BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is it possible to romantically love more than one person at a time

1.) It is not possible to romantically love more than one person at the same time. 2.) I agree with your first premise because I believe that is the definition of what romantic love is. 3.) Monogamous relationships involve having only one spouse or significant other at once. Most religions and cultures accept this type of relationship. 4.) Being monogamous builds a strong trust between the two parties involved in the relationship. 5.) Because more than two people are involved in a polygamous relationship, the trust is now undermined by sharing that trust with a third party. 6.) Love should have a foundation of trust and openness between two people because by adding the factor of a third party, it destabilizes the relationship by introducing feelings of jealousy, danger, and betrayal. 7.) Therefore, it is only possible for an individual to be in love with one person at a time. Non-Controversial: Premises 1, 2, 3 and 4 are not debatable. Premise 1 is just a statement I am introducing. Premise 2 is an agreement that both parties share on what the definition of romantic love is. Premise 3 is my definition of monogamy. Premise 4 is a fact based the definition of monogamy that I'm defending and cannot be refuted. Controversial: Premises 5 and 6 are considered debatable. 5.) Although the trust can be undermined, it is still possible that it won't be. 6.) Feelings of jealousy and betrayal does occur when a monogamous relationship adds a third party at any capacity, but as long as the two original partners agree to accept the third person in the relationship, those feelings should concede.
Is it possible to romantically love more than one person at a time

1. The definition of romantic love is to be understood and agreed upon by both parties. Love is defined in this case, as expressing mutual feelings of intimacy through unique connection and non-physical attraction, it is built on respect, and driven by honesty. 2. Infatuation is not the case. By definition, infatuation is an intense but short-lived passion/admiration for someone or something, which can be determined on fantasy and obsessive thought. 3. The love is not driven by lust nor does it in this case involve sexual relations, based upon what is confirmed as romantic love. 4. Connecting on a deeper level with a person and having a more emotional, mental, or spiritual attraction is defined as having a mutual perception of intimacy. Intimacy may evolve and claim dominant over the other factors of romantic love, respect and honesty. 5. There is no real restriction on how people approach love, there is no law. If one chooses to be with one partner or have multiple partners, it may be frowned upon, but at the end of the day it only concerns the person who's involved with the person who can treat love like this. 6. Developing feelings of any sort is uncontrollable, love is an expression that is uncontrollable and considered to be universal. If it is suppressed, it is not honest and true, which is unfair to both oneself and the partner. 7. Polygamy, by definition, is the practice/custom of having more than one wife or husband at the same time. It is a natural/open term which has been used in practice by many people in most societies, for many years. This form of relationship is honest and not considered to be cheating. 8. Therefore, it is possible to romantically love more than one person at once. Non-controversial: Premise 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 are non-controversial. Premise 1 is the statement claiming ground on what is agreed upon to be defined as romantic love. Premise 2 is the definition of infatuation and premise 7 is the definition of polygamy, both related to my debating side. Premise 3 a clarity, stating that lust is not a factor in this case, and sexual relations are not necessary in all romantic love relationships. Premise 5 is a fact, simply understood. Controversial: Premises 4 and 6 are considered debatable. 4. Intimacy claims dominant over the other factors (respect and honesty), having a greater effect on any relationship. It may also clarify where romantic love lies, with which partner, through how high the level of intimacy is with one partner opposing with the other(s). 6. This is based on how people may interpret this in a certain situation. Suppressing certain feelings may or may not be fair to oneself and the partner, given the situation. Controlling one"s feelings is possible to an extent, but it may not be in the beginning, and self-control needs practice.
The M 1911 colt .45 is better than -------

And like always, i refute your arguments. 1. The colt .45 has a bigger round therefore it is more powerful weapon than the G18 This argument is weak as nearly all pistol rounds size are around the same. The power of nearly all pistols are equally around the same. 2. I know an individual who has an M1911 colt .45 and he has no problem concealing or weilding it You are neglecting my point. The G18 is almost 2 times lighter then the m1911 and maybe your individual has no problem concealing it or wielding it, but that doesnt mean that the m1911 is better in term of weight. 3. I would rather have 7 more powerful bullets than 33 less powerful This is your opinion and we dont opinions here. You say that you prefer 7 strong bullets over 33 less powerful ones, but others might think diffrently. If you claim that people preferred power over capacity, then it could stand as argument. Sadly you didnt brought source with you. This argument is nullified. "Think of this if for some reason you could only use the semi-auto on a G18 and there was a more powerful colt .45 would you pick the less powerful round with more rounds in a clip or less rounds and a more powerful clip? There are also variations of the colt .45 that is more compact, but it still has the power of the .45 round." This is opinion, i wouldve taken the G18 since you like to have your opinion over the M1911. This argument is nullified. "The colt .45 is still in use on and off the battle field, its simple design and powerful round make it an effective weapon. Its weight would make it an effective gun to pistol whip with. I ask that you vote PRO because the colt .45 is simple and more powerful than a G18." Sadly, you are wrong. Yes, the M1911 is effective, but as time goes on, it became less and less effective. Eventually it has been replaced by the Beretta 92FS. Now as we all know, the Beretta 92FS is weaker in term of power (your logic anyway) but holds more rounds. Now you see what people truly prefer. Also, pistol whipping can be useful for a heavy arm, but no one could even whip someone with a pistol in a firefight. In firefight situation, we all would prefer lighter arms. I ask you to vote CON as the effectiveness of M1911 has already been outdated. The new generation of guns like Beretta 92SF, Desert Eagle and even the G18 are defeating the M1911. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
The M 1911 colt .45 is better than -------

The colt .45 is a semi-automatic pistol so I ask that my opponent only argue on semi-automatic for I feel that is an unfair advantage in this debate. The colt .45 is a bigger round therefore it is more powerful than the 9mm round. 1. The colt .45 has a bigger round therefore it is more powerful weapon than the G18 2. I know an individual who has an M1911 colt .45 and he has no problem concealing or weilding it 3. I would rather have 7 more powerful bullets than 33 less powerful Think of this if for some reason you could only use the semi-auto on a G18 and there was a more powerful colt .45 would you pick the less powerful round with more rounds in a clip or less rounds and a more powerful clip? There are also variations of the colt .45 that is more compact, but it still has the power of the .45 round. The colt .45 is still in use on and off the battle field, its simple design and powerful round make it an effective weapon. Its weight would make it an effective gun to pistol whip with.
The M 1911 colt .45 is better than -------

G18 specifications: Weight: 620 Gram (empty) length: 185 mm (7.28 in) barrel length: 114 mm (4.49 in) cartridge: 9x19 mm action: short recoil operation muzzle velocity: 375 m/s (1.230 f/s) feed system: 33-round detachable box magazine Most the effectiveness range next time, ok? The G18 is a machine pistol (fully automatic) developed at request of the Austrian Counter-terrorist unit EKO Cobra. The G18 is a selective fire variant so it can switch from Fully automatic to semi-automatic. Because of it being fully automatic machine pistol, it is unavaible for civilians. My arguments: 1. The G18 holds 33 rounds and is fully automatic, making it a deadly and lethal weapon, even more powerful then the M1911. The M1911 only holds 7 rounds. 2. As the G18 is lighter and smaller, its easier to carry and to wield. Your arguments xD Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...
The M 1911 colt .45 is better than -------

M1911 colt .45 specifications weight:2.44 lb (1,105 g) empty length:8.25 in (210 mm) barrel length:5.03 in (127 mm) cartridge:.45 action:Short recoil operation Muzzle velocity:830 ft/s feed system:7-round standard detachable box magazine The colt .45 was the main pistol from 1911 to 1985 and then was later replaced by the lighter and less powerful Italian Breta. The colt .45 is still seeing service on non-standard uses on todays modern battle field. I will argue my points after my opponent post his argument
The Air Force should be disbanded.

I think that the United States Air Force is unnecessary. In the post 9/11 days counterterrorism missions are more effectively done on ground then on air. Sure you have piolts that can take down buildings and such as that, but that kind of operation would be better handled by the NAVY or ARMY. The Marine Corps has more planes in it's air wing than the whole U.S. Air Force, the NAVY has more planes, and so does the ARMY. Should'nt it be that the Air Force has more planes than any branch seeing that they are the "Air Force"? But the Air Force wants more than a few new aircraft. The Service is asking for $116 million, to pay for 100,000 new handguns with improved ergonomic design and higher caliber effectiveness; $13 million in "dorm furnishings"; $367 million, to buy M-4 rifles; and $276 million for "critical base services," like "base shuttle service, dining hall service hours, fitness/recreation programs, etc. Lack of funding impacts the entire base community and, specifically, junior Airmen." The Marine corps only makes up 3% of our national budget and the Airforce wants another 18 billion added on to their $144,000,000,000. If you want to fly, join the Navy or the Marines.
Best fully Evolved Pokemon Ever!

If a battle between these Pokemon happened as con stated, and charizard kept using fly this would happen; Turn 1: charizard flies up and dragonite misses Turn 2: charizard hits dragonite and dragonite takes minimal damage due to good defensive stats. Dragonite then attacks with strong attacks due to good offensive stats and charizards bad defense Or dragonite could just dragon dance over and over until it has +6 attack and +6 speed, while roosting to restore health when neccesary and 1hit KO him
Best fully Evolved Pokemon Ever!

Let us compare the two statwise then: Dragonite: hp91 att134 def 95 sp att100 sp def 100 sp80 Charizard:hp78 att84 def78 sp att109 sp def85 sp100 Dragonite has weaknesses to ice, rock and dragon, all uncommon, and resistances to water, fight, fire (all common) and bug (uncommon). CHarizard as weaknesses to rock, electric and water(two common) and resistances to fire, fight and steel(one common, two uncommon). both have immunity to ground. Dnite=better Also, being cute is part of being good!
Best fully Evolved Pokemon Ever!

If our reasoning for good pokemon is the "cuteness" factor, i believe that you are mistaken. A good pokemon is shown by stats and different moves. I think that if you are concluding that cute pokemon are good, shouldn't the most powerful pokemon be spoink? And the reasoning behind charizard being a challenge is that until it evolves it takes chance and skill to defeat Brock in the first gym, which is the excitement of the game.
Best fully Evolved Pokemon Ever!

Let us have a look at our opponents reasons for dragonite being bad. Lance=awesome one of best trainers. Therefore, as half of his team is dragonite, dragonite=awesome. It is fat, and in that way it is cute, and it has hilarious little wings that make it look like it shouldnt be able to fly. My opponent stated that 'it was the challenge of the game', it referring to charizard. This is due to the fact charizard is a bad pokemon. Beating the game with a lvl 1 zubat is also a challenge.
Best fully Evolved Pokemon Ever!

First of all, really dragonite? That pokemon got old when we all saw Lance have like 3 of them. Even though it is a dragon and has the ability to learn a variety of different typed move, it doesn't make it good. It is really just an fat barney with wings. The best fully evolved pokemon is charizard as it buildt to be the best. In the anime and the games. The anime had a captivating storyline which kept people watching, and in the game, people chose it because it was the challenge of the game.
The Militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment is Necessitates Firearms Today

I will proceed to argue on three points as examined in the opening statements. "I affirm that all citizens, within sound limitations, have the right to bear arms as a means to maintain the peace of the State in case of marshal law or the failure of the State to provide adequate means to protect", expounding upon this first I would like to explain what "Sound Limitation" is. I posit that the term refers to those who are mentally, physically, and emotionally stable as shown through a screening process which is imperative to firearm ownership. The person is also not at risk or in any particularly dangerous circumstances which would necessitate what may be considered "hasty use" of the firearm. With that covered I would like to explain what constitutes maintaining the peace with the use of firearms. I would posit that maintenance of peace can be argued to the prevention of crime, the education of proper management of weapons, the explicit knowledge that citizens are indeed armed which would deter wrongful acts of violence, and that the knowledge that a neighbor can intercept a problematic situation armed and trained is a boon to society. A properly educated, properly weaponized, properly capable set of persons would know not only how to operate a firearm, how to treat firearm wounds, how to manage and diffuse situations to prevent fired shots, and also how to tell who is and is not armed and what signs to look for in violent individuals. No different than a neighborhood watch these individuals would be able to fundamentally act on their own should the police not be available however it is acknowledged that the official force, if capable to intercede, should be called upon. Next I would like to define "Well Regulated"; I am arguing that the term refers not only to the proper management firearms and their safety but also the proper management of criminal situations (citizen's arrest) and the laws contained therein as well as proper protocol for confrontation if it needs to come to pass in order to minimize casualties caused by both crime and misunderstandings. Furthermore I would propose that additional boons be granted to those who choose to pursue further training in crisis management and in turn increase the value of the militia. In times of crisis (such as natural disasters) a well-trained force of citizens involves not only a set who can adequately defend themselves but also help one another. Finally I would insist that any law which would inhibit the right to self-defense through any effective means including weapons threatens the individual. I would insist that the removal of firearms is one such inhibition. I would say that if the government and Constitution are for the people there is no logical way for this to occur without being a direct infringement and threat against the people.
The Militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment is Necessitates Firearms Today

R1: Acceptance, Opening Position* R2: Argumentation R3: Rebuttal, Argumentation R4: Rebuttal, Argumentation R5: Closing Statements, No Rebuttals, Summary of your Argument** *Opening Position: This is a short explanation as to why people should want to take your view. It is not your main argument but think of it like a thesis statement. **Summary of your Argument: This is an encompassing view of your argument. Basically if a person didn't want to read the rounds your argument should be clearly stated and easily grasped in this statement. It will make it easier for the readers as it's comprehensive and ignores the verbal jousting. -------------------- If one accepts this debate they agree to use this rendition of the 2nd Amendment, "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.", and while this may be interpreted no other form of this particular passage can be used in this debate. Opening Statement: I affirm that all citizens, within sound limitations, have the right to bear arms as a means to maintain the peace of the State in case of marshal law or the failure of the State to provide adequate means to protect. I affirm that "well regulated" should be interpreted as community oriented and not governmental no different than a neighborhood watch. I affirm that any laws that would detract from the right to protect the sovereignty of the individual and their neighbors is an infringement against the Constitution.
Should we be vaccinated

Unfortunately, once again my opponent hasn't refuted any of my points. Again, my opponent copied and pasted his arguments from this citation. [1] In fact, Round Three is technically plagiarism, as they didn't cite any source, unlike last time. Because of this, I'm afraid that I refuse to refute Con's third round because of plagiarism. When voting, keep in mind that I actually made an original argument, while Con hastily copy/pasted his arguments without adding in any insight or original content. Also, remember Con's blatant plagiarism in Round Three. Thank you. So long and goodnight!Citation[1]http://vaccines.procon.org...
Should we be vaccinated

Con 3 The government should not intervene in personal medical choices. Medical decisions for children should be left to the parents or caregivers. Barbara Low Fisher, Co-founder of National Vaccine Information Center, stated, "If the State can tag, track down and force citizens against their will to be injected with biological products of known and unknown toxicity today, there will be no limit on which individual freedoms the State can take away in the name of the greater good tomorrow." [89] Ron Paul, MD, former US Representative (R-TX), in an Oct. 19, 2011 article, "Government Vaccines " Bad Policy, Bad Medicine," stated, "intimately personal medical decisions should not be made by government" Freedom over one"s physical person is the most basic freedom of all, and people in a free society should be sovereign over their own bodies. When we give government the power to make medical decisions for us, we in essence accept that the state owns our bodies." [90]
Should we be vaccinated

Vaccines contain harmful ingredients. Some physicians believe thimerosal, an organic mercury compound found in trace amounts in one flu vaccine for children and other vaccines for adults, is linked to autism. [84] Aluminum is used in some vaccines and excess aluminum in human bodies can cause neurological harm. [85] Formaldehyde, also found in some vaccines, is a carcinogen, and, according to VaxTruth.org, exposure can cause side effects such as cardiac impairment, central nervous system depression, "changes in higher cognitive functions," coma, convulsions, and death. [86] Glutaraldehyde, a compound used to disinfect medical and dental equipment, is used in some DTaP vaccinations and exposure can cause asthma and other respiratory issues. [86] Some flu vaccines contain cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTMB), a compound used as an antiseptic, which can be a skin, eye, and respiratory irritant. Some polio, TD, and DTaP vaccines contain 2-phenoxyethanol, an antibacterial that is a skin and eye irritant that can cause headache, shock, convulsions, kidney damage, cardiac and kidney failure, and death. [86] Some vaccines for the flu contain chicken egg protein, which can be harmful to children who are allergic to eggs. [87] Some vaccines for PCV, HPV, DTaP, Hep A, Hep B, and Hib contain yeast proteins which, according to VaxTruth and Joseph Mercola, MD, an alternative medicine proponent, contain MSG that can cause migraines, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), asthma, diabetes, Alzheimer"s, Lou Gehrig"s disease, ADD, seizure, and stroke. [86] [88] http://vaccines.procon.org...
Should we be vaccinated

Con 1 Vaccines can cause serious and sometimes fatal side effects. According to the CDC, all vaccines carry a risk of a life-threatening allergic reaction (anaphylaxis) in about one per million children. [49] The rotavirus vaccination can cause intussusception, a type of bowel blockage that may require hospitalization, in about one per 20,000 babies in the United States. [49] Long-term seizures, coma, lowered consciousness, and permanent brain damage may be associated with the DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis) and MMR vaccines, though the CDC notes the rarity of the reaction makes it difficult to determine causation. [49] The CDC reports that pneumonia can be caused by the chickenpox vaccine, and a "small possibility" exists that the flu vaccine could be associated with Guillain-Barr" Syndrome, a disorder in which the person"s immune system attacks parts of the peripheral nervous system, in about one or two per million people vaccinated. [49]. The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) says that vaccines may be linked to learning disabilities, asthma, autism, diabetes, chronic inflammation, and other disabilities. [82] [83]http://vaccines.procon.org...
The Boy Scouts gay policy should be revoked.

This is my first debate so if I mess up I am sincerely sorry and will try to follow the rules better new time."Boy Scouts is not about Sexuality""So why do Gay scouts need to have the right to say I AM GAY LET ME IN" I take issue with this because it implies that gay scouts will openly advertise that they are gay because of the policy. They will not be anymore open about it than they were before. The policy is needed because before no gay scouts could join unless they hid it from everyone. This lets them join without having to be in the closet. Leaders should not be anymore nervous then they used to be. Just because this is enacted does not mean that there will be a giant jump in gay scouts. If the BSA is not about sexuality at all they should not have any problems with gay scouts joining. "At its core Boy Scouts is Christian"Here you again return to the argument that gay scouts will advertise openly that they are gay just because of this policy. A lot of homosexuals are Christian and accept that according to their beliefs they are sinning. Should you make homosexual boys who want to be in the scouts hide it just because they are going against one rule in your religion? I am by no means saying that gay boy scouts should advertise they are gay but they should not have to hide it completely no matter what. Does the fact that you are openly straight mean you are advertising your sexuality? No it doesn't. "Troops are disbanding"It saddens me to here that troops are breaking up but should we throw out the entire policy just because a few troops are overreacting? No! We should teach the troops to learn to accept the new policy. If two gay kids were scouts and wanted to do things together in their tents they would already be doing it. Just because there is a new policy does not mean that people are going to start engaging in gay activities.