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

2) But that is exactly what I am trying to argue. According to your premise every time you fall in love it would essentially be the same which is not true. But that"s not the case because everyone is different and you fall in love with them for different reasons. Also it"s almost as if you"re assuming that you can only fall in love once so this stirs up a few questions. What if one was to break up with their boyfriend or girlfriend and eventually get a new one would you feel the same for them as you felt for your old boyfriend or girlfriend? Who is regulating what love is real and what isn"t? 3) But that can be the case as I said before there is no test or specific person who will judge one"s love. In response 2)What I mean is that one could be in love with someone but not be in a relationship with them or be in love with someone and be in an open relationship with them. 3)To explain, people don"t always express themselves in the same way so to onlookers it may not seem like love but in fact is by definition. 4) In simpler terms our definition says basically that romantic love is expressed happiness due to attachment and attraction. Therefore it is completely possible for people in polygamous relationships to be in love. 5) Yes I mean in love. But, people don"t fall in love the same way each time. People are different, express themselves differently, have different likes and dislikes and preferences for partners. So, the feeling of love is different each time. 6) But, if there is no particular limit on something it"s just as equally possible as it is impossible.
Is it possible to love more than one person

Answers: 2) It is true that "People assume different relationships with people allowing them to be built on different aspects and values" that you have stated, but In my premise it states that a genuine REAL IN LOVE feeling can not be duplicated. The specific feeling of being romantically in love with another is something that can not be the same as the original making it from removed from being real. Its almost like having a duplication of the constitution, it may look real and seem real, but its not real. 3) Love triangles do not necessarily mean that the person is in love with both parties they could have held on to the other partner for a plethora of reasons. Just because people are in a love triangle does not mean it is a solidified enough reason to sayr that someone can be in love with more than one person. 4) Passion and very strong feeling are synonomous and that we did include in our definition therefore your reasoning is invalid. 5) Being in love equals fulfillment. Meaning you are being filled with those feelings of strong attachment and pleasure both things that are in fact in our definition of love ! Questions for you 2) Why does being in love not mean an exclusive relationship with two people? this premise is vague and offers no real reason to why my premises are false. 3)But if we agreed upon the definition of what love is, then isn't that what love should look like ? if thats not the case, then all your premise of love must be false as well because they might not "look" like love to someone else 4) Just because people in polygamist relationships are happy does that really mean their in love ? love and happiness are two different things. just because they are happy in their relationships does not mean they are in love with each party in the relationship. 5) again does that mean in love ? yes people have different reasons for loving other people but them having that same in love feeling with each person is a different story. 6) just because something doesn't constitute it, does not mean it is possible?
Is it possible to love more than one person

2) People assume different relationships with people allowing them to be built on different aspects and values. So, the same feeling of love can never be duplicated. But does that actually mean it"s not real? 3) If that"s so then do people ultimately get into love triangles? If your third premise true then this would not be the case. 4) Passion can accompany love; however, that is not always the case. Also according to our agreed upon definition romantic love can exist without it. 5) Please explain how love equals fulfillment. Feelings of fulfillment are not a part of our definition.
Is it possible to love more than one person

Con Romantic love-is the expressive and pleasurable feeling from an emotion of a strong attraction and personal attachment. 1)The definition of love agreed upon. 2)Romantic love can not be shared with more than one person because the same "in love" feeling can not be duplicated if its real. 3)You can"t be in love with more than one person because once you start to become in love with someone else, the love you felt with the original person weakens or dissolves completely, now making it not the same as being in love. 4)With love comes passion and you can only have fire-burning love with one person. Anything else would just be a very strong feeling, which is a far cry from being the same as being in love. 5)If you have the feeling to fall in love with someone else than the original person did not fulfill the areas that you needed meaning that its not love because love equals fulfillment. 6)Therefore it is impossible to romantically be in love with more than one person. Non- Controversial Premises- "Definition of love agreed upon. "Premise 1: The same type of in love feeling cannot be duplicated. -My opponent will understand that with the concept of love and the complexity of it is rare and can not be summoned upon twice to be shared with more than one person "Premise 2: The in love feeling that you feel with one person can only be with that person and if you love somebody else, that means you"re falling out of love with other person. " My opponent will agree that its logical enough to say that once you try to be in love with another person, the love you felt for the first person fades so its no longer being in love with two people. "Premise 4: If you fall in love with someone else, that means that the first person did not fulfill your needs and love equals fulfillment. " My opponent will agree that in a relationship you must have fulfillment and if you go seeking it somewhere else you were not really in love in the first place. Controversial Premises- "Premise 3: With love comes passion and you can only have passion for one thing. " My opponent might find this controversial because passion can mean many things and not all love may come with passion
Is it possible to love more than one person

Romantic love-is the expressive and pleasurable feeling from an emotion of a strong attraction and personal attachment. 1.The definition of love as previously agreed upon. 2.Being in love, romantically, does not mean having a relationship excusive to that one person. 3.Love is dependent upon the person experiencing it therefore what feels like love to one person may not necessarily look like love to another. 4.People is polygamous and polyamorous relationships equally if not more happy as people in monogamous relationships. 5.Love is brought about in different ways and people have different reasons for loving other people which allows for more than one romantic partner. 6.There is nothing regulating what does and what does not constitute as love or how many people one can love. 7.Therefore, it is possible to love more than one person. Non-controversial premises- 1.Definition already agreed upon 2.Being in love, romantically, does not mean having a relationship excusive to that one person " I feel like my partner can see that not in every situation is there an allowance for a relationship to occur. 3.Love is dependent upon the person experiencing it therefore what feels like love to one person may not necessarily look like love to another- I feel this is covered within the definition of love. 4.People is polygamous and polyamorous relationships equally if not more happy as people in monogamous relationships " I feel my partner will agree to this. 6. There is nothing regulating what does and what does not constitute as love or how many people one can love " I feel my partner will agree to this because it does not go against our definition of love. Controversial premises- 5.My partner can argue that other feelings are often mistaken for different "ways" of loving someone however it can also be argued that there are some instances where this can be the case such as sexless relationships and relationships built on sex.
Plastic bottles should be left out in the sun

Okay...(Research that's found potential health risks from bisphenol A (BPA), a common chemical in food packaging, has many concerned. BPA stands out, according to Vandenberg, for its ability to disrupt the functions of hormones -- especially estrogen. This is found in 90% of people's bodies. It enters our bloodstream and affects hormones). ~http://www.webmd.com......Start by defending that.
The Trinity is a Biblical concept

While the word Elohim can be applied to pagan gods, angels, demons, and people, it is usually plural in number. Not once is Elohim used to refer to one specific individual anywhere else in Scripture other than God. Verses such as Genesis 1:26 is a clear indication that God is a plural being. Echad refers to a compound unity. Throughout Scripture, we see that this is true. Genesis 1:9 "Then God said, "Let the waters beneath the sky flow together into one (Echad) place, so dry ground may appear." And that is what happened." There is a plurality of a noun in this verse into a compound unity. Gen. 2:21 "21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man"s ribs.." Man has more than one rib, thus this is a plural number. Genesis 2:24 "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one (echad) flesh." A man and a woman shall still remain 2 individuals, however shall be unified in 1 single relationship. Gen. 4:19 "And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one (Echad)..." Wives is plural, however the text is focusing on one of the pair. Judges 20:11 "So all the men of Israel were gathered against the city, knit together as one [echad] man." Men of Israel are plural in number, but formed a compound unity. The verses which have the word "Yachid" mean only one. Gen. 22:2 " And he said, Take now thy son (Yachid), thine only.." Judges 11:34 " And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child (Yachid); beside her he had neither son nor daughter." Notice that the word Yachid is never used to describe God's absolute oneness. Even in the ordinal sense, the word Echad is one of many numbers in an order. God is clearly a Trinity.
Resolved: We must remove paramilitary tatics/military weapons from U.S. police forces

Alright! Thanks for starting this debate! I will be taking the con side, so I will explain why we should not take military tactics/weapons away from American police officers! Good luck! I will organize my arguments alphabetically. I am also assuming since there are 4 rounds you want to wait till next round for rebuttal's, so I will. A: If police officers have more advanced weapons and armor, they can keep America a safer place. I'm not saying their is not an abuse, I'm saying that in order to protect the overall body of America, we must allow our police to upgrade. While right now, the system is broken, it can most definitely be fixed. It is this possibility that it could be fixed, that is the reason why it shouldn't be removed all together. B. Pistols and tear gas only go so far. In a case of serious civil unrest, police must be able to do their jobs. If this results in a better rifle, so be it. Also, pecan pie would we remove tactics away from police? The word 'tactic' is synonymous for 'strategy'. All tactics are is just a plan that will result in a specific outcome. C. The police force obviously shouldn't be handed laser guided missiles, however they should have access to better assault rifles, and things of that nature. By doing this, you aren't removing paramilitary tactics, your simply restricting weapons that would cause too much collateral damage. We can also limit what the police ask for. If they ask for a tank, then the government shouldn't give them a tank. Military grade firearms would allow for the police to make the streets a safer place. Thanks, I now stand open for rebuttals.
Resolved: We must remove paramilitary tatics/military weapons from U.S. police forces

I belive we should remove military weapons from the U. S. for the following reasons 1. tactics were originally made by President Reagan to combat drug problems which were way more severe and violent when this was implemented 2. deaths from raids/people regret these police 3. free equipment so no hesitation to use 4. not trained to use equipment 5. Unnecessary equipment ready to use for unnecessary situations 6. Small towns not asking for equipment for the right reasons.
Creation should be taught in public schools

I feel the need to explain th difference between a theory and a hypothesis.Theory: a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein'stheory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.Hypothesis:A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.From these definitions, it's clear to see that evolution is a theory, and creationism is a hypothesis. Mixing up the definitions causes some people too assume that both evolution and creatioism are valid theories, when they are not.Schools do not teach hypotheses. They only teach theories.I'm not sure why you brought up micro and macro evolution, as it is not relevent at all.
Creation should be taught in public schools

I completely understand, but I am only a 14 year old and I am working on an essay and this is the debate matter so I am of course using website stuff cuz thats all I know to do, but if it makes u happy I will use my own debate stuff. Evolution and Creationism ARE BOTH THERORIES!!!!!!!! FROM GOOGLE: theories plural of the"o"ry (Noun) Noun A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be...: "Darwin's theory of evolution" They teach evolution in public school and its a theory so why not teach creation too? There are different types of evolution! Microevolution and Macroevolution Macroevolution, in contrast, is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together. EXP: A Dog can change from smaller to bigger Microevolution is used to refer to changes in the gene pool of a population over time which result in relatively small changes to the organisms in the population " changes which would not result in the newer organisms being considered as different species. Examples of such microevolutionary changes would include a change in a species" coloring or size. EXP: Dog changes to a cat Lots of people just think of evolution as one thing but there are different kinds of it. Scientist can prove Macroevtion but not Microevolution because if Microevolution is true was true there would be millions of transformatn fossils, but they have not found one tranformation fossil...why you may ask because they dont exist! Macroevolution is more common for beng taught in schools than Microevolution which is usually taught in highschool. Since evolution is a theory wouldnt it be fair to teach creation in school! An now that I think about it more I relize that it would actually be fair to teach both of them! Seeing that they are both theorys...thnx for helping me understand and come to that conclusion! :)
Creation should be taught in public schools

Again, his argument was completely plagiarised! http://www.creationism.org...At this point, I think I win by default. None the less, here is my argument:Pro, (or at least the person who wrote that article), has no idea what a theory is. All theories are facts supported by proof, and backed up by an explanation that is also supported by proof. I do not know what this "overwhelming proof of creationism" is, but I need to remind you that the bible is not a scientific journal. "The first day go made the earth..." Is not an apt. description. It has no proof, and does not show the mechanism behind the creation.Evolution, unlike creationism, actually had lots of proof. Most Creationists claim that evolution is unprovable because we cannot test it in real time. That actually is not true. Take for example, bacteria. We can make bacteria evolve by applying antibiotics. Bacteria can only create a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to know that in every group of bacteria, there a some which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations. When an antibiotic is used on the bacteria cluster, it will kill most bacteria, leaving behind a few bacteria, which is neccasary to happen if the bacteria is to evolve. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.Even if you don't believe in fossil records, you must admit that the above test is solid proof.For these reasons and the others that I stated in round one, the resolution must fall.Thank you.
Creation should be taught in public schools

I strongly disagree with the resolution that creation should be taught in public schools because firstly it has no scientific basis, and secondly, the government is morally obligated to be secular.Before I get to my constructive argument, I would like to make sure you know the definitions. Theory: a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonlyregarded as correct, that can be used as principles ofexplanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein'stheory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.Creationism:the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.My constructive argument:I am strongly of the belief that all religious beliefs, including creationism, should not be taught in public schools. Firstly because it has no scientific basis, and secondly, the government is morally obligated to be secular.Creationism has no scientific basis. Schools are meant to teach students about proven theories and facts. Creationism is neither of those things. In fact, there is solid evidence proving creationism false. It is called evolution. If Creationism is proven wrong, why does it make sense to teach it in schools? That would be the equivalent of teaching kids that the earth is flat. Teaching creationism along side with evolution would tell kids that they are both just opinions and that evolution is debatable when it is clearly not.Government funded schools have a moral obligation to be secular. If we start honoring creationism, we are morally obligated honour every other religion on earth. This idea is ridiculous. There are so many religions to recognise, it would be impossible. Even if we did somehow recognise every religion, how would we then also honour an equal field of thought; atheism? You can't have it both ways.Refutations:Honestly pros argument was very hard to refute, not because all his points were good, but because nearly his whole argument was very hard to follow quotes. In fact his whole debate was plagiarized. See: http://www.dailymail.co.uk...Please refrain from plagiarizing your arguments in the future.
Creation should be taught in public schools

I understand your side. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Intelligent design is a scientific theory: A scientific theory is supported by extensive research and repeated experimentation and observation in the natural world. Unlike a true scientific theory, the existence of an """intelligent" agent can not be tested, nor is it falsifiable. -ucsusa.org ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Creation=Inteligent design Anyway I brought Microevolution and Macroevolution up because one of them can not be explained and or proven but they are both evolution and evolution is still obviously counted as a theory. Theory-the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another. Many people think that evolution is all one big thing... there are different kinds there are micro and macro and microevolution has limited evidence, if any. But schools are teaching both kinds of evolution anyway even though both arnt necessary for the learning experience. If you actually do some research on creation you will be able to come to the conclusion that creation or inteligent design is actually a theory like evolution.
Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse.

An arabic saying goes: "You say: It's an ox. He says milk it. You say: But it is an ox. He repeats: Milk it." " I contend that my arguments are on topic. First, where religion ends and science begins is a gray area because both claim some of the same territory. " Sorry. I'm not saying that there isn't any relationship between science and religion. I'm saying you started a debate, put it in category 'Religion' and then you want me to use science? You should have told us in the topic or at least in the first round that this is a scientific debate. " Therefore, the topic of "how old is the Earth?" could fit into either religion, or science, or both categories." Exactly. You hit the nail on the head. That's why you should have told us what you want to debate. You put it in category 'Religion'. " As for being off-topic, no I reaffirm that I am on topic. If the resolution was, "Islamic religious doctrine states the prophet flew to heaven on a winged horse" my opponent would be correct. This is not the topic though, instead the topic is " the Islamic prophet fly to heaven on a winged horse." This allows both sides to use sources and evidence scientific and non-scientific from sources other than Islamic religious texts. " GREAT! VOTERS, CHECK THIS OUT! My opponent uses the phrase 'other than', not 'instead of' . That means I can also use religious texts. CONTRADICTION! My worthy opponent previously said:" I. My opponent has relied solely upon religious doctrine to make her argument. This is not evidence nor is this a credible source of information. Therefore, I motion that my opponent's round 1 argument be dismissed." So once he says that I can't use religious texts. Then CONTRADICTS himself by saying that you can also use religion. Vote PRO. Thnx, Adil Muhammad, Qatar.
Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse.

Wow! My opponent brings a religious topic, put it in category 'Religion', and then wants me to use science?!!! My opponent didn't tell us in the topic or in the first round that this is a scientific debate!! Worthy voters, my opponent's argument is dismissed, as it is OUT OF TOPIC. " This is not evidence nor is this a credible source of information." This is a religious debate about Islam. Do you want me to quote from the Bible??!!! ALL OF MY OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT IS OUT OF TOPIC, AND SO I REQUEST VOTERS TO CONSIDER THAT. Thanks, Adil Muhammad, Qatar.