be conducted! I am serious about this, do not attack me personally (just you know, trollers as whole), and most importantly, have fun!Ifyoustartonroundonenothingbadwillhappen, andu'lllosenopointsatall I'mnottrolling,thisisthetruth.Whydoyouhavethisadvantage? WellIdidn'tthinkyou'd beabletoreadthistinyfont. That was the line of the contract you were supposed to sign on. Please send me your signature on that line to know you agree with the rules. If failed to do so, you forfeit 7 points.The line below concludes my arguments and seperates my argument from yours. Sorry if it's not done well, I'm not good at drawing elaborate lines. It's not like I'm an artist! Iliedaboutyoulosing7pointsifyoudon’tsignyournameonthe”line”. Oh,andIaminfactanartistwhocandrawelaborateliens.Trololololo!
Rural people should be banned from using the London Underground during peak hours

The statistics in my original first argument applied within the idea that the same restriction in London would be put in place for all major urban areas in the UK. My opponent argued his points as if they would only apply in London which is the idea I now assume. "Therefore, the only people my proposal will affect are wealthy farmers and country landowners." [This is an false statement. If this hypothetical restriction was made a law Then everyone who doesn't commute in London or live in the area surrounding it would be unable to use the subway system. This includes everyone in the UK that lives outside of the London area. Approximately 7,500,000 people lived in London in 2005 [1], I'll add 1,000,000 to that to include those that live in the areas outside of London. This number about 0.14% of the population of the UK given in source [1] of my above argument. While the restriction's intent was to only apply to wealthy farmers and landowners it actually removes the rights of over 99% of the total population.] "My opponent suggests that hardworking Londoners should get up early and leave late to avoid the troublesome toffs on the Tube and I suppose that is a possibility for me personally as I only live four stops from my office and now that the pubs are allowed to open 24 hours I will be able to go for a few drinks before work as well as at lunchtime and after work as I already do. However, I have a presentiment that this practice may be as damaging to one's career prospects as arriving late and leaving early every day, which was the other suggested alternative." [In my argument I only suggested that you get up earlier so that you won't be late for work, I did not suggest that you arrive late to work, leave early, or drink. I do agree that drinking before work, at lunch, and after work would harm your career. This statement has nothing to do with our debate as not everyone would partake in the activities mentioned by my opponent.] "Now, to address my opponent's argument that Tube revenues would be decreased. I would deny this on the simple premise that our country cousins would still use the Underground, only during off-peak periods that's all." [Stating that a certain group that uses the train can not use it at a specific time any more would absolutely decrease the revenue generated by said train. Saying someone can't use the train at a specific time does not mean that they will use it at a later one. My point stands.] "democracy the rights of the majority must prevail over the rights of the minority" [I don't actually agree with this statement, but for this debate I will accept my opponent's definition of the purpose of democracy. This comes into play in the last sentence of my first rebuttal. This restriction would be putting the rights of the few above the rights of the many.] [1] http://www.londononline.co.uk...
Rural people should be banned from using the London Underground during peak hours

I would like to extend my thanks to Korashk for accepting this challenge and for relying in such an intelligent and well-informed manner. First of all, I realise it might appear to some readers that I am tarring all country folk with the same brush and that the only people living in rural districts are subsidy-rich farmers, inbred aristocrats and their half-witted, forelock-tugging farm workers but this really is the case if you strip out all the people who live in the countryside but commute to the cities to work, and since this latter group of people will not be affected by my proposal, for the purposes of this debate they can be ignored. You see, in the rural areas surrounding London, the average income is ï¿½62,869 ($103,821) p.a. and the average house costs ï¿½285,143 or 4.5 times the average annual salary. (1) However, the average farm worker only earns ï¿½15,602 ($25,765) p.a. (2) so the average home costs 18.3 times their average salaries. In other words, almost all of a farm worker's salary will be spent renting some rat-infested hovel so he will never be able to afford to take his family Christmas shopping in London, especially considering it costs ï¿½4.00 ($6.60) per adult - or about what a farm worker earns after tax in an hour - just to travel one stop on the Tube. (3) Therefore, the only people my proposal will affect are wealthy farmers and country landowners. My opponent suggests that hardworking Londoners should get up early and leave late to avoid the troublesome toffs on the Tube and I suppose that is a possibility for me personally as I only live four stops from my office and now that the pubs are allowed to open 24 hours I will be able to go for a few drinks before work as well as at lunchtime and after work as I already do. However, I have a presentiment that this practice may be as damaging to one's career prospects as arriving late and leaving early every day, which was the other suggested alternative. Finally, I accept that the Marine and Coastal Access Bill is about (quite rightly) increasing public access and that the CLA have the right to protest about that but my point is that the farming and country land-owning fraternity are notoriously resentful of outside visitors so we shouldn't feel bad about treating them the same way they treat city-dwellers. Now, to address my opponent's argument that Tube revenues would be decreased. I would deny this on the simple premise that our country cousins would still use the Underground, only during off-peak periods that's all. In conclusion, in a democracy the rights of the majority must prevail over the rights of the minority and in this case the right of commuters to get to and from work without undue hindrance must prevail of the right of filthy rich farmers and braying countryside toffs to make nuicances of themselves on the Tube during rush hour. Thank you. (1) http://www.parliament.uk... (2) http://www.thisismoney.co.uk... (3) http://www.tfl.gov.uk...