BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Love is nothing more than a chemical reaction in the brain

My opponent says that "people dream of 'falling in love', but in actuality love is just a chemical reaction." I agree with this. Love, however, is not just a chemical reaction. Love is something deeper, something truer, something more meaningful. St. Augustine said: "Love is a temporary madness. It erupts like an earthquake and then subsides. And when it subsides you have to make a decision. You have to work out whether your roots have become so entwined together that it is inconceivable that you should ever part. Because this is what love is. Love is not breathlessness, it is not excitement, it is not the promulgation of promises of eternal passion. That is just being 'in love' which any of us can convince ourselves we are. Love itself is what is left over when being in love has burned away, and this is both an art and a fortunate accident." What he means is that what my opponent is talking about, a chemical reaction which only lasts for so long, is being "in love". However this is totally different from loving a person. Anyone can convince themselves that they are "in love". Loving, truly loving someone, is not butterflies and pure happiness: it's something deeper. That means that there may be negative or not-as-happy feeling involved as well, but that's what makes it all the more real and all the more true. Loving someone means that you have given them the tools to hurt you, you've let them see your heart, in essentials. And because of this, yes, they may, as my opponent says "know everything about you" but they love everything about you, and they don't want you to change. However, as human beings we are always changing, which is why my opponent's point about being bored is irrelevant. If you truly love your partner, then you can't get bored, because they are constantly changing, and you have to keep up with them just like they have to keep up with you. For all these reasons, I urge you to vote Negative. Thank you.
Love is nothing more than a chemical reaction in the brain

People dream of "falling in love" their whole life, but in actuality love is just a chemical reaction that takes place when two people are attracted to each other. When you first start dating, you have sex every day, feel like nothing else matters, and feel happy all the time. As your relationship goes on, the love feelings start to fade and you start to feel bored. There is no longer a challenge. You feel like you know everything about your partner.
Guns laws should remain how they are now, And firearms should never be banned

You propose two different propositions. 1) Gun Laws should remain how they are now. 2) Firearms should never be banned. I concede the second argument and agree wholeheartedly as I am pro-gun as well. The first argument I disagree entirely. I believe the second amendment needs to be followed as written which is as follows: "A well regulated Militia, Being necessary to the security of a free State, The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, Shall not be infringed. " The militia is of course the citizens of the United States. This is well supported by many founding fathers: "The Militia is composed of free Citizens. " - Samuel Adams[1] "A well-regulated Militia, Composed of the Gentlemen, Freeholders, And other Freemen was necessary to protect our ancient laws and liberty from the standing army. " - George Mason[1] "Here, Every private person is authorized to arm himself. " - John Adams[1] As these founding fathers helped in writing the document, It's safe to say this is the intent of the second amendment. I contend that the second amendment as applied today, Does not align with these interpretations. Here are just two egregious offenders: New Jersey - New Jersey states that it is unlawful to knowingly possess any handgun, Including any antique handgun, Without first having obtained a Permit to Carry, And it is unlawful to knowingly possess any rifle or shotgun without having first obtained a Firearms Purchaser Identification Card (FID). [2] DC - District of Columbia takes gun laws seriously. In addition to the same restrictions as California, The District enforces stringent regulations on ammunition purchases, Registrations of firearms, And the transportation of guns. If a weapon isn't specifically registered, Ammunition simply cannot be purchased. [2] Ammunition simply not being able to be purchased. Being forced to be granted the opportunity *by the government* to even purchase a firearm. This is becoming more and more common among states as well[3]. These infringements are state led. Federal infringements exist as well. 1. Automatic Weapons Ban[4] 2. Prohibiting the interstate trade of handguns[4] 3. Prohibiting firearms from even being around school zones[4] 4. The temporary banning of semi automatic weapons[4] None of these infringements align with the quotes of the founding fathers above. Nor with the second amendment. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". All State and Federal gun law restrictions need to be removed and the second amendment become respected once again. Thank you for reading, Sources below. Sources: 1) . http://www. Madisonbrigade. Com/library_bor. Htm#LAPIERRE 2). https://www. Deseretnews. Com/top/1428/0/10-states-with-the-strictest-gun-laws. Html 3). https://www. Washingtonpost. Com/graphics/2017/national/assault-weapons-laws/? Noredirect=on&utm_term=. F70d51f37629 4) . https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States
Get baseball out of my courts

My opponent's first argument was < > First off I never said I wanted to take baseball away I just want it out of court. Secondly this system hasn't always worked the system has had countless overhauls sense the days of slavery this would just be another one of those overhauls. My opponent's second argument was that this is the governments business. I can tell you that's wrong the MLB shows none of the required traits needed to intervene there are no unfair BUSINESS practices going on there may be other unfair practices going on but none of them are directly related to business related and it definitely doesn't have a monopoly on baseball and may I remind you that these cases were asked for the gov't didn't intervene own there own they were asked. Steroid usage is against the rules of the game nothing for the gov't to settle private this is something the league can deal with on their own with private investigations and if there guilty suspend or fire them. "Although I agree with what you say, this is actually in support of my side." This is completely wrong because you took that quote out of context steroids in court is what's out of hand. Now about the six billion did you happen to get that the U.S gov't only gets a part of that? And just about every fast food chain and every grocery chain makes more of that and the disappearance of baseball would have little effect on the economy even though that's not what this debate is about. Also at least from what I've seen in my own community and what I've seen on the news this hasn't stopped anyone from going to the games and that includes the doubters fans may be disappointed but that doesn't stop them from loving the game. And as for the last part I'm ignoring that as either the mistake of a beginner or the theory of a crazy crack pot I mean I'm open to anything but the end of the world due to the lack of baseball come on!! Oh and the gov't seems to disagree with you because as of Friday no more cases of this kind will be excepted so says the supreme court so it is written so it shall be. Ha!! (Also if I were you I wouldn't use Wikipedia it's not really accurate good luck in the polls)
Marriage does not show love.

marriage 1. a. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.b. a similar institution involving partners of the samegender: gay marriage.2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married;wedlock: a happy marriage. 3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision oftwo people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage.5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage ofwords and music in a hit song [1] love1. a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.2. feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.3. sexual passion or desire.4. a person toward whom love is felt; beloved person; sweetheart.5. (used in direct address as a term of endearment, affection,or the like): Would you like to see a movie, love?[2] I think just by evaluating the two definitions above we can see that my opponent’s contention, that marriage does not show love, is false. Certainly love is not a requirement of being married, and you can indeed be married to someone you don’t love; in many cases, marriage does symbolize the union, or love between one another. The definition of marriage states above, the decision to live as husband and wife; pledged themselves to each other. Then love as defined states: a profoundly tender, passionate affection. In effect a significant fondness, care or regard for someone. All of these things should certainly be expected when marrying another person. To marry someone for whom you have no regard, no fondness, or caring, or love, is contrary to the purpose of marriage. Certainly bachelor and bachelorette parties are as unique as the people who plan them. Though I don’t think either is mandatorily inclusive of any infidelity. As bachelorette parties and infidelity are not mutually inclusive, I hardly think this argument can be used in support of my opponents claim. Further, as love and marriage are not mutually exclusive, and according to my opponent’s statistics, a majority of people who get married stay married - 59%, according to my opponent. I would contend that more often than not, marriage does show love. My opponent may have been correct had she stated marriage does not always show love, but I believe, as stated above, it does more oftan than not. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Marriage does not show love.

Thank you for accepting my challenge. May the best of both win. Let me refine 'Mariage' 1.'The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.' I will now explain why marriage does not truly show love. The average divorce rate of people in america is approximately 41%. 5.1% of people 35 - 39 years old in america have gotten a divorce. But 36.6% of people 20-24 get a divorce. That is my main issue. When a woman is involved in a relationship (especially when shes in her 20's or 30's), she just has so much pressure on getting married. If your sure that you are going to be with your partner forever, why do you need to get married like in this specific time? Cant you just wait until your like in your 40's or 50's? Especially underage girls such as 17,18, etc. It would be cute getting married when your around your 50's or 60's. Personally, i have alot of respect for people who are together for about 10 years. And have still not tied the knot. To me, its important to have a commitment. You dont need a ring, you dont need a dress or any of that, and you certainly can have a commitment without all of that. Many girls have no idea about love because its not about flowers, your hair AND your makeup. Its about the person you love that your going to have a commitment with. Especially people who dont have jobs, and are throwing this big wedding. You are going to end up in debt. Why cant you wait a few years to at least afford it? I also have a problem with PARENTS paying for your wedding. If its my choice, and who i get to marry, its all on me and the person i love. No one else! Plus marriage is just another way to blackmail and lawyers getting even MORE money. There is a tradition of having a bachelor/ette party before you get married. Im talking about the parties where you are allowed to cheat on your partner. You've been engaged for 2 years, been with that﻿ person for 5 and two days before the wedding you're gonna cheat on them? Whats the point? 'Your last day of freedom'. Its not! Your last day of freedom was 5 years ago for christ sakes... Sources: 1.http://www.divorcerate.org... 2.http://www.divorcerate.org... 3.http://en.wikipedia.org...
Falkland Islanders have the right to Self-determination

Well my opponent has forfeited his previous 2 rounds so all I can do now is sum up what I had argued that he did not rebut. I have shown that under International Law All Peoples have the right to Self-determination and verified with evidence that the Falkland Islanders constitute a people for being listed by the UN as what is known as a "Non-Self-Governing Territory". I have verified with evidence that Self-determination is a universal right for all peoples as the ICJ declared the right of people's to self-determination today as a right of "erga omnes". Which is a Latin phrase, which literally means "towards all" and is also used in legal terminology. I have verified with evidence (that under international law) if the right of erga omnes is breached by Argentina, perhaps by invading the Falklands, then all UN States can take action. And since self-determination was made a right of "erga omnes" in 1995, then Argentina would more likely be hit by sanctions than in 1982. With the state that Argentina is in, it could not afford having sanctions put on it by the UN or EU. Especially since Argentina is not really comparable to countries like the USA to get away with not having sanctions put on it. Overall the Falkland Islanders right to Self-determination is very firm under international law and they certainly have that right. I think it would be very unfair for my opponent to come back in his final round with any new rebuttals after forfeiting his previous 2 rounds.
Falkland Islanders have the right to Self-determination

As I already explained I am here to debate that the Falkland Islands have the legal right of Self-determination. Both Argentina and the United Kingdom are Member States of the United Nations and therefore are also part of the UN General Assembly that should both comply with International Law. [1][2]Under International Law, the Falkland Islanders have a legal right to self-determination and do not wish to become part of Argentina. Contention 1: All Peoples have the right to Self-determinationIn accordance with UN General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) the first and second declarations affirm that:"1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation". [3]"2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development". [3]Argentina's desire to obtain the Falkland Islands against the will of the people who live there would be subjecting them to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation as verified by the first declaration. The international legal principle of self-determination (that applies to all peoples, whether they may be Argentine, British or Falkland Islander) says that it is for the Falkland Islanders to decide their own status verified by the second declaration. Additionally also by Article 1.2 of the UN Charter. [4]Contention 2: Interests of Non-Self-Governing TerritoriesThe Falkland islands are one of several territories listed by the UN as what are known as Non-Self-Governing Territories. [5]Article 73 of the UN Charter, which involves the declaration regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories, states that:"Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end:" [6]Please particularly notice the phrase that says: "the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount". This means that the interests of these territories are above anything else (and above the desires of Argentina). The interests of the islanders cannot be paramount and not have the right to choose their own destiny at the same time. The islanders being able to decide their own political status is Self-determination. [7]I end my current round here and and await my opponent's response. Sources: [1] . http://www.un.org...[2] . http://www.un.org...[3] . http://www.un.org...[4] . http://www.un.org...[5] . http://www.un.org...[6] . http://www.un.org...[7] . http://www.unpo.org...
Falkland Islanders have the right to Self-determination

The sovereignty over the Falkland Islands has been long disputed between Argentina and the United Kingdom. The people of the Falkland Islands (the Falkland Islanders) have long chosen to remain a British Overseas Territory and in this debate I will argue and provide evidence that the people of the Falkland Islands have the legal right of Self-determination against Argentina's desire to rule over them. In this debate my opponent is to argue and provide evidence that the Falkland Islanders do not have the the legal right of Self-determination. To whoever accepts this debate please know that round 1 is just for introductions and we will start debating in round 2. Thank you to whoever accepts and I look forward to this debate.
Hillary Clinton is a better candidate than Barack Obama.

By Hillary saying that she believes abortion is the people's choice, essentially she's isolating christians. On the separation of church and state issue, they appeal to different groups. That doesn't make one better than the other, it simply means one is different than the other. I'm going to allow you to write an opening argument (past the statement you've just made) So - please show me how Hillary is a BETTER CANDIDATE than Barack Obama. Please provide some framework for better. Thanks ~HQ
Hillary Clinton is a better candidate than Barack Obama.

I want to ask you a question. Why aren't atheists and agnostics more upset about Barack Obama saying that we might want to rethink the separation of church and state during the CNN "Compassion Forum"? During that same forum Hillary Clinton had said that she believes matters such as abortion should be decided by the individual and not the government, which shows her long standing view that the separation of church and state is important. I feel that Hillary Clinton respects atheist and agnostic rights, while Barack Obama considers them a low priority.
love and hate

Hello, thanks for the response. First, I have a question: If being yourself is positive for yourself and others And if you were naturally a negative person Would being negative be positive for yourself and others? Your updated argument is as follows: Primarily getting positive energy from oneself is love for oneself and others Primarily getting positive energy from other things is hate for oneself and for others Therefore, depending on where you get it, positive energy can be both love and hate. This is still a fallacy like the first for the same reasons.
Hockey is more athletic than swimming.

I don't see the reasoning for the existence of your first paragraph. I don't disagree that swimming is a tough workout. The same goes for your second paragraph. The fact that people with certain disabilities can swim has nothing to do with the amount of athleticism the sport takes. As for your third paragraph, of course a player must learn to swim. That's all the swimmer must learn to do. If a swimmer can't control a stroke to the point where he wont crash into other players, then I don't think that the swimmer has learned to swim at all. So the swimmer must learn one skill, in comparison to the many skills of a hockey player. As strength: A swimmer of course uses strength, as I'm sure almost every sport uses strength of some sport. As Agility: Agility is the power of moving quickly and easily; nimbleness. I don't know about you, but I've never seen a hockey player that was clumsy, slow, or overweight. I have, however, seen swimmers that aren't quick, or nimble. As endurance: A sprint wouldn't be considered "a night at the pool". Consider a 100 yard event at a swim meet. A 100 yard would range from 50 seconds to a minute and 20 seconds depending on the stroke. So even if you are using a lot of your body, your doing so for less than two minutes. I'd disagree that two minutes takes as much stamina as three periods of hockey. When using the these things as the criteria for athleticism, my argument concludes as the following: Skills: Hockey takes multiple skills, and swimming takes one. Strength: Both sports use strength, arguing which uses more strength is purely opinion and is useless. Agility: Swimmers are using constant strokes, they are paced. They know what is coming, it takes one stroke after the other. Hockey players have to dodge opposing players, and the puck. They dodge in many different ways, to protect themselves, and to help their team. They don't have the gift of knowing what they have to do next, like how a swimmer knows that their next action is to bring their arm around for another stroke. A hockey player must react quickly, as they might only have a few seconds. Endurance: A sprint in swimming takes little to no endurance or stamina. There are longer distance events, but a good swimmer could complete them in less time than one single period of hockey. You said "they are both a complete work out of the body", therefore, as a hockey game lasts for a much longer period of time, it is workout out of the body, entirely, for longer than swimming; thus taking more endurance.