BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"Love" is a State of Mind

I've been thinking about this and if I were able to persuade someone with my reasoning, at least one person, I'd be satisfied. Reason why I believe Love to be a state of mind rather than an emotion is because emotions vary so much on one's surroundings and are too easily felt. If Love were an emotion, like happiness, we'd be walking around falling in love with people left and right. But seeing as how one unconsciously chooses with whom they fall in love with (example; how a girl would develope a crush on a handsome guy rather than an unattractive one or "likes" their same gender), it must be a state of mind. Say you meet someone. You spend time with them, get to know them, and you slowly realize that you enjoy being around this person. In your mind, you think that you like this person, and that's when the feelings for them kick in. Until after you begin thinking of their compatibilty with yourself will you begin feeling things like empathy, caring, happiness, aka love for said person. You could also meet someone and only know them for a brief amount of time. They could make you laugh and stuff, but you don't fall in Love with them just because they temporarily make you happy. What also supported this theory of mine is how people have different opinions of what Love is, just like how everyone doesn't share the same thoughts. Simple things like emotions, happiness and anger, etc. , can be described in about the same way by everyone. Love is too complex to be watered down to an emotion.
"Love" is a State of Mind

Love is constantly being referred to as an emotion. I find this to be incorrect. Love is a state of mind that involves emotions, but is not an emotion in itself. I will go into depth of my theory once the debate gets rolling. Not to sound picky, but I'd much rather hold this debate with an open-minded individual. So if you are going to approach this debate with, "You're stupid for thinking that because blah blah blah...you idiot," don't hold your breath expecting me to tolerate or respond to that, because chances are I won't. I'm not joking about my above statement. BTW, I chose the category for this debate to be "Education" because I didn't know what else to select it as and because I think that both sides can learn something from this.
"Love" is a State of Mind

And thank you for such a wonderful Argument! Yes it does seem that you must find some one you love and also that love seems to 'grow' in a relationship. And yes it is easy to feel that Love is evaluated by ones mind. but I am here to explain why love is an emotion, let's look at the opposite of love, loathe a perfect opposite of everything love is do you not know things you dislike thus avoid them, also you run to things you do like the thing you like you love the dislikes become loathe. I believe I mentioned before that Love is a State Emotion an emotion that depends on one's state. I used to love my brother Kuzan more than any one else. then he killed himself. do I resent him though I resent suicide? nay my love did decrease but emotions cannot be broken. the mind can. how can Love be a state of mind when the mind can so easily be broken and love cannot? on note I speak of True Love not Lusts or Flames or Crushes pure LOVE in every emotional aspect of the word. thx;P
We should have absolute freedom of speech

First, I must clarify the fire example. I have heard that story many times in the past so I wrongly assumed you had some context as to what I meant by it. However, I realize it is not a universal metaphor. Usually, when the story is told, its intended to demonstrate that a person cannot yell "fire" when there is no fire. The idea is that you cannot use speech with the primary intention of creating unnecessary panic (e.g. yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater). You can and should be prosecuted for this because your words can cause physical harm to the people around you. Freedom of speech should be guaranteed and protected, but adding absoluteness to that idea can lead to disastrous situations. Under absolute freedom of speech, I would be legally protected to make death threats to a person or threaten to kill someone they love. Technically speaking, I have only exercised freedom of speech and haven't committed any physical harm. The police would be unable to arrest that person until they literally attempted to cause physical harm. To take it one step further, I could state "Rob that Bank of America or I will kill your child." If they actually commit the crime, they would be entirely accountable for their actions. I would walk away with no legal ramifications. Our court system would be completely compromised under absolute freedom of speech. Currently, it is against the law to lie under oath. However, under the government you're proposing, forcing a person to tell "the whole truth and nothing but the truth" is compromising their right to free speech. We'd switch from a legal system that criminalizes lying under oath to the honor system, where we politely request them to tell the truth. The Supreme Court of the United States has determined in multiple court cases that the Freedom of Speech clause is not and should not be considered absolute. Therefore, laws which contradict absolute freedom of speech do not violate the US constitution. Many things should be and currently are protected as free speech. People have a right to express political and personal opinions, no matter how unpopular they may be. Expressing oneself through words, speech, or behavior is also protected, assuming it doesn't physically harm someone in the process. Treasonous words or actions, inciting imminent lawless action (yelling fire when there is no fire), obscenities, defamation, and threats should be clearly defined and illegal in certain cases. If you believe any of the negative uses of free speech listed above should be made illegal (treason included), then it would be difficult for you to argue that you believe in ABSOLUTE free speech.
We should have absolute freedom of speech

Before I begin, I will state that I highly reprimand illegalities such child pornography and treason. As with imminent lawless action (I.e. yelling "fire" in a public domain, if there was a fire, wouldn't sounding the alarms be a more promising way of approaching the situation. In addition, the majority of people would know not to panic in the incidence of a fire. Furthermore, if people were to be killed in a public stampede, then the individual who screamed fire should be charged with murder or manslaughter. The same legal ramifications should ensue in the incidence of someone yelling "robbery" in a bank. Where is the line drawing if someone discusses child pornography? This debate partially entails the discussion of child pornography. We aren't advocating it, we aren't suborning it, we are merely discussing it as an illegality. As for treasonous negotiations and the possible aiding and abetting of criminals from non-allied nations. People like this should be charged with treason and not with violation of free speech laws. If any constitution states rights that are written in black and white, then isn't abridging these rights with newly introduced laws unconstitutional, and therefore the first amendment is no longer a right? Please do not get me wrong, treason, child pornography and other previously mentioned illegalities are indubitably reprehensible. Furthermore, I actually live in Australia and as such the constitution does not explicitly state that my nation has free speech, however, the high court and nit the supreme court has implied that we do and as such it is a privilege and not a right. Likewise, the high court and not the supreme court has compromised the first amendment with the introduction of new laws.
We should have absolute freedom of speech

While the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, the Supreme Court is the final interpreter of that document and their power to interpret the constitution cannot be contested. Over the years, the Supreme Court has limited the absoluteness of the first amendment and I would argue that it is for the best. Speech, which is not just limited to spoken words, can be very harmful to people in a society. The classic example is screaming "fire" in a crowded place, which incites panic and can ultimately lead to injury or death. Additionally, walking into a bank and falsely claiming you have a gun would be protected under absolute freedom of speech. Both these actions, while only words, have potentially dangerous consequences, and should therefore be restricted by law. On a larger scale, divulging secrets (such as designs for nuclear weapons) to foreign enemies of the State are treasonous. These actions are not and should not be protected by the first amendment. Another example, which is not actual speech but still pertain to the freedom of speech clause, is the distribution of child pornography. Claiming that we should have absolute freedom of speech due to the first amendment would mean selling, distributing, or putting child porn online would be a constitutional right of all Americans. You could prosecute those who made the porn, but not those who distribute it. Freedom of speech is broader and more protected in the United States than it is in most other nations. However, it is not absolute, nor should it be.
We should have absolute freedom of speech

For this debate, I will be arguing that we should entirely have freedom of speech. To further explain, should be protected by the first amendment, however, the high court has introduced an array of laws that abridge freedom of speech, such include imminent lawless action and many other laws (all of which in my opinion are reasonable laws to be introduced). Although, in doing this, is freedom of speech still a right or a privilege? Since the US constitution states rights, is introducing laws unconstitutional that compromise the first amendment unconstitutional? In commonwealth countries such as Australia, Canada, and Britain, their constitutions do not explicitly state that they have freedom of speech, however, the high court has implied they do but only as a privilege. Furthermore, are laws introduced abridging freedom of speech (which the US constitution clearly states not to do) unconstitutional? As such, I believe that we should have absolute freedom of speech.
Libertarianism is better than Utilitarianism

I was not planning on bringing up specific cases as both sides have equally strong arguments from the standpoint that both can put forward a case seems to disprove the opposite philosophy, having said that let me put forward a common case. In a hospital 4 patients come in, all with different organs failing and all need transplants. Meanwhile the guy in the room next door came in for a check up, with all healthy organs. The doctor realizes by taking 4 organs from the healthy man he could save the 4 patients in need of transplant. Is the sacrifice of one justified in saving the 4 others? ( http://www.justiceharvard.org... ) The argument I mean to make is not that utilitarianism has no merit and that libertarianism is far superior, but to try to prove it makes a better governing philosophy of human beings, that is that man is entitled to himself, his work and his time. By the same token man is responsible for these things and no one should be in more control of them than himself. This line of reasoning is present when talking about the redistribution of wealth. That is to take from those who have and give to those that have not. In nearly all cases of someone attaining massive wealth, its justified. Mark Zuckerberg and Lebron James make up that top 1% of Americans whose fortunes I believe are justified. As in any free market, the money they make is no more than the money we as consumers are willing to pay for that service. If anyone is to blame its the people on Facebook buying Nike's. They're wealth was come by in a justified fashion. Allowing people to keep what they earn encourages self reliance and hard work. Libertarianism does not oppose self sacrifice or charity, it opposes the theft of rightful ownership for the benefit of many. However as soon as people become reliant on anyone other than themselves (the government) they become less motivated to work hard or make their own lives.
20 Questions

1. Should DDO's 100,000th debate be that next DDOolympic? 2. H'wai m I spelinginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginging Effrythinginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginginging R"ng? 3. If this debate is stupid, why did you accept it? 4. How should votes be cast?
Beings do not have the ability to change their futures.

"No, because what I'm doing now is snapping cosmically in place - this, right here, is my destiny." You were going to do whatever it is that you're doing from the beginning. "if you haven't noticed already there's already 8,000,000,000 people proving your theory wrong by being absolutely worthless, lazy scum." They were going to be that way from the beginning. The reasons, for them being the way that they are, are many. They may change, or they may stay the same. Whatever the result may be, it was always going to happen the way it happens.
Beings do not have the ability to change their futures.

"I can tell you right now that I can make one move and let it all fall apart at any time I want to" "I have a body that can do what it can; and I certainly can **** up my entire ****ing life." Yes, one could do such a thing, however, if they did, that means that they were always going to do so, as whatever provoked them to do so would always have provoked them at that moment. "My future is not being guarded by a cosmic creatures beyond my stature" It probably isn't being decided by such beings. However, were those beings to exist, they too would be subject to a future set in stone. If one analyzes their actions and the causes of those actions, and they keep analyzing until they can no more, they will find that they would make no other decision given the circumstance. Being that the circumstance would have always happened at that time that it did, they always would have made that decision at that time.
Beings do not have the ability to change their futures.

As someone who has the whole Universe figured out, I can tell you right now that I can make one move and let it all fall apart at any time I want to - why? My future is not being guarded by a cosmic creatures beyond my stature; snarling, with its breath of space and time weaving in and out of my presence, causing me to feel the interplay of existence and non-existence. Instead, I have a body that can do what it can; and I certainly can **** up my entire ****ing life.
Beings do not have the ability to change their futures.

From the beginning, far before its existence, a being's destiny is set in stone. They do not decide their fate, nor do they change it, as they are only capable of making the decisions they consider optimal. Even if they rely on other participants in their choices, such as a coin, the result will still have been set in stone. The outcome of the coin toss is decided by many conditions, but the specific conditions that were there when the coin was tossed will produce a set outcome. Their reasoning for choosing to use the coin and whether or not to follow its result is likely still from them deciding what the most optimal choice is. You can say that this is akin to a movie (a non-interactive movie mind you); no matter how many times you watch it, the ending will stay the same. So, beings do not have the ability to change their futures.
Minimum Wage

I am arguing against the Minimum Wage. Opponent, Pro, will argue for Minimum Wage.RD1: Con sets Terms and Conditions. Pro Makes Argument for Minimum Wage.RD2: Con Responds/Makes Arguments. Pro does the Same.RD3: Ditto RD2.RD4: Ditto RD3 (except Pro can only respond to Con, no brand new arguments.).Arguments can be Moral, Utilitarian, Economical, or, hopefully, all of the above...
Minimum Wage

This conclusion shall be short, because there is only one point my opponent is pushing.Does the State Have a Duty to Reduce Poverty Through the Minimum Wage? -- Yes, the manifesto states so.Through the Minimum Wage? -- Manifestos do not state their intention, but this is an incredibly easy way to doing so. This is true, if it raises employment. The Minimum Wage Increases Unemployment -- No, it doesn't. Two studies I have posted, which I will repost[1][2], state that it makes little difference, and this[3] citation states that it actually increases employment, and says why. I shall post the major 6 points of the article to end:Reasons Why Higher Minimum Wage has Led to Increased Employment1. Strong Economic Growth. In period of economic growth, firms employ more workers as there is more demand to produce goods. Economic growth in the UK has averaged 2.5% since 19992. Monoposony Power. Classical theory assumes labour markets are competitive, but, in practice workers often face employers with buying power. This means firms are able to pay workers less than the market wage. Therefore, when a government artificially raises wages, firms can actually afford to pay them. It is argued minimum wage legislation is similar to anti trust regulation. [see: Monopsony and Minimum wages]3. Increased Productivity. A study by David Metcalf [3] found that firms responded to increased wages by increasing the productivity of workers, especially in the service sector. This is important because it suggests that higher wages can actually help increase productivity in the economy.4. Lower hours. Rather than make workers redundant, firms have reduced the average hours worked. This is related to part 3, firms try to get higher productivity in a shorter time, so they can afford the minimum wage.5. Pass on Cost increases. Because the minimum wage affects all firms, it is easier for the cost increases to be passed onto consumers. e.g. because all cleaning firms have higher wage costs, they can all increase their prices. If the wage increase just affected one firm, they would become uncompetitive. (note: the rise in prices has not led to significant inflation in the UK)6. Avoidance of Minimum Wage. It is uncertain to ascertain the extent of this problem, but some firms have circumvented the minimum wage legislation by employing immigrant labour and paying them lower wages. It also makes it more attractive to employ young workers.Thank you for reading, and vote for the side who has debated the best.http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk...;http://www2.warwick.ac.uk...;http://econ.economicshelp.org...;
The Battle of Greek mythology

Since my opponent has yet to post opening arguments, there is nothing for me to refute. However in the spirit of debate I will go forward. Since the category of this debate is philosophy and my opponent has yet to offer any definitions pertaining to philosophy I will now do so. I am confused why my opponent wasted his time making irrelevant and inaccurate comments about Zeus. Zues and Zeus are very different things as I will now address. Zues: The concept of rage dominating one's actions. For example murder is considered to be more offensive if it is committed premeditatively, where as committing a zues murder is considered to by less offensive.Hates (plural): intense or passionate dislike Since zues requires having hate for at least an instant, it is illogical to assume zues can overcome hate. This is analogous to saying a gun can defeat a bullet. It is easy to see that this is erroneous logic because the gun requires the bullet to do anything. I await my opponent's response.
The Battle of Greek mythology

Okay many know the great battle for power that the three main powers of Greek mythology are between the three brothers that include Zues, Poseidon, and Hates. In this arguement I will be for Zues. My arguement is that Zues Has already defeated his brother Hates on multiple occasions. After dueling with his brother to be the ruler of Olympus it has always ended with Zues being victorious and remaining the ruler of Olympus. Debate is open for comment or speculation from any angle of the Greek mythology world.
Rap Battle Again

You talk about my girlfriend like you bought her from a store, but the only girl I've seen you with was a $1 whore Her face looks like it got blown up by a bomb, Wait, sorry, I didn't notice that it was just your mom See, your mom likes math, even though she's a slut. I can't do the math for how many she took in the butt See, I hope this rap feels like a stinger, Because i'm pretty good at using my middle finger.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.

"Your common sense is your natural ability to make good judgments and to behave in a practical and sensible way. " Google dictionary (1) Prejudice-Having an opinion on some one or something before seeing it. Working with my definitions, which other than minor semantic corrections are to be used throughout the debate. Looking at the definition of common sense you should notice that all of the terms involved are relative. Natural ability does not have to mean genetically coded into your brain and in the context means an innate sense. Good judgments is entirely relative to the opinion of others in your environment. In other words good judgment means doing what your friends and family' or whomever you are with, feels is good. You would innately do this because you have a pre-disposition to doing these things because you grew up with it around you. For example in my family, selling drugs would be considered bad judgement, and it is common sense to me that this is a bad idea. Other groups however view this as good judgement, and common sense to them says it is a good idea. It goes against common sense to me because I have a prejudice against drug dealing and dealers. The other groups however have a prejudice for drug dealing and drug dealers. A similar logic can be applied to practical and sensible In the above arguments I have demonstrated how common sense sense is a collection of prejudice. It is the burden of con to offer another concept of common sense that holds up to my definition. (if you think this is unfair don't take the debate, but don't use parameter bias as an argument) The only part of the quote I have not shown is "by age 18" 18 is an arbitrary cut off accepted by modern society to be more or less adulthood, so the quote is saying prejudices acquired during childhood. I recognize that common sense does continue to change slowly during adulthood as new prejudices are introduced, but most deep prejudices that contribute to common sense form as a child. 1) www. google. com/dictionary? aq=f&langpair=en|en&hl=en&q=common%20sense
The "Big Bang" is possible on a Christian standpoint.

In the bible in genesis the creation took seven days. According to the big bang theorem, creation took 13.8 billion years. According to the big bang theory, the photons came first (light) then stars and planet formation while in the bible, the heavens and earth came first, then light, then the sun, then the stars. The bible does not say that in the beginning, god created an explosion but rather the heavens and earth. Niv bible Wikipedia
The "Big Bang" is possible on a Christian standpoint.

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the EARTH" -Genesis 1:1 My stand point on the Big Bang is as so, God caused a big bang to create the universe. This "Big Bang" created stars and planets. God found an empty place in the universe and created a new planet, Earth, as well as a new star, the sun. He placed these 2 near a set of planets that were orbiting a bigger star (these planets being mars, venus, etc.) and he started creating the land and heavens and etc. He doesn't say anything about creating the universe, or galaxy, just the Earth.